Do the Supreme Court (SC), Regional Trial Courts (RTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have any authority to amend the 1987 Philippine Constitution? It is respectfully submitted the proper answer is NO.

The problem
1. When the Constitution provides for a GENERAL RULE and an EXCEPTION, and the case does not fall under the exception, then the case necessarily falls under the general rule. According to the SC and DOJ, the fundament does not apply to extradition cases.

2. According to the High Court, as consistently cited by RTCs and the DOJ: “In extradition cases, bail is not a matter of right; it is subject to judicial discretion in the context of the peculiar facts of each case” (Government of the USA, represented by the Philippine DOJ v. Guillermo Purganan, et al., G.R. No. 148571; Sept. 24, 2002).

The law
3. The Constitution provides that:
a) “All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.” (Sec. 13, ART. III)

b) “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.” (Sec. 15, ibid.)

4. The Rules of Court relevantly provide that:
“Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as required under the conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance.” (SEC. 1, Rule 114)

Comments
5. What is the GENERAL RULE on bail under the 1987 Constitution?

“All persons shall, before conviction, be bailable...”

6. What is the EXCEPTION?
“… those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong…”

Does the Constitution provide any other exception? NO.

7. Is the general rule CLEAR as to whom it applies? Yes. It refers to every human being within Philippine territory.

8. Is the exception CLEAR? Yes. It excludes from the general rule persons who are under two conditions:
a) Those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua, and

b) The evidence of guilt is strong.

9. Even in cases of invasion or rebellion when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is SUSPENDED, all DETAINEES ARE ENTITLED TO BAIL by express mandate of the Constitution.

10. Neither shall excessive - and therefore UNREASONABLE - bail be required by any judge.

11. Under the Rules of Court promulgated by the SC pursuant to the constitutional right to bail, such right applies in general to ALL persons IN CUSTODY OF THE LAW.

12. The GENERAL RULE and the EXCEPTION are CLEAR. Therefore, there is no room for construction. There is only room for application.

13. The constitutional division is CLEAR. A person is either covered by the general rule or by the exception. If the person is not covered by one, he must, of juridical necessity, be covered by the other.

14. The Constitution does not include EXTRADITION as an exception to the general rule. Therefore, persons subject of extradition proceedings are covered by the GENERAL RULE under which they are entitled to bail as a matter of right. Why? Because they are “in custody of the law”, as much as other detainees who are NOT subjects of extradition proceedings.

15. This is all the more IMPERATIVE when one considers that the 1994 RP-US Extradition Treaty which has been dubiously implemented by certain executive, legislative and judicial officers of both governments in several cases, has NOT COMPLIED with the conditions stipulated for its ENTRY INTO FORCE per its own Article 20. No exchange of the required INSTRUMENTS OF RATIFICATION appears on official record. Certain judges and justices, somewhat less than honestly, simply jump to a supposed PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY in favor of the Treaty.

16. Hence, extraditees have been made to languish “in custody of the law” for months or years upon what appears to be an INVALID TREATY and WITHOUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BAIL.

17. The SC, RTCs and the DOJ further claim that “extradition proceedings are not criminal in nature” to justify NON-APPLICATION of the arrested and detained potential extraditee’s CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS in criminal proceedings. Is this FAIR? It is respectfully submitted the answer is NO. First, the Philippine Extradition Law itself refers to the potential extraditee as an “ACCUSED”, which is the legal term for the defending party in a criminal proceeding. There is no such “accused” in civil cases. Second, upon the ARREST of the potential extraditee, he is DEPRIVED OF PHYSICAL FREEDOM, which is an attribute peculiar to criminal proceedings. Finally, the Constitution does not distinguish between persons “in custody of the law”. It makes absolutely NO DISTINCTION between: (a) deprivation of liberty pursuant to extradition proceedings, and (b) deprivation of liberty pursuant to non-extradition proceedings.

Conclusion
Should law schools now teach their students to distinguish even when the Constitution does not?

If they do, chaos will ensue. The law would be rendered uncertain instead of certain, and subjective instead of objective.

If they don’t, the concerned SC justices, trial judges and DOJ officials have a lot to account for, specially to those who suffered and continue to suffer the unfair treatment.