SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
LIBERTY OF ABODE AND
TRAVEL
Liberty of abode and of travel.
Sec. 6. Art. Ill: “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, as
may be provided by law. ”
GABBY RECIT:
Q: What is liberty of abode?
ANS – Right to change one’s place. it is the
right of a person to have his home in
whatever place chosen by him and
thereafter to change it at will.
Q: Is it same as the right to travel?
ANS - No, However, they are distinct
constitutional right
Q: Is this an absolute right?
ANS – liberty of abode cannot be impaired
except upon lawful order of the court. The
lawful order of the court is one of the
limitation of Section 6.
Q: If no lawful order of the court?
ANS - No, otherwise, the freedom of the
person to choose his own residence is
MHOMSIE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"A bird sitting in a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking. Because his trust is not on the
branch but on his own wings."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER
abridged and the purpose of the
constitutional right or the right to be
protected is rendered inutile. In addition,
this goes against not only the Constitution
but as well as internationally accepted
principles, which the Constitution also
respects and recognizes. (suggested answer
ko lang to, di ko alam san yung reference
nung sagot e)
LIMITATION on liberty of abode:
lawful order of the court
a) Art. 13 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights,
and Art. 12 of the Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights
provide that everyone has the
right of freedom of movement
and residence within the
border of each State.
Q: Hypo: A purchased a lot in Manila to
build house immediately.
Unfortunately, City council passed an
ordinance that that place will be
regarded as highly industrialized zone.
Can A insist his right to build his house,
even if there has been no lawful order
of the court?
ANS - No, reclassification of the land is a
valid exercise of power vested in the
executive department and the ordinance
which was issued may be construed as to
mean the lawful order of the court or laws
which prescribes the limit for such exercise
Page | 1
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

of a right. Furthermore, a reclassification everyone has the right of freedom of

of a land as a highly industrialized zone movement and residence within the
would be unfit for residential purposes, border of each State.
which in turn may lead into harmful effects
for its residents, including A.
GABBY RECIT:
That is the meaning of the phrase “within
the limits as prescribed by law”. So, Q: Is an ordinance impairing liberty of
pwede yung ordinance. abode, valid?
ANS – Yes. “within the limits prescribed
by law.”

Limitation on liberty of abode: lawful Q: Can a servant be prevented by

order of the court.
a) In Villavicencio v. Lukban, supra., the
“deportation” of some 170 women of ill
repute to Davao on orders of the Mayor of
Manila was held unlawful. In Caunca v.
Salazar, 82 Phil 851, it was held that a
maid has the right to transfer to another
residence even if she had not yet paid the
amount advanced for her transportation
from the province by an employment
agency which was then effectively
detaining her because of the moral duress
exerted on her.
However, in Rubi v. Provincial Board of
Mindoro, supra.,it was held that the
respondents were justified in requiring
the members of certain non- Christian
tribes to reside only within a reservation.
This restriction was intended to promote
their better education, advancement and
protection.
b) Art. 13, Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, and Art. 12, Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, provide that
MHOMSIE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"A bird sitting in a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking. Because his trust is not on the
branch but on his own wings."
leaving her master’s house due to
unpaid debts?
ANS – No. Caungca vs Salazar. The issue is
about as to Whether or not an employment
agency has the right to restrain and detain a
maid who has not yet paid the advance
payment it made. Its is in the negative. An
employment agency, regardless of the
amount it may advance to a prospective
employee or maid, has absolutely no power
to curtail her freedom of movement.
The fact that no physical force has been
exerted to keep her in the house of the
respondent does not make less real the
deprivation of her personal freedom of
movement, freedom to transfer from one
place to another, freedom to choose one’s
residence. Freedom may be lost due to
external moral compulsion, to founded or
groundless fear, to erroneous belief in the
existence of an imaginary power of an
impostor to cause harm if not blindly obeyed,
to any other psychological element that may
curtail the mental faculty of choice or the

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 2
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

unhampered exercise of the will. If the executive officers or

actual effect of such psychological spell is to
place a person at the mercy of another, the
victim is entitled to the protection of courts
of justice as much as the individual who is
illegally deprived of liberty by duress or
physical coercion. (Caunca vs Salazar, 82
Phil 851)
GABBY RECITS
Q: What is the right to travel?
ANS – it is a freedom to travel from other
country.
Q: How may right to travel be
impaired?
ANS – As may be provided by law.
Q: Restrictions on the Right to Travel?
1. LIMITATIONS on the right to
travel: interest of national security,
public safety or public health, as
may be provided by law
a) A lawful order of the court is
also a valid restriction on the
right to travel.
b) Sec. 6, Art III of the 1987
Constitution should be
interpreted to mean that whole
the liberty to travel may be
impaired even without court
order, the appropriate
administrative authorities are
not armed with arbitrary
discretions o impose
limitations. They can impose
limits only on the basis of
“national security, public safety
or public health and as may be
provided by law.”
c) Art. 13(2), Universal
Declaration of Human Rights,
provide that everyone has the
right to leave any country,
including his own, and to
return to his country.
d) Art. 12(4), Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, provide
that no one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of the right to enter
his own country.
Q: Is the right to return to One’s
country covered by Bill of Rights?
ANS – No. It is considered as a generally
accepted principle of international law.
And thus, part of the law of the land.
Q: What activities are covered by the
restrictions?
A: One’s freedom of movement and Right
to Travel. It may be classified either as: a)
travel within the country; b) travel form
the Philippines to another country

MHOMSIE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"A bird sitting in a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking. Because his trust is not on the
branch but on his own wings."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 3
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

