SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
]
GENUINO V DE LIMA
I. Recit-ready summary
WARNING: THE CASE IS LONG SO USE THE RECIT-READY SUMMARY
AT YOUR OWN RISK. IT WILL BE MUCH SAFER TO READ THE
RATIONALE 
This is a consolidated case where petitioners assail the constitutionality of the
following DOJ Circulars and Orders claiming that it infringes on the constitutional
right to travel. These areL Consolidated Rules and Regulations Governing
Issuances and Implementation of Hold Departure Orders (HDO), Watchlist Orders
(WLO) and Allow Departure Orders (ADO).
Petitioner Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo seeks the invalidation of the Order which
denied her application for an Allow Departure Order. While petitioners Efraim C.
Genuino, Erwin F. Genuino and Sheryl Genuino-See pray for the nullification of
the Hold-Departure Order.
GMA CASE:
After GMA’s presidency has ended, various criminal complaints were filed
against her before the DOJ. Because of this, De Lima issued the DOJ WLO
against GMA pursuant to the authority given to her by Circular 41. She also
ordered the inclusion of GMA in the watchlist so that GMA won’t be able to leave
the country.
GMA requested for an issuance of an ADO so that she may be able to seek
medical attention abroad. She also filed a TRO and/or preliminary injunction to set
aside the DOJ Circular 41, claiming that it is unconstitutional. De Lima denied her
application. However, the court resolved to issue the TRO prayed for and enjoined
the inmolenention of the WLOs. GMA then proceeded to NAIA to go to
Singapore. She was refused travel by the authorities. Thus, the court issued a
resolution requiring De Lima to show cause why she shouldn’t cited in contempt
for not complying with the TRO.
GENUINOS CASE:
Complaints alleging malversation were filed against the Genuinos by PAGCOR
for supposed diversion of funds for the film “Baler.” This was followed by
complaints on Plunder for alleged activities of siphoning off PAGCOR funds. The
petitioners prayef ro the HDOs against them to be lifted. This was denied. Hence,
the present petition.
MAIN ISSUE: WON DOJ has the authority to issue DOJ Circular No. 41. NO.
SC held that the DOJ Circular has no legal basis. There is no law providing for the
authority of the secretary of justice to curtail the exercise of the right to travel in
G.R. NO:
ARTICLE; Article 3, Sec. 6 || TOPIC OF CASE: HDO
[April 17, 2018.
GENUINO V DE LIMA
the interest of national security, public safety or public health. DOJ Circular 41 is
not law; it is a mere administrative issuance that did not go through the scrutiny of
legislative enactment.
With regard to the assertion that there is a necessity of restraint because of the
undergoing preliminary investigations, SC held that the conduct of a preliminary
investigation doesn’t require that the accused to be there. There is also no authority
of law granting it the power to compel the attendance of the subjects of preliminary
investigation.
With regard to the right to travel, SC held that on its face, the language of the
issuances doesn’t contain an explicit restraint to travel, that it only shows a mere
directive for the Bureau of Investigation to officials to include the named individuals
in their watchlist. However, the restrictions in the right to travel can actually be seen
in the implied fact that the individual wanting to leave had to seek permission from
the court during the pendency of the case against him. They cannot also leave unless
the preliminary investigation has been terminated.
The exceptions to the right to travel are limited to those explicitly mentioned in Sec.
6 of Art. 3. SC held that DOJ cannot justify its imposition of restriction on the right
to travel by resorting to analogy since DOJ doesn’t have an inherent power to issue
HDO, unlike the courts. DOJ is limited to the powers expressly granted to it by law
and may not extend the same by its own accord or by any skewed interpretation of
its authority.
Therefore, SC held that the Circular is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
II. Facts of the case
 This is a consolidated case where petitioners assail the constitutionality
of the following DOJ Circulars: and Orders claiming that it infringes on
the constitutional right to travel. These are:
o Consolidated Rules and Regulations Governing Issuances and
Implementation of Hold Departure Orders (HDO), Watchlist
Orders (WLO) and Allow Departure Orders (ADO).
 Petitioner Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo seeks the invalidation of the Order
which denied her application for an Allow Departure Order. While
petitioners Efraim C. Genuino, Erwin F. Genuino and Sheryl Genuino-
See pray for the nullification of the Hold-Departure Order.
GMA CASE:
 History of HDOs, ADOs, WLOs
o 1998 - DOJ Secretary Bello issued DOJ Circular 17 prescribing
the rules and regulations on the issuance of HDOs. It intended to
PONENTE: Reyes, Jr.
