1. Extradition in the Philippine legal system

Extradition is the formal process by which the Philippines, at the request of another State (or, in appropriate arrangements, a requesting jurisdiction), surrenders a person found in Philippine territory so that the person may be prosecuted or punished for an offense within the requesting State’s jurisdiction, pursuant to an extradition treaty or other binding international agreement.

In Philippine practice, extradition is often described as having two intertwined dimensions:

Executive / diplomatic dimension – the State-to-State dealing and assessment of whether the request is treaty-compliant, handled primarily by the executive branch.
Judicial dimension – the court-supervised proceeding that determines whether the person is extraditable under the treaty and law, and governs coercive measures like arrest, detention, bail (where allowed), and the conduct of hearings.

This split matters because jurisdiction over “extradition proceedings” refers to the judicial dimension—the court process after the executive decides to move forward with a request.

2. The short answer

Extradition proceedings in the Philippines are within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), acting as an extradition court.

In other words, the Philippine trial courts (specifically the RTC) are the courts that receive and hear the government’s petition for extradition, issue or deny extradition-related orders (including warrants), conduct hearings, evaluate evidence under the applicable treaty and law, and render the judgment granting or denying extradition.

Appellate courts do not ordinarily conduct extradition trials. Their participation is typically through review mechanisms (e.g., extraordinary writs) when properly invoked.

3. Why the RTC—not the appellate courts—has original jurisdiction

3.1. Nature of extradition proceedings: not a criminal case, but still court-supervised

Philippine jurisprudence characterizes extradition as sui generis: it is not a criminal prosecution in the constitutional sense (the Philippines is not trying the offense), but it is not purely diplomatic either because it involves restraints on liberty and adjudication of whether the request satisfies legal standards.

Because it involves:

hearings,
receipt and assessment of evidence,
fact-bound determinations (identity, treaty coverage, sufficiency of documentation, etc.), and
orders affecting personal liberty,

the process is entrusted to a trial court that is structurally designed to:

receive evidence,
hear witnesses (when allowed),
manage proceedings, and
render a judgment after hearing.

That functional design aligns with the RTC.

3.2. The executive files a petition in court; the petition is not filed directly in the Supreme Court

While the President has the constitutional power over foreign relations and treaty implementation, the Philippines does not treat extradition as an executive-only surrender. Once the executive branch determines that an extradition request should be pursued, the government files a petition in an RTC to commence the judicial phase.

The Supreme Court of the Philippines, as a constitutional court of last resort, generally does not serve as the trial court for extradition petitions.

4. The governing framework that points to the RTC

4.1. The Extradition Law: Presidential Decree No. 1069

Philippine extradition procedure is implemented through Presidential Decree No. 1069 (“Prescribing the Procedure for the Extradition of Persons Who Have Committed Crimes in a Foreign Country”), often called the Philippine Extradition Law.

Under that framework, the petition for extradition is filed in a proper court and set for hearing, with the court empowered to issue appropriate processes (including arrest in proper cases), manage hearings, and render judgment.

In Philippine practice, that “proper court” is the RTC acting as an extradition court.

4.2. Role of the Rules of Court (suppletory application)

Because extradition is special and treaty-driven, procedural gaps are often filled by suppletory application of the Rules of Court (e.g., on motions, hearings, service, and—in limited contexts—special civil actions and review). But the basic trial-level adjudication still lies with the RTC.

5. Venue and which RTC: where is the petition filed?

A common practical question is not only “RTC vs. appellate courts” but also “which RTC?”

5.1. General operational rule: RTC where the extraditee is found / can be brought under the court’s control

Because extradition proceedings require the court to:

secure the person’s presence,
enforce orders affecting custody or detention,
conduct hearings,

venue is typically chosen so the RTC can exercise effective control over the person sought.

5.2. Metro Manila practice and designated branches

In many extradition matters, the petition is filed in an RTC in Metro Manila, frequently in Manila, particularly where the person is detained or where government counsel and documentary coordination are centralized. In practice, certain branches may become familiar forums due to repeated handling of extradition matters, but the jurisdictional point remains: it is an RTC, not an appellate court, that has original jurisdiction.