International Covenant of Civil

Q: What are the basis of administrative
officers when curtailing the right to
travel?
ANS – National security, public safety, and
public health. Silverio vs. Court of
Appeals. Right to travel to one’s country
as long as impairment is not arbitrary.
DOCTRINE:
Marcos vs. Manglapus [G.R. No. 88211,
September 15, 1989]
 The right to return to one’s
country is NOT among the
rights specifically guaranteed
in the Bill of Rights, which
treats only of the liberty of
abode and the right to travel.
Nonetheless, it is the Court’s
well-considered view that the
right to return may be
reckoned as a generally
accepted principle of
international law and, under
our Constitution, is part of the
law of the land.
 The right to return is distinct
and separate from the right to
travel and enjoys different
protection under the
and Political Rights, i.e., against
being arbitrarily deprived
thereof.
 The President did not act
arbitrarily in determining that
the return of former President
Marcos and his family at the
present time and under
present circumstances poses a
serious threat to national
interest and welfare.
 The power involved is the
President’s residual power to
protect the general welfare of
the people. It is founded on the
duty of the President, as
steward of the people.
 This case calls for the exercise
of the President’s power as
protector of the peace. The
power is NOT limited merely to
exercising the commander-in-
chief powers in times of
emergency or leading the State
against external and internal
threats to its existence.
THE RIGHT TO RETURN TO ONE’S
COUNTRY IS NOT COVERED BY THE
CONDTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF
LIBERTY OF ABODE AND THE RIGHT
TO TRAVEL. It must be emphasized that
the individual right involved is not the

MHOMSIE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"A bird sitting in a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking. Because his trust is not on the
branch but on his own wings."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 4
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

right to travel from the Philippines to
other countries or within the Philippines.
These are what the right to travel would
normally connote. Essentially, the right
involved is the right to return to one's
country, a totally distinct right under
international law, independent from
although related to the right to travel.
Thus, the Universal Declaration of
Humans Rights and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
treat the right to freedom of movement
and abode within the territory of a state,
the right to leave a country, and the right
to enter one's country as separate and
distinct rights.
The Declaration speaks of the "right to
freedom of movement and residence
within the borders of each state" [Art.
13(1)] separately from the "right to leave
any country, including his own, and to
return to his country." [Art. 13(2).] On the
other hand, the Covenant guarantees the
"right to liberty of movement and
freedom to choose his residence" [Art.
12(1)] and the right to "be free to leave
any country, including his own." [Art.
12(2)] which rights may be restricted by
such laws as "are necessary to protect
national security, public order, public
health or morals or the separate rights
and freedoms of others." [Art. 12(3)] as
distinguished from the "right to enter his
own country" of which one cannot be
"arbitrarily deprived." [Art. 12(4).]
It would therefore be inappropriate to
construe the limitations to the right to
MHOMSIE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"A bird sitting in a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking. Because his trust is not on the
branch but on his own wings."
return to one's country in the same
context as those pertaining to the liberty
of abode and the right to travel. The right
to return to one's country is not among
the rights specifically guaranteed in the
Bill of Rights, which treats only of the
liberty of abode and the right to travel,
but it is our well-considered view that the
right to return may be considered, as a
generally accepted principle of
international law and, under our
Constitution, is part of the law of the land
[Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.]
However, it is distinct and separate from
the right to travel and enjoys a different
protection under the International
Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, i.e.,
against being "arbitrarily deprived"
thereof [Art. 12 (4).]
What we are saying in effect is that the
request or demand of the Marcoses to be
allowed to return to the Philippines
cannot be considered in the light solely of
the constitutional provisions
guaranteeing liberty of abode and the
right to travel, subject to certain
exceptions, or of case law which clearly
never contemplated situations even
remotely similar to the present one. It
must be treated as a matter that is
appropriately addressed to those residual
unstated powers of the President which
are implicit in and correlative to the
paramount duty residing in that office to
safeguard and protect general welfare. In
that context, such request or demand
should submit to the exercise of a broader
discretion on the part of the President to

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 5
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

determine whether it must be granted or The case for petitioners is founded on the
denied. assertion that the right of the Marcoses to
return to the Philippines is guaranteed
Q: What kind of power was exercised under the following provisions of the Bill
by the President? of Rights, to wit:

ANS - Residual Powers. It belongs to the Section 1. No person shall be deprived of

government but DOES NOT belong to any life, liberty, or property without due
of its branches. It is an inherent power of process of law, nor shall any person be
the government which is exercised by the denied the equal protection of the laws.
President being the HEAD of the State. xxx xxx xxx

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of

changing the same within the limits
prescribed by law shall not be impaired
MARCOS V. MANGLAPUS except upon lawful order of the court.
GR NO. 88211, September. 15, 1989 Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national
Facts: Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed security, public safety, or public health, as
from the presidency via the non-violent may be provided by law.
“people power” revolution and forced into
exile. Pres. Corazon C. Aquino was The petitioners contend that the
declared President of the Phils under a President is without power to impair the
revolutionary government. However, the liberty of abode of the Marcoses because
ratification of the 1987 Constitution only a court may do so "within the limits
further strengthened the legitimacy of prescribed by law." Nor may the President
Mrs Aquino’s authority. The country was impair their right to travel because no law
far from being stabilized, though, as has authorized her to do so. They advance
continued threats from various sectors the view that before the right to travel
ranging from the rebels to the followers of may be impaired by any authority or
the Marcoses and even those that were agency of the government, there must be
initiators of the people power revolution. legislation to that effect.
Mr. Marcos has signified, in his deathbed,
to return to the Phils. But Mrs Aquino The petitioners further assert that under
considering the dire consequences to the international law, the right of Mr. Marcos
nation of his return has stood firmly on the and his family to return to the Philippines
decision to bar the his and his family’s is guaranteed.
return.
Issue:
MHOMSIE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"A bird sitting in a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking. Because his trust is not on the
branch but on his own wings."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 6
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