DIGEST MAKER: Alec Parafina
 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
GENUINO V DE LIMA
restrain its indiscriminate issuance which impinges on the
people’s right to travel
o 2007 – DOJ Secretary Gonzaels issued DOJ Circular 18 which
provided the power of the DOJ Secretary to issue a WLO
against persons with criminal cases pending preliminary
investigation or petition for review before the DOJ. However,
even with this Circular, what remained as the governing rule is
DOJ 17.
o 2010 – Acting DOJ Secretary Agra issued the assailed DOJ
Circular 41, which consolidated 17 and 18 and became the
governing issuance of HDOs, WLOs and ADOs.
 After the expiration of the term of presidency of GMA, various criminal
complaints were filed against her before the DOJ. The complaints charge
her of plunder, malversation, graft and corruption, violation of Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials. Complaints against
her electoral sabotage were also filed against her with the DOJ-
Commission on Elections Joint Investigation Committee.
 Because of this, De Lima issued the DOJ WLO against GMA pursuant
under the authority vested in her by the Circular 41. She also ordered for
the inclusion of GMA in the watchlist.
 In 3 separate letters, GMA requested for the issuance of an ADO, so that
she may be able to seek medical attention abroad for her
hypoparathyroidism and metabolic bone mineral disorder.
 She also filed before the court a prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/or
Writ of Preliminary injunction to annul and set aside the DOJ Circular 41
and WLOs against her. Miguel Arroyo also filed a petition assailing the
constitutionality of DOJ Circular 41.
 De Lima denied Arroyo’s application for an ADO claiming that there is a
discrepancy on the medical condition stated in her affidavit and the
physician’s statements, that there appears to be no need of an urgent
medical emergency, that she had plans to attend conferences abroad
instead of going to her medical consultations, and that PH doesn’t have an
extradition treaty with the countries GMA chose as her destination.
 However, the Court resolved to issue the TRO prayed for by GMA and
enjoined the implementation of the assailed WLOs. Because of this, GMA
proceedings to NAIA to go to Singapore for her medical check-up.
However, she was refused travel.
 Court issued a resolution requiring De Lima to show cause why she should
not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt of court for failing to
comply with the TRO
GENUINOS CASE:
G.R. NO:
ARTICLE; Article 3, Sec. 6 || TOPIC OF CASE: HDO
[April 17, 2018.]
GENUINO V DE LIMA
 An HDO was issued against Genuinos after complaints for Malversation
were filed against them by PAGCOR for the supposed diversion of funds
for the film “Baler”.
 This was followed by the filing of another complaint for Plunder against
the same petitioners, as well as members of the incorporators of BIDA
Production Inc., Wildformat, Inc. and Pencil First Inc., for allegedly
siphoning off PAGCOR funds into the coffers of BIDA entitites.
 Another was filed against Efraim and Erwin for allegedly releasing
PAGCOR funds intended for Philippine Sports Commission directly to the
Philippine Amateur Swimming Association, Inc.
 The petitions prayed for the HDOs against them to be lifted. This was
denied. Thus the present petition.
III. Issue/s
1. WON the Court may exercise its power of judicial review. YES
2. WON DOJ has the authority to issue DOJ Circular No. 41 (where right
to travel was discussed) NO
3. WON there is ground to hold De Lima guilty of contempt COURT
WANTS TO RESOLVE IT IN A SEPARATE PROCEEDING TO
GIE HER A FULL OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HER CASE
AND FOR THE COURT TO DELIBERATE ON HER ALLEGED
DISOBEDIENCE
IV. Ratio/Legal Basis
1. Yes, the court may exercise its power of judicial review despite filing of
information for electoral sabotage
2. No, the issuance of the DOJ Circular No. 41 has no legal basis
CONSTITUION IS INVIOLABLE AND SUPREME OF ALL LAWS
a. First of all, SC emphasized that the Constitution is the
fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation. If a law
or administrative rule violates the Constitution, the issuance will
be deemed null and void and will thus have no effect. The
Constitution contains the guaranteed rights of citizens living in a
democracy. However, this guaranty of liberty does not imply
unbridled license to do whatever one wants to do. It is still
subjected to the requirement that it must not infringe on anyone
else’s equal entitlement
b. The Constitution itself provides for exceptions and restrictions
in order to balance the free exercise of rights and the equally
PONENTE: Reyes, Jr.
DIGEST MAKER: Alec Parafina
 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
GENUINO V DE LIMA
important ends of promoting good, public order and public
safety.
c. In the case at bar, what is in conflict is the petitioner’s right to
