You are on page 1of 2

CHAPTER 11: LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL

Cuanca v. Salazar the maid wasnt able to pay the amount she advanced
from the employer. She was then detained. SC held, in a petition for habeas
corpus, that the liberty of abode should be sustained and the detention
declared unconstitutional.
Article III, Sec. 6 the liberty of abode and of changing the same within the
limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the
court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of
national security, public safety or public health.

Purpose

The purpose of the guaranty is to emphasize the individuals liberty as


safeguarded in general terms by the due process clause.
Liberty includes the right to choose ones residence, to leave it whenever he
pleases, and to travel wherever he wills.
Free society

Limitations

Constitutional Restrictions:
Liberty of abode can be limited Lawful order of court
Right to travel by the requirements of national security, Public safety
or public health as may be provided by law
Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro relocated for the purpose of
advancement and protection. Legitimate exercise of police power
Villavicencio v. Lukban deportation of the ill-repute women of manila
to davao. Unconstitutional.
Salonga v. Hermoso petition for mandamus to compel the issuance of
a permit to travel abroad. Moot and academic, permit was issued
before the case could be heared.
Principle: ours is a government of laws and not of men and also with the
canon that provisions of law limiting the enjoyment of liberty should be
strictly construed against the government and in favor of the individual.
Manotoc v. CA person on bail, petitioned for a permit to travel abroad
relative to his business transactions and opportunities , denied. Then he
invoked his right to travel at the SC. Denied. Bail was paid that he would be
available at any time the court requires. And his reasons to go abroad is not
urgent
Service Exporters Case the SC sustained an administrative regulation,
enacted pursuant to legislative authority, temporarily suspending the
deployment of Filipino female domestics abroad in view of reports of their
abuse and exploitation by their foreign employers. The ban on their right to
travel was justified on the ground of public safety.

Marcos v. MAnglapus SC, by an 8-7 vote, sustained the refusal of the


government to allow the petitioners return, on the ground that it would
endanger national security.