1. Whether or not the right of the
Marcoses of the liberty of abode and the
right to travel are violated?
2. Whether the President has the power
to bar the petitioners from returning
home?
Held:
1. NO. It must be emphasized that the
individual right involved is not the right
to travel from the Philippines to other
countries or within the Philippines.
These are what the right to travel would
normally connote. Essentially, the right
involved is the right to return to one's
country, a totally distinct right under
international law, independent from
although related to the right to travel.
Thus, the Universal Declaration of
Humans Rights and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
treat the right to freedom of movement
and abode within the territory of a state,
the right to leave a country, and the right
to enter one's country as separate and
distinct rights. The Declaration speaks of
the "right to freedom of movement and
residence within the borders of each
state" [Art. 13(1)] separately from the
"right to leave any country, including
his own, and to return to his country."
[Art. 13(2).]
On the other hand, the Covenant
guarantees the "right to liberty of
movement and freedom to choose his
MHOMSIE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"A bird sitting in a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking. Because his trust is not on the
branch but on his own wings."
residence" [Art. 12(1)] and the right to
"be free to leave any country, including
his own." [Art. 12(2)] which rights may be
restricted by such laws as "are necessary
to protect national security, public order,
public health or morals or the separate
rights and freedoms of others." [Art.
12(3)] as distinguished from the "right to
enter his own country" of which one
cannot be "arbitrarily deprived." [Art.
12(4).]
It would therefore be inappropriate to
construe the limitations to the right to
return to one's country in the same
context as those pertaining to the
liberty of abode and the right to travel.
The right to return to one's country is
not among the rights specifically
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights , which
treats only of the liberty of abode and
the right to travel, but it is our well-
considered view that the right to return
may be considered, as a generally
accepted principle of international law
and, under our Constitution, is part of
the law of the land [Art. II, Sec. 2 of the
Constitution.] However, it is distinct
and separate from the right to travel
and enjoys a different protection under
the International Covenant of Civil and
Political Rights, i.e., against being
"arbitrarily
deprived" thereof.
2. YES. To the President, the problem is one
of balancing the general welfare and the
common good against the exercise of rights
of certain individuals. The power involved

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 7
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

is the President's residual power to specific powers enumerated in the

protect the general welfare of the
people. It is founded on the duty of the
President, as steward of the people. To
paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt, it is not
only the power of the President but also
his duty to do anything not forbidden by
the Constitution or the laws that the
needs of the nation demand. It is a
( 1 ) power borne by the President's
duty to preserve and defend the
Constitution. It also may be viewed as a
( 2) power implicit in the President's
duty to take care that the laws are
faithfully executed .
It would not be accurate, however, to
state that "executive power" is the power
to enforce the laws, for the President is
head of state as well as head of
government and whatever powers inhere
in such positions pertain to the office
unless the Constitution itself withholds it.
Furthermore, the Constitution itself
provides that the execution of the laws is
only one of the powers of the President. It
also grants the President other powers
that do not involve the execution of any
provision of law, e.g., his power over the
country's foreign relations. Although the
1987 Constitution imposes limitations on
the exercise of specific powers of the
President, it maintains intact what is
traditionally considered as within the
scope of "executive power."
Corollarily, the powers of the President
cannot be said to be limited only to the
MHOMSIE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"A bird sitting in a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking. Because his trust is not on the
branch but on his own wings."
Constitution. Faced with the problem of
whether or not the time is right to allow
the Marcoses to return to the
Philippines, the President is, under the
Constitution, constrained to consider
these basic principles in arriving at a
decision.
More than that, having sworn to defend
and uphold the Constitution, the
President has the obligation under the
Constitution to protect the people,
promote their welfare and advance the
national interest. It must be borne in
mind that the Constitution, aside from
being an allocation of power is also a
social contract whereby the people have
surrendered their sovereign powers to
the State for the common good. Hence,
lest the officers of the Government
exercising the powers delegated by the
people forget and the servants of the
people become rulers, the Constitution
reminds everyone that "[s]overeignty
resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them." [Art. II,
Sec. 1.]
Q: Does bail restrict the right to travel?
ANS – Yes. In the case of manotoc…
DOCTRINE:

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 8
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

accused from the public

Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No.
L-62100, May 30, 1986]
 A court has the power to
prohibit a person admitted to
bail from leaving the
Philippines. This is necessary
consequence of the nature and
function of a bail bond.
 Bail is a security required and
given for the temporary release
of a person who is in the
custody of the law, that he will
appear before the court in any
court in which his appearance
is required as stipulated in the
bail bond or recognizance.
 The condition imposed is to
make himself available at all
times whenever the court
requires his presence operated
as a valid restriction on his
right to travel.
 If the accused were allowed to
leave the Philippines without
sufficient reason, he may be
placed beyond the reach of the
courts.
 The effect of a recognizance or
bail bond, when fully executed
or filed of record, and the
prisoner released thereunder,
is to transfer the custody of the
MHOMSIE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"A bird sitting in a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking. Because his trust is not on the
branch but on his own wings."
officials who have him in their
charge to keepers of his own
selection. Such custody has
been regarded merely as a
continuation of the original
imprisonment.
 If the sureties have the right to
prevent the principal from
leaving the state, more so then
has the court from which the
sureties merely derive such
right, and whose jurisdiction
over the person remains
unaffected despite the grant of
bail to the later.
RESTRICTION OF THE RIGHT TO
TRAVEL IS A NECESSARY
CONSEQUENCE OF A BAIL. A court has
the power to prohibit a person admitted
to bail from leaving the Philippines. This
is a necessary consequence of the nature
and function of a bail bond. Rule 114,
Section 1 of the Rules of Court defines bail
as the security required and given for the
release of a person who is in the custody
of the law, that he will appear before any
court in which his appearance may be
required as stipulated in the bail bond or
recognizance.
"Its object is to relieve the accused of
imprisonment and the state of the burden
of keeping him, pending the trial, and at
the same time, to put the accused as much

