THE House Committee on Justice yesterday announced it would investigate, in aid of legislation, the United States’ extradition request for Kingdom of Jesus Christ (KOJC) founder Apollo Quiboloy, saying the issue will affect the dispensation of justice in the country.
During its organizational meeting, the panel chaired by Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro acted on the letter-request of Rep. Percival Cendaña (PL, Akbayan) who said that “there is an overwhelming public interest and concern over the process by which extradition requests are received, evaluated, and acted upon.”
“It is imperative that Congress, through your committee, provide a forum where concerned agencies may clarify the status of the present request, explain the legal and procedural steps involved, and identify any gaps or ambiguities in our existing laws and treaties,” Cendaña told Luistro in his letter.
After a thorough discussion on the need for a congressional investigation into the issue, Bukidnon Rep. Jonathan Keith Flores, a panel vice chair, raised a motion to carry out a motu proprio investigation “in accordance not only with the request of Congressman Cendaña but also to cover PD (President Decree) 1069 and all other related laws on extradition.”
PD 1069, or the Philippine Extradition Law of 1977, prescribes the procedure for the extradition of persons who have committed crimes in a foreign country.
Flores’ motion was eventually declared carried by Luistro.
On concerns raised by Baguio City Rep. Mauricio Domogan, Luistro clarified that the committee’s discussion on the case of Quiboloy “will just be incidental to our mandate which is legislation.”
She said the panel would look into the issue “considering that we are dealing with consequences of the treaty that was entered into by the Philippine government with the US government and the same pertains to the administration of justice and the Judiciary.”
“At the very least, with surrender (of Quiboloy to the US) or the extradition of the extraditee, the administration of justice which we are facilitating in our country will somehow be affected so it is the position of the chair that it is but proper that the committee take jurisdiction over the request of the Hon. Perci Cendaña with respect to the conduct of a motu proprio investigation in aid of legislation with regards to the extradition of pastor Apollo Quiboloy,” she added.
Domogan said he would only agree to the investigation if is meant to “somewhat revisit and see how we can improve our extradition treaty, not necessarily connected to the extradition of Quiboloy because to me, I’m sure the concerned agencies will be somewhat knowledgeable to implement our existing laws.”
Washington’s extradition request is anchored on its extradition treaty with Manila, which was signed on November 13, 1994, and entered into force on November 22, 1996. The treaty outlines the framework for the two countries to surrender individuals accused or convicted of crimes to the respective jurisdiction where the offense was committed.
Quiboloy, who is detained at the Pasig city jail, has been charged in the United States for conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking by force, fraud and coercion, sex trafficking of children, conspiracy, and bulk cash smuggling.
He is also included in the US Federal Bureau of Investigation’s list of most wanted persons.
The pastor was arrested last year after weeks in hiding inside the KOJC compound in Davao City. He is facing trial for qualified human trafficking, a non-bailable offense under the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act, before the Pasig City Regional Trial Court; and child abuse and exploitation before a Quezon City court.
Luistro said the House probe “is not about prejudging anyone’s guilt,” but “it is about upholding the rule of law, honoring our treaty commitments, and ensuring that victims see swift, fair, and transparent action.”
“Our message is simple: no one is above the law. We will ask the DOJ (Department of Justice) and DFA (Department of Foreign Affairs) to walk the public through the precise legal options – temporary or deferred surrender – and the concrete timeline so justice is neither delayed nor denied,” she also said.
She said the two significant laws on the matter that will be taken up are the 1994 extradition treaty between the US and Philippines and PD 1069, saying both laws are “silent” and “ambiguous” about some pertinent details.
“The following arguments or issue with respect to the existing laws on extradition in the Philippines were raised: one, whether an extradition process may be initiated by a foreign country when the extraditee has pending cases as well in the Philippines; second, what is the timeline between the request by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA)[and] the transmittal of the Department of Justice (DOJ), in the same manner, what is the timeline between the receipt by the DOJ [and] the filing of the petition for extradition with the proper regional trial court,” she said.
“Number three, it was also raised which court shall acquire jurisdiction over the request for extradition… whether the court which has jurisdiction over the local cases or the court where the extraditee is a resident of as mentioned in the treaty or PD 1069,” she added.
Flores said the laws also do not say who will exercise authority to choose between temporary surrender and deferred surrender of the extraditee, a point acknowledged by Luistro.
“We understand that in the treaty, and even in PD 1069 it was made clear that it will be the [DOJ] through the chief state counsel who will be filing the petition for extradition,” she said. “However, once the same is granted… the question now is, who will exercise the authority to choose whether it will be temporary surrender or deferred surrender?”
Luistro concluded by affirming that the House, through the justice committee, will work to strengthen the country’s extradition framework, ensure accountability, and reinforce the administration’s commitment to international cooperation against serious crimes, while respecting the independence of the courts.
