Right to Travel

-under the constitution the right to travel shall not be impaired.

Except:

1. Lawful order of the court

2. In the interest of national security, public safety, public health as may be provided for by law.

**TAKE NOTE: there are only 2 instances that your right to travel may be impaired.

*When the court lawfully order you to be prohibited from traveling abroad(for example). Thus, a fact that you have a
pending civil case in court, will entitled or authorized by the court to ban you from traveling abroad?

=NO, even though you are facing a civil case tha you are defendant in a collection case for several millions of pesos tha
pendency of the civil case is never a bar TO YOUR RIGHT TO TRAVEL ABROAD. The court can LAWFULLY BAN you for
traveling abroad only if you have PENDING CRIMINAL CASES.

*WHAT KINDS OF CRIMINAL CASES that the court may lawfully order you NOT RO BE ALLOWED TO TRAVEL ABROAD?

**TAKE NOTE: If your criminal cases regarding of its number is pending BEFORE the Municipal Trial Court you are FREE
TO TRAVEL ABROAD because MTC have NO AUTHORITY to issue hold departure order. REGARDLESS of the number of
criminal cases pending agains you before the municiapl trial court; estafa, physical injuries theft and so on provided
these are within JURISDICTION of thr MTC you are free to travel abroad.

That leads us the criminal cases pending the Regional Trial Court or before the Sandigan Bayan. HOLD DEPARTURE can
be lawfully issued by the RTC's and the Sandigan Bayan where your criminal cases are pending.

**THERE ARE 2 KINDS PF CRIMINAL CASES before the Sandigan Bayan or the RTC.

1. Bailable criminal cases before the RTC or Sandigan Bayan

2. Non-bailable cases pending before the RTC and the Sandigan Bayan

*If your criminal cases before the RTC or the Sandigan Bayan is not bailable you do not talk about your right to travel
abroad because YOU ARE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO LEAVE THE JAIL in order to take a bath in your residence with more
reeason that you cannot be allowed to travel abroad where the court will lose jurisdiction over you.

The RIGHT TO TRAVEL if your criminal case before the RTC or the Sandigan Bayan is bailable.

**AS A RULE: can you travel abroad if you have a criminal case pending before the RTC or Sandigan Bayan?

=YES, BUT it is NOT ABSOLUTE.

*REQUISITES when you will be allowed travel abroad during the pendency of your criminal case before the Sansigan
Bayan or any regional trial court.

***CASES:

Father Robert Reyes vs. Court of Appeals and the Secretary of Justice

-Father Reyes was one of the 50 arrested individuals in connection with the Makati Sheds in 2007. All of them were
charged of rebellion, but his lawyer filed a motion to quash before the RTC of Makati and it was granted and therefore,
the rebellion case as against him was dismissed by the RTC of makati but before the dismissal of rebellion case, secretary
of justice Gonzales issued a hold departure order against him and that was submitted to the employees of BID at the
NAEIA. At their computers where they will check going in passengers the philippines to other countries in there record
there is a hold departure order issued by the DOJ secretary against F.Reyes.

-normally its only the courts could ISSUE A HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER because you have a pending criminal case before
the RTC or Sandigan Bayan.

*-is there any law that AUTHORIZES THE secretary of Justice to issue a hold departure order just because there is a pe
ding case being investigated before the fiscals or prosecutors office and NOT YET FILED IN COURT.
= There is NONE, BUT the secretary of justice ossued the the DOJ cirular stating the Secretary of Justice may issue a hold
departure order against people with pending criminal cases before the diff. City and provincial prosecutors office. HE IS
THE ONE GIVING THE AUTHORITY to himself that is why it was questiones by F. Reyes. Unfortunately he filed a petition
for a Writ of Amparo before the Supreme Court because whenever he travels abroad he was always being interviewed
by the BID agents at the NAEIA question him abaout the pending hdo which still apears in their computer. Despite the
fact that the rebillion case filed against him was already dismissed by the court. But the secretary of justice has not lifted
that all departure order that he issued.

Fortunately, F. Reyes was never prevented from traveling abroad. Despite the fact there is that hdo. What he does not
like is that, they kept on stopping him at the NAEIA and was ask about of the hdo which will take about several min. Of
his time before he is ALLOWED to board his plane.