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 9
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

under the power of the court as if he were
in custody of the proper officer, and to
secure the appearance of the accused so
as to answer the call of the court and do
what the law may require of him."
The condition imposed upon petitioner to
make himself available at all times
whenever the court requires his presence
operates as a valid restriction on his right
to travel. As we have held in People v. Uy
Tuising, 61 Phil. 404 (1935).
". . . the result of the obligation assumed
by appellee (surety) to hold the accused
amenable at all times to the orders and
processes of the lower court, was to
prohibit said accused from leaving the
jurisdiction of the Philippines, because,
otherwise, said orders and processes will
be nugatory, and inasmuch as the
jurisdiction of the courts from which they
issued does not extend beyond that of the
Philippines they would have no binding
force outside of said jurisdiction."
Indeed, if the accused were allowed to
leave the Philippines without sufficient
reason, he may be placed beyond the
reach of the courts. "The effect of a
recognizance or bail bond, when fully
executed or filed of record, and the
prisoner released thereunder, is to
transfer the custody of the accused from
the public officials who have him in their
charge to keepers of his own selection.
Such custody has been regarded merely
as a continuation of the original
MHOMSIE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"A bird sitting in a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking. Because his trust is not on the
branch but on his own wings."
imprisonment. The sureties become
invested with full authority over the
person of the principal and have the right
to prevent the principal from leaving the
state." If the sureties have the right to
prevent the principal from leaving the
state, more so then has the court from
which the sureties merely derive such
right, and whose jurisdiction over the
person of the principal remains
unaffected despite the grant of bail to the
latter. In fact, this inherent right of the
court is recognized by petitioner himself,
notwithstanding his allegation that he is
at total liberty to leave the country, for he
would not have filed the motion for
permission to leave the country in the
first place, if it were otherwise.
Q: PGMA’s medical treatment in
HongKong, may it be prevented by SOJ
by a departmental circular?
A: Yes. The 1987 Constitution provides
that one of the restrictions for the right to
travel does not necessarily limits its
application when national security is at
risk, public safety or public health but as
well as the phrase “as may be provided by
law”.
RICARDO L. MANOTOC, JR. vs. THE
COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. L-62100, May 30, 1986,
FERNAN, J.:

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 10
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

FACTS: Petitioner Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr.,
is one of the two principal stockholders of
Trans-Insular Management, Inc. and the
Manotoc Securities, Inc., a stock
brokerage house. Following the "run" on
stock brokerages caused by stock broker
Santamaria's flight from this jurisdiction,
petitioner, who was then in the United
States, came home, and together with his
co-stockholders, filed a petition with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for
the appointment of a management
committee for Manotoc Securities, Inc and
for Trans-Insular Management, Inc.
The petition relative to the Manotoc
Securities, Inc. was granted and a
management committee was organized
and appointed. Pending disposition of SEC
Case, the SEC requested the
Commissioner of Immigration not to clear
petitioner for departure and a accused as much under the power of the
memorandum to this effect was issued by
the Commissioner. When a Torrens title
submitted to and accepted by Manotoc
Securities, Inc. was suspected to be a fake,
six of its clients filed six separate criminal
complaints against petitioner and one
Raul Leveriza, Jr., as president and vice-
president, respectively, of Manotoc
Securities, Inc.
In due course, corresponding criminal
charges for estafa were filed by the
investigating fiscal. In al cases, petitioner
has been admitted to bail with FGU
Instance Corporation as surety. Petitioner
filed before each of the trial courts a
motion entitled, "motion for permission
MHOMSIE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"A bird sitting in a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking. Because his trust is not on the
branch but on his own wings."
to leave the country," stating as ground
therefor his desire to go to the United
States, "relative to his business
transactions and opportunities." The
prosecution opposed said motion and
after due hearing, both trial judges denied
the same.
ISSUE: Whether or not the constitutional
right of liberty of abode is herein
violated?
HELD: NO. A court has the power to
prohibit a person admitted to bail from
leaving the Philippines. This is a
necessary consequence of the nature
and function of a bail bond. The object
of a bail bond is to relieve the accused of
imprisonment and the state of the
burden of keeping him, pending the
trial, and at the same time, to put the
court as if he were in custody of the
proper officer, and to secure the
appearance of the accused so as to answer
the call of the court and do what the law
may require of him."
The condition imposed upon petitioner
to make himself available at all times
whenever the court requires his
presence operates as a valid restriction
on his right to travel. The result of the
obligation assumed by appellee (surety)
to hold the accused amenable at all
times to the orders and processes of the
lower court, was to prohibit said
accused from leaving the jurisdiction of
the Philippines, because, otherwise, said

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 11
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

