Topic: Historical and Constitutional Considerations

#9: Genuino v. De Lima (Reyes, Jr., J.; En Banc, 2018)

DOCTRINE: In the absence of a court order, the administrative

authorities, acting in interest of national security, public safety, or
public health, cannot impose limitations on a person’s
constitutional right to travel without an explicit statutory
provision.

The delegated legislative power to the Executive to prescribe rules

and regulations is different from the inherent power of the
Executive to adopt rules to execute or implement the law. If the
rule-making power is inherently a legislative power, then it is a
delegated legislative power that the Executive can exercise only if
there is an existing law – complete in itself and with sufficient
standards prescribed – conferring the expressed authority to
promulgate rules. If the rules are issued by the Executive in
implementation or execution of self-executory constitutional
powers, then the rule-making power is not a delegated legislative
power, and the Executive can execute the law without any
delegation of power from the Legislature.

SUMMARY: The Genuinos and former president Gloria

Macapagal-Arroyo assailed the constitutionality of the
Department of Justice’s Circular No. 41, s. 2010 (DOJ Circular 41)
governing the issuance of Hold Departure Orders (HDOs), Watch
List Orders (WLOs) and Allow Departure Orders (ADOs), on the
ground that it infringed on the constitutional right to travel. The
SC declared that DOJ Circular 41 was unconstitutional and the DOJ
had no authority to issue it.

ISSUE: Whether DOJ had the authority to issue Circular 41 – NO

RULING: There was no law particularly providing for the authority

of the DOJ Secretary to curtail the exercise of the right to travel.
The circular was an unauthorized act, which ran afoul the
separation of powers. The issuance of HDOs is an exercise of the
courts’ inherent power to preserve and maintain effective
jurisdiction over the case and the person of the accused.
Moreover, DOJ Circular 41 did not come under the inherent
power of the Executive Department to adopt rules and regulations
since the issuance of HDO, WLO, or ALO was not the DOJ’s
business. On its own, the DOJ cannot make rules, its authority
being confined to execution of laws.