The “sanctions” imposed by the United States Department of Treasury on Apollo Carreon Quiboloy, founder and self-proclaimed “Appointed Son of God” of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ (KJC) religious sect for alleged human rights violations (fittingly on Dec. 10, Human Rights Day) and other offenses recall the case of the late congressman Mark Jimenez.
WHEN THE SANCTIONS WERE IMPOSED, Quiboloy was no longer in the US but his and the KJC’s properties and bank accounts there were frozen. US citizens and residents were barred from transacting with him and the KJC.
May I add, in fairness, that Quiboloy, in local media briefings, claimed he was deprived of his human rights when the US, without prior notice and due process, suddenly imposed the sanctions.
While no request for Quiboloy’s extradition has been made, many have asked what our country’s response should be and, specifically, what process would be undertaken, if such a request were made. When asked these questions, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla, in an abundance of caution, was noncommittal, saying the Department of Justice (DOJ) has no official notice of the sanctions and would have, in any case, to study any request for extradition, if one is made.
TO BE CLEAR, AN EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE PHILIPPINES AND THE US was signed on Nov. 13, 1994, which our Senate later ratified. The extradition process has two phases or stages: (1) a preliminary or an evaluation stage during which the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) ascertains whether the extradition request of the US is supported by the documents and information required under the Treaty; and (2) the extradition hearing during which the DFA, in coordination with the DOJ, after determining that the extradition request is properly supported by the required documents, files the extradition charge in an appropriate Regional Trial Court or RTC, which in turn determines whether the wanted person should be extradited. The first is essentially an executive determination, while the second is a judicial process.
The issue in the Jimenez case is whether during the first phase, the wanted person is entitled to notice and hearing and whether he/she had the right to have copies of the extradition request and its supporting documents.
IN SECRETARY OF JUSTICE V. LANTION (Jan. 18, 2000), the Supreme Court, voting 9-6, answered the question in the affirmative: Yes, Mark Jimenez—the Filipino wanted by the US government for the criminal offense of donating to the election campaign of Bill Clinton (who was subsequently elected US President but who did nothing to stop the criminal suit and extradition request against Jimenez)—was entitled to be heard. (Foreigners like Jimenez are barred by US law from making political donations.)
The decision written by Justice Jose A. R. Melo (joined by JJ Bellosillo, Vitug, Kapunan, Quisumbing, Purisima, Buena, Santiago, and De Leon) mainly ruled that Jimenez was already at risk of being “deprived of his life, liberty or property” even at that early phase because under the Extradition Treaty, the US, “in case of urgency,” could ask for the provisional arrest and detention of the wanted person to prevent him/her from fleeing.
Justice (later CJ) Reynato S. Puno and I (joined by CJ Davide and JJ Mendoza, Pardo, and Reyes) wrote dissents principally because Jimenez was not at risk of being arrested; the DFA would merely determine the questions of whether the documents were complete and whether the charge against him was politically motivated. It was the RTC that would determine whether a warrant of arrest should be issued.
THIS INITIAL VICTORY OF JIMENEZ WAS SHORTLIVED. Acting on a motion for reconsideration, the Court, on Oct. 17, 2000—by the same vote of 9-6 (JJ Quisumbing, Purisima, and De Leon somersaulted and joined the erstwhile dissenters)—reversed itself and adopted the dissents of J Puno and me. Principally, an extradition case is not criminal in nature. Its purpose is merely to determine whether the wanted person should be placed in the custody of the US where he would have to face the criminal charges and argue his defenses.
Eventually, Jimenez had to face criminal charges in the US courts where he was given the usual constitutional rights accorded to the accused.
To close, for fairness sake again, may I stress that as of now, no request has been made for the extradition of Quiboloy. But if and when made, the Philippines will have no choice but to follow the Extradition Treaty as it did in the case of Mark Jimenez.
Though a member of Congress, Jimenez was still subjected to the extradition process. And though he was close to both former presidents Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Joseph Estrada, neither intervened in the process without endangering our diplomatic relations with America. Jimenez was charged merely with prohibited election contributions to the winner (Clinton), while Quiboloy was sanctioned for alleged violations of human rights, dollar trafficking, and rape of young women-members of the KJC.
Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com