orders and processes will be nugatory,

and inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the
courts from which they issued does not
extend beyond that of the Philippines
they would have no binding force
outside of said jurisdiction.
Indeed, if the accused were allowed to
leave the Philippines without sufficient
reason, he may be placed beyond the
reach of the courts. "The effect of a
recognizance or bail bond, when fully
executed or filed of record, and the
prisoner released thereunder, is to
transfer the custody of the accused from
the public officials who have him in
their charge to keepers of his own
selection. Such custody has been
regarded merely as a continuation of
the original imprisonment . The
sureties become invested with full
authority over the person of the
principal and have the right to prevent
the principal from leaving the state."
If the sureties have the right to prevent
the principal from leaving the state,
more so then has the court from which
the sureties merely derive such right,
and whose jurisdiction over the person
of the principal remains unaffected
despite the grant of bail to the latter. In
fact, this inherent right of the court is
recognized by petitioner himself,
notwithstanding his allegation that he is
at total liberty to leave the country, for he
would not have filed the motion for
permission to leave the country in the
first place, if it were otherwise.
MHOMSIE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"A bird sitting in a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking. Because his trust is not on the
branch but on his own wings."
Also, petitioner's case is not on all fours
with the Shepherd case. In the latter case,
the accused was able to show the urgent
necessity for her travel abroad, the
duration thereof and the conforme of her
sureties to the proposed travel thereby
satisfying the court that she would comply
with the conditions of her bail bond. In
contrast, petitioner in this case has not
satisfactorily shown any of the above. As
aptly observed by the Solicitor General in
his comment:
A perusal of petitioner's 'Motion for
Permission to Leave the Country' will
show that it is solely predicated on
petitioner's wish to travel to the United
States where he will, allegedly attend to
some business transactions and search
for business opportunities. From the tenor
and import of petitioner's motion, no
urgent or compelling reason can be
discerned to justify the grant of judicial
imprimatur thereto.
Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that
there is absolute necessity for him to
travel abroad. Petitioner's motion bears
no indication that the alleged business
transactions could not be undertaken by
any other person in his behalf. Neither is
there any hint that petitioner's absence
from the United States would absolutely
preclude him from taking advantage of
business opportunities therein, nor is
there any showing that petitioner's non-
presence in the United States would cause
him irreparable damage or prejudice.

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 12
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

To our mind, the order of the trial court

Petitioner has not specified the
duration of the proposed travel or
shown that his surety has agreed to it.
He merely alleges that his surety has
agreed to his plans as he had posted
cash indemnities. The court cannot allow
the accused to leave the country without
the assent of the surety because in
accepting a bail bond or recognizance, the
government impliedly agrees "that it will
not take any proceedings with the
principal that will increase the risks of the
sureties or affect their remedies against
him.
The constitutional right to travel being
invoked by petitioner is not an absolute
right. Petitioner’s contention that
having been admitted to bail as a
matter of right, neither the courts which
granted him bail nor the Securities and
Exchange Commission which has no
jurisdiction over his liberty, could not
prevent him from exercising his
constitutional right to travel, is untenable.
The constitutional right to travel being
invoked by petitioner is not an absolute
right. Section 5, Article IV of the 1973
Constitution states:
"The liberty of abode and of travel shall
not be impaired except upon lawful
order of the court, or when necessary in
the interest of national security, public
safety or public health."
releasing petitioner on bail constitutes
such lawful order as contemplated by the
above-quoted constitutional provision.
NACHURA:
Limitations on right to travel: interest
of national security, public safety or
public health, as may be provided by
law.
In Philippine Association of Service
Exporters v. Drilon, supra.,an
administrative order issued by the
Secretary of Labor temporarily
suspending the deployment of Filipino
female domestic helpers abroad was
upheld, in view of the need to extend
protection to female domestics who were
most prone to exploitation and abuse by
their foreign employers. In Marcos v.
Manglapus, 178 SCRA 760, the Supreme
Court sustained the refusal of the
government to allow the petitioner’s
return to the Philippines, on the ground
that it would endanger national security.
A LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COURT is
also a valid restriction on the right to
travel. In Manotoc v. Court of Appeals,
142 SCRA 149, the Court held that the
trial court may validly refuse to grant the
accused permission to travel abroad, even
if the accused is out on bail.

In Silverio v. Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA

MHOMSIE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"A bird sitting in a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking. Because his trust is not on the
branch but on his own wings."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 13
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

760, the Court said that Art. Ill, Sec. 6,
should be interpreted to mean that while
the liberty of travel may be impaired even
without court order, the appropriate
executive officers or administrative
authorities are not armed with arbitrary
discretion to impose limitations. They can
impose limits only on the basis of
“national security, public safety or public
health” and “as may be provided by law”,
a limitive phrase which did not appear in
the 1973 text, xxx Holding an accused in a
criminal case within the reach of the
courts by preventing his departure from
the Philippines must be considered a valid
restriction on his right to travel, so that he
may be dealt with in accordance with law.
In Defensor-Santiago v. Vasquez, 217
SOFIA 633, the Court further clarified the
foregoing principles, saying:
[i] The hold-departure order is but an
exercise of the respondent court’s
inherent power to preserve and maintain
the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over
the case and over the person of the
accused;
[ii] By posting bail, the accused holds
herself amenable at all times to the orders
and processes of the court, thus, she may
be legally prohibited from leaving the
country during the pendency of the case;
and
first instance, are in the best position to
pass upon such applications and to
impose the appropriate conditions
therefore, since they are conversant with
the facts of the cases and the
ramifications or implications thereof.
In Imelda Romualdez Marcos v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 115132,
August 9, 1995, the Court upheld the
denial by the Sandiganbayan of the
request to travel abroad filed by Mrs.
Imelda Romualdez Marcos, inasmuch as
she had already been convicted. The
person’s right to travel is subject to the
usual constraints imposed by the very
necessity of safeguarding the system of
justice. Whether the accused should be
permitted to leave the country for
humanitarian reasons is a matter
addressed to the court’s discretion. See
also Yap v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
141529, June 6,2001.
Art. 13 (2), Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, provides that everyone
has the right to leave any country,
including his own, and to return to his
country. Art. 12 (4), Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, provides that no one shall
be arbitrarily deprived of the right to
enter his own country. But see Marcos v.
Manglapus, supra..

