Extradition, as understood in international law, is the formal process where a state formally requests another for the return of a person accused or convicted of a crime in order to either stand trial or serve a sentence. As a general rule, states have no duty to extradite unless it enters into an extradition treaty with another state.
Now that the ousted congressman from the third district of Negros Oriental, Arnulfo Teves Jr. was finally charged formally with 10 counts of murder, 14 counts of frustrated murder, and four counts of attempted murder in connection with the slay of the late Negros Oriental Governor Roel Degamo, before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, the crucial question is how can the court get Teves if he’s currently abroad? And based on my research, the Justice secretary cannot justify extradition with the withdrawal of all the eyewitnesses who earlier retracted their alleged involuntary confession. And Teves isn’t stupid enough to go to a country with extradition treaty with us.
Records indicate we have an extradition treaty with each of the following countries: Indonesia since 1976, Thailand since 1981, Australia since 1988, Canada and Switzerland since 1989, South Korea since 1993, USA since 1994, Hong Kong since 1995, China (our best friend in the West Philippine Sea) since 2001, India and Spain since 2004, UK since 2009, and Russia since 2017 courtesy of former president Duterte and Russia President Vladimir Putin. Generally, an extradition treaty requires that the requesting country show that the relevant crime is serious, prima facie case against the individual, and that the crime qualifies as a crime in both countries. Herein lies the difficulty for the prosecution and the government to get Teves.
In a case involving a request by the US for the extradition of a character who changed his name to Mark Jimenez, the Supreme Court decided there was failure on the part of the US and the Philippine governments to prove there was a basis to extradite him. This was in the case of Secretary of Justice vs. Hon. Ralph Lantion, Presiding Judge RTC, Manila and Mark B. Jimenez, GR 139465 decided by the Supreme Court en banc (with some dissenting opinions) on January 18, 2000.
The decision was penned by Justice Jose Melo who, with the majority, decided that the government failed to prove the basis and compliance with the procedure for the extradition of Jimenez. The majority defended the human rights of the accused with an opening paragraph: "The individual citizen is but a speck of particle or molecule vis-à-vis the vast and overwhelming powers of government. His only guarantee against oppression and tyranny are his fundamental liberties under the Bill of Rights which shield him in times of need. The Court is now called to decide whether to uphold a citizen’s basic due process rights, or the government’s ironclad duties under a treaty. The bugle sounds and this Court must once again act as the faithful guardian of the fundamental writ."
The Supreme Court then denied the extradition and concluded in this case: "The constitutional issue in the case at bar does not even call for ‘justice outside legality,’ since private respondent’s due process rights, although not guaranteed by statute or by treaty, are protected by constitutional guarantees. We would not be true to the organic law of the land if we choose strict construction over guarantees against the deprivation of liberty. That would not be in keeping with the principles of democracy on which our Constitution is premised."
And the decision ended with this succinct conclusion: "Verily, as one traverses treacherous waters of conflicting and opposing currents of liberty and government authority, he must ever hold the oar of freedom in the stronger arm, lest an errant and wayward course be laid."
I conclude the government will find it very, very hard to obtain final justice in the Degamo case. Teves may be laughing at all of us somewhere in the Bahamas or Cayman Islands with all the wine, women, and songs, while Secretary Boying Remulla will forever be gnashing his teeth in anger. In our country, the accused is much more protected than the victim.