Extradition, Quiboloy and BBM

The filing by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation of alleged sex-trafficking and other criminal charges against Apollo Quiboloy, pastor of the “Kingdom of Jesus Christ,” reminds me of the extradition proceedings of Mark Jimenez.

UNDER THE RP-US EXTRADITION TREATY, an extradition proceeding has two phases, first, a preliminary or evaluation stage, during which our Departments of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and of Justice (DOJ) ascertain whether the extradition request of the US is supported by the documents and information required under the Treaty; and second, the extradition hearing, during which the DFA and DOJ file the extradition charge before a Regional Trial Court (RTC) which, in turn, determines whether the respondent should be extradited. The first is essentially an executive determination while the second is a judicial process.

In Note Verbale No. 0522 dated June 18, 1999, the US requested the extradition of Mark Jimenez. The DFA and DOJ found that the “official English translation of some documents in Spanish were not attached to the request and that there (were) some other matters that needed to be addressed.” Hence, the DFA asked the US to correct/supply these inadequacies.

Jimenez’s lawyer, Estelito P. Mendoza, asked the DOJ for copies of the US request for extradition and the documents attached thereto. Because his bid was denied, Mendoza filed a suit in the Manila RTC to compel the DFA and DOJ to give him copies of the documents. After a hearing, the RTC ordered the DOF and the DOJ to “maintain the status quo.”

Disagreeing with the RTC, the DOJ secretary appealed to the Supreme Court on this basic question: Was Mark Jimenez entitled to be given copies of the extradition documents and to comment on them before the DFA and DOJ could continue evaluating them?

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE V. LANTION (Jan. 18, 2000, penned by Justice Jose A. R. Melo) answered the question in the affirmative: the extraditee was entitled to be heard, even during the first stage because he could be detained indefinitely as a consequence of this early phase of the extradition process. Justice (later CJ) Reynato S. Puno and I, joined by four other justices, dissented resulting in a 9-6 vote in favor of the Melo ponencia.

Acting on the DOJ secretary’s motion for reconsideration, the Court reversed itself, also by a vote of 9-6, and held that Jimenez was not entitled to due process during the preliminary stage because he was not in danger of being deprived of his “life, liberty or property” given that he could not be arrested or detained during that stage.

The reversal happened because three justices (Leonardo Quisumbing, Fidel Purisima and Sabino de Leon) flipped their votes. For details, see pp 326-339 of my book, “Transparency, Unanimity and Diversity” published by the Supreme Court in December 2000.

AT BOTTOM, I BELIEVE THAT EXTRADITION is essentially a diplomatic process in which national interest is the essential consideration. Hence, the question of whether a request would be filed for the extradition of Quiboloy would be determined by the national interest of the US. And whether the Philippines would accede to such request depends on our national interest. Notably, Jimenez’s extradition was initiated though he was known to be a close ally and friend of then president Joseph Estrada.

Relevantly, a post of former PCGG commissioner Ruben Carranza from his US enclave claims that Bongbong Marcos (BBM) could “be arrested and jailed in the US for failing to pay his debts. He has a contempt judgment against him [and his mother] in the US for disobeying the same US court that directed the Marcoses to pay $2B in damages to the victims of their family’s human rights violations. The original 1995 contempt order has been extended to 2031. The total amount they must pay as a penalty [as of 2012]: $356M. This is separate from the $2B judgment they owe their victims. If they go to the US, they can be compelled to appear before the court. If they refuse to appear, a ‘bench warrant’ can be issued against them and if arrested, they can be imprisoned until they pay the penalty and [based on the original judgment they violated] disclose where the rest of their ill-gotten wealth are…” If this contempt ruling has turned the Marcos cases into an extraditable offense, why has the US not initiated extradition proceedings on BBM? And have Carranza and his militant Filipino-American allies beseeched the US to initiate such proceedings?

Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com