[iii] Parties with pending cases should

apply for permission to leave the country DOCTRINE:
from the very same courts which, in the

MHOMSIE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"A bird sitting in a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking. Because his trust is not on the
branch but on his own wings."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 14
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Silverio vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No.
94284, April 8, 1991]
 A condition imposed upon an
accused to make himself
available at all times whenever
the Court requires his presence
operates as a valid restriction
of his right to travel. A person
facing criminal charges may be
restrained by the Court from
leaving the country or, if
abroad, compelled to return.
 An accused released on bail
may be re-arrested without the
necessity of a warrant if he
attempts to depart from the
Philippines prior permission of
the Court where the case is
pending.
 Section 6, Article III of the 1987
Constitution should be
interpreted to mean that while
the liberty of travel may be
impaired even without court
order, the appropriate
executive officers or
administrative authorities are
not armed with arbitrary
discretion to impose
limitations. They can impose
limits ONLY on the basis of
“national security, public safety,
or public health” and “as may
be provided by law”.
 It should NOT be construed as
delimiting the inherent power
of the Courts to use all means
necessary to carry orders into
effect in criminal cases pending
before them. When by all,
jurisdiction is conferred on a
Court or Judicial officer, all
auxiliary powers, writs,
process and other means
necessary to carry it into effect
may be employed by such
Court or officer.
THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL MAY BE
IMPAIRED BY COURTS OF JUSTICE
EVEN FOR REASONS OTHER THE
PROMOTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY,
PUBLIC SAFETY OR PUBLIC HEALTH.
Petitioner takes the posture, however,
that while the 1987 Constitution
recognizes the power of the Courts to
curtail the liberty of abode within the
limits prescribed by law, it restricts the
allowable impairment of the right to
travel only on grounds of interest of
national security, public safety or public
health, as compared to the provisions on
freedom of movement in the 1935 and
1973 Constitutions.
Under the 1935 Constitution, the liberty
of abode and of travel were treated under

MHOMSIE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"A bird sitting in a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking. Because his trust is not on the
branch but on his own wings."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 15
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

one provision. Article III, Section 1 (4)
thereof reads:
"The liberty of abode and of changing
the same within the limits prescribed by
law shall not be impaired."
The 1973 Constitution altered the 1935
text by explicitly including the liberty of
travel, thus:
"The liberty of abode and of travel shall
not be impaired except upon lawful
order of the court or when necessary in
the interest of national security, public
safety, or public health" (Article IV,
Section 5).
The 1987 Constitution has split the two
freedoms into two distinct sentences and
treats them differently, to wit:
"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, as
may be provided by law."
Petitioner thus theorizes that under the
1987 Constitution, Courts can impair the
right to travel only on the grounds of
"national security, public safety, or public
health." The submission is not well taken.
Article III, Section 6 of the 1987
Constitution should be interpreted to
mean that while the liberty of travel may
MHOMSIE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"A bird sitting in a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking. Because his trust is not on the
branch but on his own wings."
be impaired even without Court Order,
the appropriate executive officers or
administrative authorities are not armed
with arbitrary discretion to impose
limitations. They can impose limits only
on the basis of "national security, public
safety, or public health" and "as may be
provided by law," a limitive phrase which
did not appear in the 1973 text (The
Constitution, Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., Vol.
I, First Edition, 1987, p. 263).
Apparently, the phraseology in the 1987
Constitution was a reaction to the ban on
international travel imposed under the
previous regime when there was a Travel
Processing Center, which issued
certificates of eligibility to travel upon
application of an interested party (See
Salonga v. Hermoso & Travel Processing
Center, No. 53622, 25 April 1980, 97
SCRA 121).
Article III, Section 6 of the 1987
Constitution should by no means be
construed as delimiting the inherent
power of the Courts to use all means
necessary to carry their orders into effect
in criminal cases pending before them.
When by law jurisdiction is conferred on
a Court or judicial officer, all auxiliary
writs, process and other means necessary
to carry it into effect may be employed by
such Court or officer (Rule 135, Section 6,
Rules of Court).
Petitioner's argument that the ruling in
Manotoc, Jr., v. Court of Appeals, et al.
(supra), to the effect that the condition

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 16
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

imposed upon an accused admitted to bail
to make himself available at all times
whenever the Court requires his presence
operates as a valid restriction on the right
to travel no longer holds under the 1987
Constitution, is far from tenable. The
nature and function of a bail bond has
remained unchanged whether under the
1935, the 1973, or the 1987 Constitution.
Besides, the Manotoc ruling on that point
was but a re-affirmation of that laid down
long before in People v. Uy Tuising, 61
Phil. 404 (1935).
Petitioner is facing a criminal charge. He
has posted bail but has violated the
conditions thereof by failing to appear
before the Court when required. Warrants
for his arrest have been issued. Those
orders and processes would be rendered
nugatory if an accused were to be allowed
to leave or to remain, at his pleasure,
outside the territorial confines of the
country. Holding an accused in a criminal
case within the reach of the Courts by
preventing his departure from the
Philippines must be considered as a valid
restriction on his right to travel so that he
may be dealt with in accordance with law.
The offended party in any criminal
proceeding is the People of the
Philippines. It is to their best interest that
criminal prosecutions should run their
course and proceed to finality without
undue delay, with an accused holding
himself amenable at all times to Court
Orders and processes.
MHOMSIE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"A bird sitting in a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking. Because his trust is not on the
branch but on his own wings."
RICARDO C. SILVERIO vs. THE COURT
OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 94284, April 8, 1991,
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.
FACTS: Petitioner was charged with
violation of Section 20 (4) of the Revised
Securities Act. In due time, he posted bail
for his provisional liberty. More than two
(2) years after the filing of the
Information, respondent People of the
Philippines filed an Urgent ex parte
Motion to cancel the passport of and to
issue a hold-departure Order against
accused-petitioner on the ground that he
had gone abroad several times without
the necessary Court approval resulting in
postponements of the arraignment and
scheduled hearings.
The Regional Trial Court issued an Order
directing the Department of Foreign
Affairs to cancel Petitioner's passport or to
deny his application therefore, and the
Commission on Immigration to prevent
Petitioner from leaving the country. This
order was based primarily on the Trial
Court's finding that since the filing of the
Information "the accused has not yet been
arraigned because he has never appeared
in Court on the dates scheduled for his
arraignment and there is evidence to show
that accused Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. has left
the country and has gone abroad without
the knowledge and permission of this
Court". Petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration was denied. Petitioner's
Certiorari Petition before the Court of
Appeals was likewise denied.

