Extradition from the United States to the Philippines—Jocelyn Bolante

The Department of Agriculture in the Philippines is reportedly conducting an investigation into “a multimillion-peso scam” allegedly involving former Agriculture undersecretary Jocelyn Bolante.^[1] According to Ombudsman Meceditas Gutierrez, an investigation into an “alleged illegal transfer of P743-million [$14.9 million] worth of fertilizer funds to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s campaign kitty” in 2004 would result in an extradition request to the United States if the investigation “would prove his involvement.”^[2]

Mr. Bolante “has been detained in the US after he was held for carrying an expired visa”; his immigration status is being reviewed, and he is reportedly “seeking political asylum, citing threats to his life.”^[3]

Recently, Mr. Bolante sought a writ of habeas corpus contesting his deportation (not, as some news organizations term it,^[4] his extradition), alleging that the United States “is detaining him without due process of law while seeking to remove him from the country.”^[5] District Judge Lynn Adelman, however, dismissed the petition based on a lack of jurisdiction. Noting that, “[i]n recent years, Congress has dramatically reduced the jurisdiction of federal courts to review DHS decisions regarding immigration,” but pointing out that “district courts retain jurisdiction to review detention unrelated to a removal proceeding,” Judge Adelman nonetheless concluded that “Congress has taken it out of [her] hands.”^[6] Because “[t]he legality of petitioner’s detention depends on the resolution of such issues as whether the government lawfully revoked his visa and whether he is removable from the United States,” and Congress stripped courts of many of their abilities, Judge Adelman concluded that she did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the matter, and thus “cannot address [Mr. Bolante’s] argument.”^[7]

It should be noted that the petition might provide a hint of a defense that Mr. Bolante will raise, should a formal extradition request be made. Mr. Bolante “contends that the inquiry [into the alleged scheme to funnel money] is politically motivated.”^[8] Under paragraph three of article three in the US-Philippines extradition treaty, “[e]xtradition shall not be granted if the executive authority of the Requested State determines that the request was politically motivated.”^[9] The emphasis here is important. The fact that the executive authority—in other words, the Secretary of State—alone makes the determination of whether the request is politically motivated means that the magistrate judge is not permitted to address the argument. Determination of political motivation in this instance will only be conducted after a magistrate judge finds that the matter is extraditable.^[10]

---

[1] Onbudsman: Bolante Faxes Extradition if Guilty on Fund Scam, INQ7.net, Nov. 7, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] See Palace: So What if Bolante Returns? Philippine Star (via ABS-CBN), Oct. 22, 2006.
[5] Bolante v. Achim, No. 06C0907 (E.D. Wis. 2006), available through PACER.
[6] Id. at 5-7.
[7] Id. at 7.
[8] Id. at 1.
[9] Extradition Treaty, Nov. 13, 1994, U.S.-Phil., Art. 3, para. 3, S. Treaty Doc. No. 104-16 (1996) (emphasis added).
[10] See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3184.