- the SC dismiss his petition for Writ of Amparo because it is a wrong remedy. You can file the petition based on the
Writ of Amparo in only 2 CASES:

1. Extra Jidicial Killings

2. Inforced disappearances

*It does not involve the right to travel. He should have filed a different petition not a petition for a writ of amparo
because this has a limited subject matter.

**TAKE NOTE: that the SC did rule on WON the secretary of justice has a power to issue a hold departure order because
the is no approriate case yet filed in order to satisfy the 4 requisites of judicial review (article 8 of the constitution)

**Second sentence of sec. 6: neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest od national security,
public safety or public health as may be provided for by law. You can also be DENIED THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL if there is a
LAW involving national security, public safety, or public health which applies to you. Meaning, you are considered or you
have a pending case as a terrorist involving your anti-terrorism law.

* Can you be prevented from travelling?

=YES, if there is a law involving national security, (public safety, or public health) in connection with your case.

Question: is there a law ivolving national security on terrorism?

=YES, therefore of you have a pending case an anti-terrorism case against you, since there is a law involving that, they
can impair your right to travel. Public Health as may be provided for by law.

*Is there a law for example, prohibiting people aflicted with leprosy from travelling.

=YES, therefore if you are aflicted with leprosy they can bring you to a lyprusarium to be treated there instead of
allowing you your right to travel.

=They cannot hold you if you have a such virus with you because there is no law involving sarce. But they can still
prevent you from boarding because these are private entities and if they will not allow you to do so then you cannot do
anything.(private entities, search and seizure, you enter sm they tried to frisk you, and you say you do not have the right
to freeze m because you have no search warrant- that cannot be a valid reason because you have entered a private
entities ang they have their own regulation. Only it is applicable against to government not against private.

** Marcos vs. Secretary of foreign affairs Raul Manglapos

P. Marcos and his family left for hawai during the edsa revolution. Later on, he was charged of hundreds civil and
criminal cases before the sandigan bayan for the killings allegedly that happened for more than 20 yrs during jis reign as
Pre. As well as numerous civil cases involving his alleged ill gotten wealth. He wants to return to the philippines and
answer all those criminal and civil cases filed against him. He does not have a travel document because his passport had
long expired. He requested a passport from the DFA the secretary refused to issue him. Despite the fact he is saying he
wants to return to the country in order to face those filed against him.

The government himself is saying no despite the fact that in other accuses who were able to go any other country to
escape trial for crimes committed in the philppines we are spending millions of pesos in order to extradite them ang try
them before philippine courts.
A man who was charged of many criminal cases is volunteering to return to the country arrests him when he arrives at
the NAIA imprison him but the philippine government is the one Saying no you are not allowed to come.

*Marcos went to the SC invoking his right to travel because he is a filipino citizen and said i have the right to travel from
my place in hawaii to my home land philippines.

*IS HE CORRECT IN INVOKING THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL?

=The ponente in this case is justice irene cortez allegedly the best constitutional professor of up law. She said that he
cannot return to the philippines, Marcos has No Right To Travel going home to the philippines because what he is asking
is not the right to travel but the right to return.

=Jutice Cortez said that under international law the righ to travel and the right to return are 2 distinct rights. If you are a
filipino and you want to go to the US and to the other countries then you can invoke the right to travel.

=BUT IF YOU ARE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY trying to return to the Philippnes the right involved is not right to travel but it
is the right to return. What is the basis of Justice Cortez in making that distinction, she sights the international
humanitarian law, according to her section 13 deals with the right to travel and section 14 deals with right to return
therefore, if we have to amend the constitution later on we should nake it clear that under section 6 the right to travel
meaning the philippines to the other country and the right to return where you are in another country trying to return
to the philippines otherwise you cannot us the right to travel as a MEANS OF RETURNING to the PHILIPPINES.

**TAKE NOTE: since there was no previous AUTHORITY or DECISIONS of the SC involving the same issue when the right
to travel is one involving a person abroad returning to the philippines what was used by Justice Cortez was the universal
universal declaration of human rights. BUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS prevails over international law. Unfortunately,
it is not clear in the section 4 article 3 whether the same applies to the right to travel (from philippines to another
country or you are from another country returning to the philippines).

At PRESENT IN SO FAR AS JURISPRUDENCE concerned, the right if you will travel from the philippines to US or other
country that is the right to travel that is covered by section 6. But if you are in another country trying to returned into
your home land philippines as if that is not covered by section 6.

** Caonka vs. Salazar

A mother and a daughter they are both poor, they came far from barangay province of Abra(as an example). They came
to Baguio City and looking for the place and the young daughter will work as a house mate. They were able to find A, the
agreement is that she will be paid 5k a month and from jan. 2023 up to dec 2023 her mother ask the employer A if she
can have the salary year the advance to her and the employer agreed. 60k was paid in advance by the employer so that
the daughter will work for 1 year.

The mother left Baguio City, together with the 60k. The young girl is really industrious that the neighbor. When a
neighbor observed how she is very industrious she was asked how much is your salary here? You want to work for me I
will double your salary I will make it 10k, but the employees refuses to allow her to go to the other house because there
is a valid contract to stay with her and work for 1 year and it is only 3 months, the employer said i will not allow you,
unless you return the salary advanced for the remaining 9 months of the year. Can that be done by the employer, YES
because they have a valid contract. A contract is has a forced and effect of a valid law.

=The SC, NO because you are VIOLATING the right of the young girl to travel. You cannot stop her from going to the
other side because she wants to work there the salary is higher. Do you have a right against her?= Yes, there is the
contract which has the forced and effect of law and she breach that contract.

=The available remedy under the law, you can file a damage suit against her and her mother for breach of contract but
you can never stop her from travelling or going to the other side because she is INVOKING a more SUPPERIOR RIGHT and
that is the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to travel and what you are invoking only is the right under you contract or law.

=In case of conflict between a constitutional right and a right under the law obviously the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
WILL PRRVAIL.
**KWong vs. PCJJ

Kwong is a foteign national, he and his companions owns 33% of a corporation belived to be a dummy of former
president Marcos. Under the law creating the PCJJ. They have the right to sequester these corporations as well as
prevent the officials of this corporation from tavelling abroad. Naturally, they were not allowed to travel abroad just
because of there alleged connection to corporations lee to former president Marcos. Its been more than a year because
the EDSA REVOLUTION HAPPENED IN 1986 they were already prevented from leaving the country.

Under you PCJJ law, the PJCC is authorized to issue a HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER but only for a period of 6 months and
that period has lapsed, no case was filed against Kwong and company before the Sandigan Bayan or an court.

=The SC said in the decision dated December 1987, the 6th month period the validity of any hold departure order that
may be issued by the PCJJ had long lapsed therefore, we CANNOT PREVENT them from RETURNING to their country
that Will VIOLATE THEIR RIGHT TO TRAVEL.

**Manutoc vs. CA

(Involves, are you entitled to travel abroad if you have a PENDING CASE before the rtc of the Sandigan Bayan which is
bailable)

*TAKE NOTE: Manutoc has a pending criminal case before the rtc. He has a very important business to attend to abroad
and want to travel.

The SC said, you can be allowed to travel abroad but you must comply to the following REQUISITES:

1. You have to EXPLAIN to the court the URGENCY of your travel abroad.

For example: imelda marcos ask a permit to travel abroad because she wants to her cataract be operated by his
optalmologist in los angeles california. It was denied because it is not urgent, that problem of eperating of cataract can
be done in the philippines we have a very competent optalmologist to do that.

=You have to CONVIENCE the court that your travel abroad is URGENT(important) may be like treatment abroad which
could not be done here in the philippines like aflicted with cancer ang we know that stanford hospital in california is the
best for the entire universe who could perform an operation involving cancer.

2. DURATION of your travel abroad

**TAKE NOTE: in criminal cases or all other countries under the rules of court here in the philippines we usually have
cases scheduled at least once a month.

In fact under your speady trial law your case will be scheduled for 1-4 hearings in 1 month therfore, you should be hear
for trial.

**REQUISITES OF DURATION TRAVEL ABROAD

=During the time in the 1990's when former senator meriam defensor was yet the BID commissioner she had a pending
graft cases before the sandigan bayan but she received a scholarship grant from the harvard law school for her to
complete her doctor of law, that is a once in a lifetime opportunity. She asked the Sandigan Bayan if she be allowed to
travel abroad to boston massachusetts to complete her doctor of laws in 2yrs..