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 17
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

except upon lawful order of the court.

Petitioner takes the posture, that while the
1987 Constitution recognizes the power of
the Courts to curtail the liberty of abode
within the limits prescribed by law, it
restricts the allowable impairment of the
right to travel only on grounds of interest
of national security, public safety or public
health, as compared to the provisions on
freedom of movement in the 1935 and
1973 Constitutions.
Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national
security, public safety, or public health, as
may be provided by law."
Petitioner thus theorizes that under the
1987 Constitution, Courts can impair the
right to travel only on the grounds of
"national security, public safety, or public
health."

Under the 1935 Constitution, the liberty
of abode and of travel were treated under
one provision. Article III, Section 1 (4)
thereof reads:
"The liberty of abode and of changing
the same within the limits prescribed by
law shall not be impaired."
The 1973 Constitution altered the 1935
text by explicitly including the liberty of
travel, thus:
"The liberty of abode and of travel shall
not be impaired except upon lawful
order of the court or when necessary in
the interest of national security, public
safety, or public health" (Article IV,
Section 5).
The 1987 Constitution has split the two
freedoms into two distinct sentences and
treats them differently, to wit:
"Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of
changing the same within the limits
prescribed by law shall not be impaired
MHOMSIE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"A bird sitting in a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking. Because his trust is not on the
branch but on his own wings."
ISSUE: Whether or not the right to travel
can be impaired upon lawful order of the
Court, even on grounds other than the
"interest of national security, public
safety or public health"
HELD: YES. Article III, Section 6 of the
1987 Constitution should be interpreted
to mean that while the liberty of travel
may be impaired even without Court
Order, the appropriate executive
officers or administrative authorities
are not armed with arbitrary discretion
to impose limitations. They can impose
limits only on the basis of "national
security, public safety, or public health"
and "as may be provided by law," a
limitive phrase which did not appear in
the 1973 text (The Constitution, Bernas,
Joaquin G., S.J., Vol. I, First Edition, 1987, p.
263).
Apparently, the phraseology in the 1987
Constitution was a reaction to the ban
on international travel imposed under
the previous regime when there was a
Travel Processing Center, which issued

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 18
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

certificates of eligibility to travel upon issued. Those orders and processes

application of an interested party
Article III, Section 6 of the 1987
Constitution should by no means be
construed as delimiting the inherent
power of the Courts to use all means
necessary to carry their orders into
effect in criminal cases pending before
them. When by law jurisdiction is
conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all
auxiliary writs, process and other means
necessary to carry it into effect may be
employed by such Court or officer (Rule
135, Section 6, Rules of Court).
Petitioner's argument that the ruling in
Manotoc, Jr., v. Court of Appeals, et al.
(supra), to the effect that the condition
imposed upon an accused admitted to
bail to make himself available at all
times whenever the Court requires his
presence operates as a valid restriction
on the right to travel no longer holds
under the 1987 Constitution, is far from
tenable. The nature and function of a
bail bond has remained unchanged
whether under the 1935, the 1973, or
the 1987 Constitution. Besides, the
Manotoc ruling on that point was but a
re-affirmation of that laid down long
before in People v. Uy Tuising, 61 Phil.
404 (1935).
Petitioner is facing a criminal charge.
He has posted bail but has violated the
conditions thereof by failing to appear
before the Court when required.
Warrants for his arrest have been
MHOMSIE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"A bird sitting in a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking. Because his trust is not on the
branch but on his own wings."
would be rendered nugatory if an
accused were to be allowed to leave or
to remain, at his pleasure, outside the
territorial confines of the country.
Holding an accused in a criminal case
within the reach of the Courts by
preventing his departure from the
Philippines must be considered as a valid
restriction on his right to travel so that he
may be dealt with in accordance with law.
The offended party in any criminal
proceeding is the People of the
Philippines. It is to their best interest
that criminal prosecutions should run
their course and proceed to finality
without undue delay, with an accused
holding himself amenable at all times to
Court Orders and processes.
ALBA-NOTES:
Q: State the constitutional provision on
the liberty of abode.
ANS: 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,
and public health, as may be provided by
law. (section 6, Art III, 1987
Constitution).

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 19
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

travel is subject to the regulation for

Q: The heirs of the late President
Marcos wanted to bring his remains
back to the Philippines, but President
Aquino decided otherwise. The
decision was questioned as depriving
him of the liberty of abode. Was the
contention correct? Why?
ANS – No, because the demand to return
cannot be considered solely on the
constitutional guarantee of liberty of
abode and the right to travel. Since
Marcos posed a serious threat to the
national security, interest and welfare,
President Aquino had the power to
prevent his return as she was clothed
with extraordinary power in times of war
and peace. The power involved was the
residual power to protect the general
welfare of the people, founded on the
duty as steward of the people. (Marcos vs.
Manglapus, GR no. 88211, September 15,
1989).
public interest. (PASEI VS. DRILON)
Q: Manotoc was charged with Estafa
and posted a bail bond. He filed a
motion for leave to travel abroad to
attend to business concerns. It was
denied. Before the Supreme Court, he
contended that the denial was a
violation of his right to travel. Was the
contention correct? Why?
ANS – No, a court has the power to
prohibit a person admitted to bail from
leaving the Philippines. If he were allowed
to leave the Philippines, he may be placed
beyond the reach of the court. He has not
shown any necessity for his travel abroad
(Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals). A court
has the power to prohibit a person
admitted to bail from leaving the
Philippines. This is a necessary
consequence of the nature and function of
a bail bond.