travel and the secretary of justice’s right to curtail the exercise
of the right to travel in the interest of national security, public
safety and public health.
RIGHT TO TRAVEL
a. SC held that the right to travel is part of the “liberty” of which a citizen
cannot be deprived without due process of the law. It is part of the
guarantee of freedom of movement that is stated in Sec. 6 of Art. III.
 This provision includes the right to choose one’s residence, to
leave it whenever he pleases and to travel wherever he will.
 The right to travel is not absolute. Sec. 6 provides that the right
to travel may be impaired only in the interest of national
security, public safety or public health.
 Under the provision, there are only 3 considerations that may
permit a restriction on the right to travel:
1. National security
2. Public safety
3. Public Health
But as a further requirement, there must be an explicit provision
of statutory law or the Rules of Court providing for the
impairment. This requirement was added to prevent inordinate
restraints on the person’s right to travel by administrative
officials who may be tempted to wield authority under the guise
of national security, public safety or public health.
 SC also discussed the history of the progression of the provision.
But what it highlighted is that there must be the legislative
requirement; that the impairment of the right to travel must be in
accordance with the prescriptions of the law.
 SC also discussed the need to separate the right to travel and the
liberty of abode.
i. Liberty of abode may only be impaired by a lawful
order of the court
ii. The right to travel may only be impaired by a law that
concerns national security, public safety or public
health. (The 3 considerations can justify the restraint
on the right to travel)
1. This means that the Congress must respond
to the need by explicitly providing for the
restrictions in law. This is in deference to
the primacy of the right to travel, being a
G.R. NO:
ARTICLE; Article 3, Sec. 6 || TOPIC OF CASE: HDO
[April 17, 2018.]
GENUINO V DE LIMA
constitutionally-protected right and not
simply statutory
b. In any case, SC held that when there is a dilemma between an individual
claiming the exercise of a constitutional right vis-à-vis the state’s assertion
of authority to restrict it, any doubt must be resolved in favor of the free
exercise of the right, absent any explicit law to the contrary.
DOJ CIRCULAR 41 HAS NO LEGAL BASIS
- SC holds that there is no law providing for the authority of the secretary of
justice to curtail the exercise of the right to travel in the interest of national
security, public safety or public health.
- DOJ Circular 41 is not a law; it is a mere administrative issuance that did
not go through the scrutiny of legislative enactment.
- SC rejected respondent’s assertion that the Administrative Code of 1987
validly issued to the DOJ Secretary the rule-making powers of the agency.
SC held that even if they do possess quasi-legislative or rule-making
powers, the rules and regulations promulgated by the, should be within the
scope of the statutory authority granted by the legislature to the
administrative agency. It should be a valid delegation of legislative power.
o A strict examination of the provisions relied on by the
respondents show that it doesn’t vest DOJ the authority to issue
DOJ 41, which essentially restricts the right to travel through the
issuance of WLOs and HDOs.
o The provisions of the circular are mere general provisions that
lay down the purpose of the enactment and broad enumeration
of powers and functions of the DOJ
o Sec. 3 also simply grants DOJ the power to investigate the
commission of crime and prosecute its offenders not the
authority to issue WLOs and HDOs to restrict the constitutional
right to travel.
o The circular essentially doesn’t come under the inherent power
of the executive department to adopt rules and regulations.
There must therefore me an existing law, complete and
sufficient in itself to allow this.
- As with regard to the respondent’s contention that there is a necessity of
the restraint imposed in the Circular since without it, the petitioners, who
are under preliminary investigation, can exercise an untrammeled right to
travel, even when their risk of flight is high. They claim that this will
impede the efficient and effective operation of the justice system
o SC held that the conduct of a preliminary investigation doesn’t
require that the accused to be there. There is also no authority of
law granting it the power to compel the attendance of the
subjects of preliminary investigation.
PONENTE: Reyes, Jr.
DIGEST MAKER: Alec Parafina
 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
GENUINO V DE LIMA
o The DOJ’s power is limited is simply inquisitorial and not broad
enough to impose a restrain on liberty. That there is a risk of
flight doesn’t authorize DOJ to take the situation upon itself
through an administrative issuance.