6. What the RTC decides in an extradition case

The RTC’s core task is to determine whether the person is extraditable under:

the relevant extradition treaty, and
the Philippine Extradition Law (PD 1069), plus applicable constitutional due process requirements as interpreted in jurisprudence.

Typically litigated issues include:

6.1. Identity

Whether the person before the court is the same person sought by the requesting State.

6.2. Treaty coverage and dual criminality

Whether the offense is an extraditable offense under the treaty; and
Whether the alleged act constitutes an offense in both jurisdictions (dual criminality) when required.

6.3. Sufficiency and authentication of supporting documents

Extradition treaties and implementing law prescribe documentary requirements (charging instruments, warrants/decisions, statements of facts, identity particulars, etc.). The RTC evaluates whether the submission meets those thresholds.

6.4. Political offense and other treaty exceptions

Many treaties exclude “political offenses” or impose exceptions (e.g., non-extradition for purely military offenses, or other enumerated bars). The RTC determines applicability as framed by treaty terms and doctrine.

6.5. Due process in the judicial phase

The RTC ensures the person sought is afforded due process appropriate to extradition’s nature—notice, opportunity to be heard, and adjudication based on the treaty and law.

7. Arrest, detention, and bail: court powers and limits

7.1. Court authority over custody

Once the judicial phase is initiated, the RTC manages custody issues through:

warrants or commitment orders (as authorized),
hearing schedules affecting detention length,
conditions of release if legally permissible.

7.2. Bail in extradition: generally exceptional but jurisprudentially recognized

Philippine jurisprudence has recognized that while extradition is not a criminal prosecution, the person sought retains constitutional interests in liberty. In Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v. Olalia, Jr., the Court recognized that bail may be available in extradition under stringent standards, balancing:

risk of flight,
treaty obligations,
the purposes of extradition,
humanitarian considerations and due process.

The key point for jurisdiction: it is the RTC that initially hears and rules on custody and bail questions during the extradition proceeding, subject to proper review.

8. The role of the Department of Justice and Department of Foreign Affairs

Understanding jurisdiction is easier when the institutional roles are clear:

Department of Justice: commonly handles evaluation, coordination, and prosecution of the extradition petition in court through government counsel.
Department of Foreign Affairs: handles diplomatic transmission and treaty communications; may be involved in the formal receipt and transmittal of requests depending on treaty design and internal arrangements.

The RTC becomes involved once the government files the petition for extradition—the start of the judicial phase.

9. Review of RTC rulings: how appellate courts enter the picture

Even though the RTC has original jurisdiction, parties often ask: “Can the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court overturn an extradition order?”

9.1. Review typically through special civil actions (certiorari/prohibition/mandamus) when warranted

Because extradition is sui generis and implicates liberty, litigants have invoked extraordinary remedies to challenge:

grave abuse of discretion,
denial of due process,
jurisdictional errors.

The Court of Appeals (Philippines) may be involved depending on the procedural posture and the remedy invoked. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of the Philippines may review issues through appropriate channels.

9.2. Appellate courts are not the trial forum for extradition evidence

Even when higher courts review, they do not typically retry extradition evidence. Their function is to correct reversible legal error or jurisdictional abuse, consistent with the nature of the remedy invoked.

10. Extradition vs. deportation: why jurisdiction differs

It is easy to confuse extradition with deportation:

Extradition is treaty-based surrender for prosecution/punishment abroad and has a distinct judicial phase in the RTC.
Deportation is an exercise of the State’s power to remove an alien for immigration reasons, typically handled by administrative immigration authorities, with court review under different doctrines and remedies.

So, when the question is “Which Philippine court has jurisdiction over extradition proceedings?”—the answer is not immigration tribunals or purely administrative bodies; it is the RTC in the judicial phase.

11. Practical takeaway

Original and trial jurisdiction over extradition petitions lies with the Regional Trial Court acting as an extradition court.
The RTC handles the hearings, evidence evaluation, custody issues (including bail questions under strict standards), and judgment on extraditability.
The Court of Appeals (Philippines) and Supreme Court of the Philippines may become involved only through review mechanisms, typically focused on legal or jurisdictional error rather than trial-level fact finding.