Q: Department Order No. 1, Series of

1988 of the Department of Labor and
Employment prescribed guidelines on
temporary suspension of deployment
of Filipino domestic and household
workers abroad. It was questioned as
unconstitutional as it restricted the
right to travel. Was the contention
proper? Why?
ANS – No, because it did not put a total
ban on overseas employment. The right to
Q: PCGG sequestered two (2)
government firms on the basis of the
claim that the Marcoses owned 60% of
the shares of stocks. It also issued as
order prohibiting the petitioners from
leaving the country as they were
preventing or obstructing the
operation of the company. Was the
order proper? Why?

MHOMSIE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"A bird sitting in a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking. Because his trust is not on the
branch but on his own wings."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 20
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

ANS – No, the petitioner’s right to travel
has been impaired. Since the PCGG has
already taken over the companies their
operation can no longer be obstructed. If
petitioners were obstructing the
operations of the companies, it would be
better that they be out of the country. The
right to travel is guaranteed to all
residents irrespective of nationality.
(Kant Kwong vs. PCGG)
Q: X applied for travel permit to go
abroad, but despite a very lengthy
period that had elapsed, his papers
have not been approved or processed.
Was there a violation of the right to
travel? Why?
ANS – Yes, because unnecessary delays in
the processing of the travel papers is
violative of the right to travel. (Salonga
vs. Hermoso)
Q: Suppose a maid from the province
who came to Manila through an agency
which paid her transportation
expenses, changes her mind and would
like to go home two (2) days thereafter.
Can the agency force her to stay since
the expenses have not been paid?
Why?
ANS – No, she cannot be detained or
forced to stay. That would amount to
involuntary servitude and would impair
the right to change her abode. (Caunce vs
Salazar).
Q: Is there a violation of the liberty of
abode and travel, what remedies are
available?
ANS – In case of violation of liberty of
abode and of travel, the aggrieved party
can file a petition for mandamus or file an
action for damages. (See Article 32 of the
New Civil Code; Aberca vs. Ver)
Q: Accused was charged with violation
of the Securities Act. He posted bail for
his provisional liberty. In a move to
cancel his passport, the court cancelled
it to prevent him from leaving the
country. He was found to have left the
country without the permission of the
court. On Appeal to the SC, he argued
that the CA erred in finding that the
right to travel can be impaired upon
lawful orders of the court even on
grounds other than the interest of
national security, public safety and
public health. Is the contention
correct? Why?
ANS – No, In Silverio vs Court of Appeals,
GR No. 94284, it was held that Silverio’s
theory that under the 1987 constitution
courts can impair the right to travel only
on the ground of “national security, public
safety, or public health” is not well taken,
his argument that the Manotoc ruling to

MHOMSIE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"A bird sitting in a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking. Because his trust is not on the
branch but on his own wings."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 21
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

the effect that the condition imposed
upon the accused admitted to bail to
make himself available at all times
whenever the court requires his presence
operates as a valid restriction on the right
to travel no longer holds under the 1987
Constitution, is far from tenable. The
nature and function of a bail bond has
remained unchanged whether under the
1935, the 1973, or the 1987 Constitution.
Silverio is facing a criminal charge. He
posted bail bus has violated the
conditions thereof by failing to appear
before the court when required. Warrants
for his arrest have been issued. These
orders and processes would be rendered
nugatory if an accused were to be allowed
to leave or to remain, at his pleasure,
outside the territorial confines of the
country.
Holding an accused in a criminal case
within the reach of the courts, by
preventing his departure from the
Philippines must be considered as a valid
restriction on his right to travel so that he
may be dealt with in accordance with the
law. The offended party in a criminal
proceeding is the people of the
Philippines. It is to their best interest that
the criminal prosecution should run their
course and proceed to finality without
undue delay, with an accused holding
himself amenable at all timed to court
orders and processes.
The condition imposed upon an accused
to make himself available at all times
whenever the court requires his presence
MHOMSIE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"A bird sitting in a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking. Because his trust is not on the
branch but on his own wings."
operates as a valid restriction of his right
to travel. A person facing criminal charges
may be restrained by the court from
leaving the country or, if abroad, may be
compelled to return. Also, an accused
released on bail may be re-arrested
without the need of a warrant if he
attempts to depart from the Philippines
without prior permission of the court
where the case is pending.
Q: During the pendency of an anti-graft
case against Miriam Defensor Santiago,
the Sandiganbayan issued a hold
departure order against her without
any motion by the prosecution. The
Sandiganbayan merely considered the
information in media to the effect that
she intended to leave the country for
study purposes. Before the Supreme
Court, she contended that the hold
departure order violated her right to
due process, right to travel and
freedom of Speech. Decide.
ANS – The Sandiganbayan can take
judicial notice of the plan of Santiago to go
abroad and thereafter issue a sua sponte
the hold departure order. The hold
departure order is but an exercise of the
court’s inherent power to preserve and
maintain the effectiveness of its
jurisdiction over the case and the person
of the accused. It has the power to make
interlocutory orders necessary to protect
its jurisdiction. (Miriam Defensor-
Santiago vs. Conrado Vasquez et.al).

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 22
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Q: Cannot Miriam invoke her right to

travel which maybe impaired only
when so required by the interest of
national security, public safety or
public health, as may be provided by
law and that since she is leaving to
pursue further studies, there is no
sufficient justification for the
impairment of her right to travel.
Explain.
ANS – No. When she posted bail which
was legally declared valid and complete
despite her absence at the time of the
filing thereof, she assumed an obligation
to hold herself amenable at all times to
the orders and processes of the court. She
may therefore, be legally prohibited from
leaving the country during the pendency
of the case. (Santiago vs. Vasquez).
The basic reason for the rule is found in
People vs Uy Tuising where it was said
that inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the
courts from which orders and processes
were issued does not extend beyond that
of the Philippines, they would have no
binding force outside of jurisdiction.

MHOMSIE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"A bird sitting in a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking. Because his trust is not on the
branch but on his own wings."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER

Page | 23