=It was denied because the duration is very long. Therefore your case will be archived for 2 yrs during that time the
witnesses against you might have be dead when you will return after 2 years. That is why it is not justified and you
cannot travel abroad if what you are asking is the duration of that travel last for 2 yrs. May be 30 days, you can be
accommodated because you will be back for the next hearing. 3rd req, CONSENT of the surety. **T AKE NOTE: when you
are arrested at a bailable offense there are 4 ways in order to post bond under rule 114 of the criminal procedure.

1. Cash Bond - need not be posted by you. It can be posted by your parents, brother, or friends so it is in their name.

2. Property Bond (the same is through with the property bond)- it could be the titled property the house and lot and
another person used as your bail bond. Deposit in court for your provisional liberty.
3. Surety Bond - an insurance company will guarantee your presence in court before you scheduled hearing. Therefore,
if you allowed to travel abroad they have to give their consent because if you will not return to the philippines you will
be considered to have run away from your case. Therefore, the bail bond posted in your favor, the cash bond posted by
another person, the person who used his house and lot as their bail bond or the insurance company will be required by
the government to pay the bond.

(For example, if A posted 200k for your provisional liberty that 200k will be forfeited by the government because that
person failed you to present you in court during the hearing of your case. The same is true by the one who posted your
property bond or the insurance company which guaranteed your presence in court because they have no control
anymore over you if you want to jump bail while while you are abroad. May be you know that you are guilty or the
evidence presented against you is strong and with that the bail bond that they posted will be forfeited in favor of the
government. They have to give their consent because they will be the one to suffer in case you will jump bail abroad you
will no longer return to the philippines.

*TAKE NOTE: even if you are willing to comply with those 3 requisites( question 6 final exam) there is still a another
reason why you might not be allowed to travel abroad, not because you can satisfy, the 3 requisites in Manutoc that
you can now travel abroad.

**Silverio vs. CA

Silverio is a business man like Manutoc he wants to travel abroad. He is willing to comply with the 3, may be what
duration he is talking about 15 days and the travel abroad is urgent. Also, he is even willing to add additional cash bond.

=It was denied by the court because the court has discretion.

When during your trial you were always absent, you were not religiously attending your case as if you are not giving
important to the jurisdiction of the court by attending your court cases. Whatmore if you are already outside the
country you might no longer return to the country to face the case, with that, the court will VALIDLY denied the
application of Selvierio to travel abroad even though he could comply with the 3 requisites in the Manutoc.

MANUTOC DOCTRINE( in so far as the constitutional right to travel is concern) those are the 3.

Question 5 finals: what is the Manutoc Doctrine

(Another)

*Manutoc vs. CA a land mark case aside from the Manutoc vs. CA that is we ate discussing now.

Question 6: the Manutoc Doctrine, the land mark case in expropriation cases which will be discussing at section 9,
PRIVATE PROPERTY shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. And that is where the 2nd Manutoc
Doctrine will be discussed.

4. Recognizance

**Villa Visencio vs. Lucban

-a case decided under the 1935 constitution.

GRO's in ermita malate, the city mayor of manila lucban is already tired hearing that manila is the seen city of Asia. They
have the most have the most number of red light district of night club cabaraise and so on He wants these GROs or
women of refute that she describe to have a very descent life.

One night the women working as gross in the diff night clubs of Manila were brought to two ships waiting for th an later
on they were brought to davao city so that they will be given a decent work.

When they arrived in Davao they were given carabaos and other farm materials. They were given 5 hectares to till you
will have a decent work where they can earn income.

Their parents, their friends, filed a case for a writ of habeas corpuz before the SC regardless of the very good intention of
the city mayor of Manila his act of bringing th to Davao without their consent violates their right to locomotion.
*What is that right of locomotion

*How does it compared to the right to travel, under the 1935 constitution, we do not have provision on the right to
travel.

What is the right to locomotion?

=Right to locomotion is the same as the right to travel that word was used in connection with the 1935 constitution.
Regardless of a very good intention of the mayor in giving them a very nice work/ decent job if that is against the right to
travel.

That right tp travel prevails over the very good intention of any official.

**Salonga vs. Hermoso