DOJ CANNOT ISSUE THE DOJ CIRCULAR UNDER THE GUISE OF
POLICE POWER
- SC held that on its own, DOJ can’t wield police power since the authority
pertains to Congress. And even if it claims to be acting as the alter ego of
the president, there must still be a definite legislative enactment
evidencing the delegation of power from its principal. The DOJ failed to
do this.
- There is also no showing that the curtailment of the right to travel imposed
in the Circular was reasonable necessary to perform its investigatory
duties.
DOJ CIRCULAR 41 TRANSCENDS CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS
- The apparent vagueness of the circular as to the distinction between HDO
and WLO is violative of the due process clause
o The distinction is significant since it will inform the respondents
of the grounds, effects and measure they may take to contest the
issuance against them. There should also be a standard by which
the HDO and WLO may be issued especially since there is yet
no criminal information against them which could have
warranted the restraint.
- SC also held that DOJ’s assumption of powers is not actually conferred to
them. They had a mistaken impression that the silence of the circular with
regard to the issuance of HDOs in cases falling within the jurisdiction of
the MTC and those pending investigation means that they can take the
initiative in filing the deficiency.
o Court intentionally held that the issuance of the HDOs shall
pertain only to criminal cases under the exclusive jurisdiction of
the RTC and to the exclusion of the criminal cases falling within
the jurisdiction of the MTC. Thus, the circular permits the
intrusion on the right to travel only when the case filed
against the individual is under the jurisdiction of the RTC or
those that pertains to more serious crimes and offenses.
o DOJ Secretary also went overboard in assuming powers which
have been withheld from the lower courts. The assailed circular
gives the DOJ Secretary the power to issue HDO against the
accused in criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the MTC and
the RTC, which is not what is authorized by law.
o The effect of the HDO and WLO in Circular 41 is too obtrusive
as it remains effective even after the lapse of its validity as long
G.R. NO:
ARTICLE; Article 3, Sec. 6 || TOPIC OF CASE: HDO
[April 17, 2018.]
GENUINO V DE LIMA
as the DOJ secretary doesn’t approve of the lifting or
cancellation of the same. Thus the respondent will be
continually restraint from mobility as he waits for the favorable
indorsement of the government agency that requested for the
issuance of the HDO or WLO and the affirmation by the DOJ
Secretary.
o It is also invalid that the circular grants the DOJ Secretary
the sole discretion on whether to permit a person subject of
the HDO or WLO to travel, entirely based on his assessment
of the grounds and upon showing of “exceptional reasons.”
o Essentially, the circular gives the DOJ Secretary the sole
authority in the issuance and cancellation of HDO or WLO
and in the determination of the sufficiency of the grounds for
an ADO. The consequence is that the exercise of the right to
travel of persons subject of preliminary investigations or
criminal cases is based on the sole discretion of the DOJ
Secretary.
 This is exactly what the 1987 constitution wanted to
avoid; to give an executive officer the power to
impose restriction or exercise discretion that
unreasonable impair an individual’s right to travel.
THE SUBJECT WLOs AND THE RESTRAINT ON THE RIGHT TO
TRAVEL IS INVALID
- In the subject WLOs, the illegal restrain on the right to travel was subtly
incorporated in the wordings thereof. SC held that on its face, the language
of the issuances doesn’t contain an explicit restraint to travel, that it only
shows a mere directive for the Bureau of Investigation to officials to
include the named individuals in their watchlist
- However, the restrictions in the right to travel can actually be seen in the
implied fact that the individual wanting to leave had to seek permission
from the court during the pendency of the case against him. They cannot
also leave unless the preliminary investigation has been terminated.
- Moreover, the requirement of an ADO is needed before the subject of the
HDO or WLO is allowed to leave the country is a restraint on the right to
travel. They even have to cite an exception reason to justify the granting
of the ADO.
- The WLO also doesn’t have a significant distinction from the HDO
o This gives an impression that they are one in the same or
complementary such that whatever is not covered in the issuance
of the HDO can conveniently fall under the issuance of a WLO.
This is dangerous since with this all-encompassing provision,
there is nothing that can prevent the SOJ to prevent anyone from
PONENTE: Reyes, Jr.
DIGEST MAKER: Alec Parafina
 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED [April 17, 2018.]
GENUINO V DE LIMA GENUINO V DE LIMA

leaving the country under the guise of national security, public

safety or public health

THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL ARE LIMITED TO

THOSE STATED IN SEC. 6, ART. III OF THE CONSTITUTION
- SC held that DOJ’s contention that Sec. 6, Art. III is not an exclusive
enumeration of the instances wherein the right to travel may be validly
impaired is wrong. As support for its assertion, DOJ cited that this Court
has its own administrative issuances restricting travel of its employees and
that even the lower courts may issue an HDO on the grounds outside of
what is stated in the Constitution.
- SC held that DOJ cannot justify its imposition of restriction on the right to
travel by resorting to analogy since DOJ doesn’t have an inherent power to
issue HDO, unlike the courts. DOJ is limited to the powers expressly
granted to it by law and may not extend the same by its own accord or by
any skewed interpretation of its authority.

THE KEY IS LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT

- SC holds that the DOJ may not promulgate rules that have a negative
impact on constitutionally-protected rights without the authority for a
valid law. Even with the predicament of preventing the proliferation of
crimes and evasion of criminal liability, it may not overstep constitutional
boundaries and skirt the legal processes.
- SC also wanted to emphasize that they realize the dilemma of the DOJ and
stated that the resolution of these issues is aimed at encouraging the
legislature to do its part and enact a law so the DOJ may be able to pursue
its prosecutorial duties without trampling on constitutionally-protected
rights.
- In the meantime, DOJ may remedy its quandary by exercising more
vigilance and efficiency in the performance of its duties. This can be
accomplished by the experience in the assessment of complaints filed
before its office and in the prompt filing of information in court should
there be an affirmative finding of probable cause.

V. Disposition

DOJ Circular 41 is UNCONSTITIONAL. All issuances which were released

pursuant thereto are declared NULL and VOID. The clerk of court is ordered to
REDOCKET the resolution which required respondent Leila De Lima to show cause
why she should not be cited in contempt.

VI. Notes

G.R. NO: PONENTE: Reyes, Jr.

ARTICLE; Article 3, Sec. 6 || TOPIC OF CASE: HDO DIGEST MAKER: Alec Parafina