The new rules on extradition: Streamlining international cooperation while safeguarding due process

On April 8, the Supreme Court of the Philippines approved the Rules on Extradition Proceedings through A.M. No. 22-03-29-SC, marking a major procedural reform on how the country handles extradition cases. Effective Nov. 10, the Rules were promulgated to make extradition proceedings consistent, clear, and efficient. They cover all proceedings related to extradition, including applications for warrants of arrest, hold departure orders, and applications for bail. This codification reflects the judiciary’s commitment to harmonizing international obligations with domestic due process requirements.

CLEARER, MORE COHERENT FRAMEWORK
The Rules provide clarity on the scope and nature of extradition proceedings. Under Rule 1, Section 2, it applies to “all proceedings related to Extradition, including applications for warrants of arrest or hold departure orders, whether provisional and precautionary or otherwise, and applications for bail.”

Extradition is a process to remove a person from the Philippines to a foreign state to face prosecution or serve a sentence. Rule 1, Section 6 underscores that extradition proceedings are sui generis and summary in nature, clarifying that courts do not adjudicate guilt or innocence.

The Rules also delineate the roles of key authorities. The Central Authority, under Rule 1, Sec. 3(a) is the Secretary of Justice or a designated State Counsel who manages all requests for extradition before the courts and represents the requesting state. The Executive Authority, under Rule 1, Sec. 3(c), is the Secretary of Foreign Affairs or an authorized official who determines whether the extradition request meets legal and treaty requirements before forwarding it to the Central Authority.

EXTRADITABLE OFFENSES, PRINCIPLE OF DUAL CRIMINALITY
The Rules define an extraditable offense as one “punishable under the laws of both the Philippines and the requesting state by imprisonment or other deprivation of liberty” (Sec. 4, Rule 1). Complementing this, Sec. 5, Rule 1 provides the principle of dual criminality, which holds that the offense need not bear the same name or classification in both jurisdictions, provided the underlying conduct is criminal in both states. This echoes the principle in Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Region v. Muñoz1 where the Supreme Court ruled that under the double criminality rule, the extraditable offense must be criminal under the laws of both the requesting and the requested states.

Extradition proceedings formally commence with a verified petition filed by the Central Authority before the designated Extradition Court (Rule 2, Sec. 1). This court, a second-level trial court where the extraditee resides, retains jurisdiction throughout the case, even if the person moves to another locality.

The Rules strictly limit pleadings to the petition, answer, and bail-related filings. As stated in Rule 2, Sec. 11, motions for reconsideration, certiorari, or new trial are prohibited, thereby preventing dilatory tactics and promoting the summary nature of extradition proceedings. Hearings are designed to be swift and courts are required to decide within 30 days from the date the last witness is presented.

STANDARDS FOR WARRANT OF ARREST, BAIL
Before issuing an extradition warrant, the Extradition Court conducts an ex parte review to ensure that the petition is sufficient in form and substance and that probable cause exists. Probable cause is defined as “the existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that the person sought to be arrested is extraditable” (Rule 2, Sec. 4). Once satisfied, the court issues an Extradition Warrant of Arrest.

The Rules establish a clear standard for bail. Under Rule 3, Sec. 1, bail may only be granted if the extraditee proves by clear and convincing evidence that they are not a flight risk and will abide by all the orders and processes of the Extradition Court. Bail is categorically denied to extraditees sought for the service of a sentence for a prior conviction in the requesting state or who have been convicted but not yet sentenced by the requesting state. This standard, previously articulated in Government of the United States v. Purganan2, is now formally included in the Rules.

For urgent cases, provisional arrest is also recognized (Rule 4, Sec. 1), allowing the Department of Justice to act while the requesting state completes formal documentation. The requesting state must then file with the Executive Authority the complete request within 60 days from the provisional arrest of the extraditee, or the extraditee must be released.

JUDGMENT, APPEAL, AND FINALITY
Once the Extradition Court finds a prima facie case, the petition is granted. Rule 2, Sec. 15 enumerates the criteria for granting extradition:

1. The petition complies with the law and the applicable Extradition treaty;

2. The Extraditee is the same person identified in the warrant of arrest, indictment, or judgment issued by the Requesting State;

3. The offense is an extraditable offense;

4. The Extraditee committed the offense subject of the warrant of arrest, indictment, or judgment issued by the Requesting State; and,

5. None of the grounds for mandatory refusal of Extradition under the applicable Extradition Treaty or international law and conventions raised by the Extraditee exists.

Either party may appeal to the Court of Appeals within 10 calendar days. The appellate decision is final and immediately executory (Rule 2, Sec. 18).

VOLUNTARY AND TEMPORARY SURRENDER
The Rules also introduce voluntary surrender. Under Rule 5, Sec. 1, the extraditee may waive formal proceedings via a notarized affidavit, executed with the assistance of counsel. Once the court confirms the waiver is knowing and voluntary, it issues an order directing surrender and terminating any pending proceedings.

Additionally, temporary surrender is provided for under Rule 2, Sec. 17, allowing the extradition to be postponed when domestic prosecutions are pending.

Significantly, the Rules apply to all pending extradition proceedings, including ongoing applications for warrants, hold departure orders, or bail (Rule 6, Sec. 4). This ensures that even in-flight cases conform to the streamlined procedures.

BALANCING EFFICIENCY, DUE PROCESS
The Rules on Extradition Proceedings represent a landmark reform in Philippine procedural law. By putting together jurisprudential standards on extradition, streamlining procedures, and institutionalizing inter-agency coordination, the Rules provide a standard and efficient framework for responding to lawful extradition requests.

In a world of increasingly cross-border crimes, these Rules signal that the Philippines is capable of balancing sovereignty, international cooperation, and constitutional due process. Success will be measured not only by procedural efficiency but also by the fidelity with which the judiciary protects liberty while honoring global obligations.

1 G.R. No. 207342, Aug. 16, 2016.

2 G.R. No. 148571, Sept. 24, 2002.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. This article is for general informational and educational purposes only and is not offered as and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion.

Mia Alexis A. Adarna is an associate of the Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRALAW), Cebu Branch.

maadarna@accralaw.com