By using the phrase if it appears the law further conveys that accuracy is not

By using the phrase if it appears the law further

This preview shows page 53 - 55 out of 135 pages.

By using the phrase “if it appears,” the law further conveys that accuracy is not as important as speed at such early stage. The trial court is not expected to make an exhaustive determination to ferret out the true and actual situation, immediately upon the filling of the petition. From the knowledge and the material then available to it, the court is expected merely to get a good first impression - a prima facie finding - sufficient to make a speedy initial determination as regards the arrest and detention of the accused. We stress that the prima facie existence of probable cause for hearing the petition and, a priori, for issuing an arrest warrant was already evident from the petition itself and its supporting documents. Hence, after having already determined therefrom that a prima facie finding did not exist, respondent judge gravely abused his discretion when he set the matter for hearing upon motion of Jimenez. Moreover, the law specifies that the court se a hearing upon receipt of the answer or upon failure of the accused to answer after receiving the summons. In connection with the matter of immediate arrest, however, the word “hearing” is notably absent from the provision. Evidently, had the holding of a hearing at that stage been intended, the law could have easily so provided. It also bears emphasizing at this point that
Image of page 53
Notes: PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 2008 54 extradition proceedings are summary in nature. Hence, the silence of the Law and the Treaty leans to the more reasonable interpretation that there is no intention to punctuate with a hearing every little step in the entire proceedings. Verily, as argued by petitioner, sending to persons sought to be extradited a notice of the request for their arrest and setting it for hearing at some future date would give them ample opportunity to prepare and execute an escape. Neither the Treaty nor the Law could have intended that consequence, for the very purpose of both would have been defeated by the escape of the accused from the requested state. B. On the Basis of the Constitution Even Section 2 of Article III of our Constitution, which is invoked by Jimenez, does not require a notice or a hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest. It provides: “Sec. 2 - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants, the Constitution itself requires only the examination - under oath or affirmation - of complainants and the witnesses they may produce. There is no requirement to notify and
Image of page 54
Image of page 55

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 135 pages?

  • Winter '20

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes