Genuino v.

De Lima, GR 197930, 17 April

SYNOPSYS:

- A Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition has been filed against former DOJ Secretary Delima
over the issue of DOJ Circular No. 41. Known as the "Consolidated Rules and Regulations
Governing Issuance and Implementation of Hold Departure Orders (HDO), Watch list Orders
(WLO), and Allow Departure Orders (ADO)," series of 2010, they were published in 2010.

FACTS:

- Against former DOJ Secretary Delima, who issued DOJ circular no. 41, the case is a
consolidation of a petition for certiorari and a prohibition. referred to as the "Consolidated
Rules and Regulations Governing Issuance and Implementation of Hold Departure Orders
(HDO), Watch list Orders (WLO), and Allow Departure Orders (ADO)". The petitioners argue
that this DOJ circular violates the right to travel guaranteed by the constitution and thereby
calls into doubt its constitutionality.
- Efraim and Erwin Genuino, the former president's husband, and Gloria Arroyo are the
petitioners in these merged cases. In response to criminal complaints of looting, qualified
theft, and violation of the Omnibus Election Code brought against the petitioners, the former
DOJ Secretary De Lima issued HDO and WLO. most notably petitioners.

ISSUE/S:

-Whether or not the DOJ Circular No. 41 violates the right to travel and is therefore unlawful

RULING:

- Yes because The issuance of Watch list Orders (WLOs) and Hold Departure Orders, which
essentially restrict the ability to travel, is not authorized by the DOJ under DOJ Circular No. 41.
(HDOs). National security, public safety, or public health are the only three factors that may
allow a restriction on the right to travel. Additionally, the impairment must be specifically
allowed either by statute law or court rules.
- The DOJ Circular No. 41 is not a legal document. It is merely an administrative issuance
intended to carry out the terms of an enabling statute; it is not a legislative act. The DOJ is not
permitted to impose travel restrictions through the issuance of WLOs and HDOs. The
demands outlined in the statement are not mentioned.

DOCTRINES:

- 1987 Constitution provides three considerations that may permit a restriction on the right to
travel: national security, public safety or public health. As a further requirement, there must be
an explicit provision of statutory law or the Rules of Court providing for the impairment.
https://www.scribd.com/document/385409544/Genuino-vs-de-Lima-Right-to-Travel