Auro, Aldrix Levy F.

CrimPro 3rd case digest, 3rd week

Genuino V. De lima
G.R. 197930, April 17, 2018
Efraim Genuino, Erwin F. Genuino, and Sheryl G. See, petitioners
VS
Hon Leila M. De Lima, SoC, and Ricardo V. Paras III, Chief State Counsel, Cristino L. Naguiat Jr., BOI,
respondents
Facts:
Acting DOJ Sec. Agra issued DOJ Circular No, 41 on may 25, 2010 consolidating DOJ Circ. No. 17
and 18, the two latter prescribing rules and regulations governing the issuance of HDO’s and
implementation of watchlist orders. 41 governed the issuance and implementation of HDO’s, WLOS,
and ADO’s. Sec. 10 of DOJ Circ. 41 repealed all rules and regulations contained in DOJ 17 and 18 as well
as instructions and orders which are inconsistent with its own provisions. Upon GMA ending her term,
various criminal complaints were filed against her, prompting respondent De Lima to issue DOJ WLO
2011-422 on August 9, 2011 pursuant to her authority under DOJ Circ. No. 41., preventing GMA to go to
other countries to have medications. GMA then presented a petition for certiorari and prohibition with
prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/or WPI under RoC Rule 65, alleging that DOJ Circ. No. 41 is
unconstitutional as it allegedly infringes the right to travel under Art. III, Sec. 6 of the 1987 Const.

Issue:
Whether DOJ Circ. No. 41 is unconstitutional

Ruling/Held:
Yes. The right to travel may only be impaired by a law that concerns national and public safety,
as well as public health. Only a legislative enactment can impair such right. In this case, DOJ Circ. No. 41
is not a law, and there is no law providing the SoJ to prevent someone from exercising their right to
travel. DOJ. 41 is but an administrative issuance apparently designed to carry out the provisions of an
enabling law, which is the Admin. Code of 1987. It was also stated on the whereas clause of DOJ Circ. 41
that HDO’s shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC’s. this
circular though didn’t say anything with cases falling within the jurisdiction of courts below the RTC and
those pending determination by govt. prosec. Offices. It’s due to this silence that the DOJ caused the
Issuance of DOJ Circ. No. 41. Such an action cannot be done by the DOJ as only the court has the power
to issue HDO’s in their exercise of judicial power “to preserve and maintain the effectiveness of its
jurisdiction over the case and the person of the accused.”