Liberty of Abode and Right to Travel under the Philippine Bill of Rights

1. Constitutional Provision

Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states:

"The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law."

This provision enshrines two fundamental rights:

Liberty of abode and
Right to travel.

These rights, while essential, are not absolute and may be subject to limitations under specific conditions provided by law.

2. Liberty of Abode

Liberty of abode refers to the right of an individual to choose and establish their residence freely. This right includes:

Freedom to choose where to live or reside.
Freedom to change residence without any interference from the government or other parties.

Limitations on the Liberty of Abode

The Constitution allows for the limitation of this right under certain conditions:

Lawful order of the court: The liberty of abode may be restricted only through a lawful order issued by a court, generally in the context of criminal or civil proceedings. For example:
- House arrest: A court may restrict an individual's liberty of abode by ordering house arrest, usually in the case of individuals awaiting trial or under investigation.
- Custodial restrictions: In certain cases, individuals under legal custodial supervision, such as probationers or parolees, may have their liberty of abode restricted by court orders.

Balancing Liberty and State Interests

Courts are required to balance an individual's liberty of abode against the state's interests. The restriction must:

Be necessary for the administration of justice or public order.
Have a specific legal basis (law or court order).
Ensure due process, meaning the person affected must be given an opportunity to be heard before any restriction is imposed.

3. Right to Travel

The right to travel refers to the freedom to move from place to place, both within the country and abroad. This encompasses:

Right to move freely within the country.
Right to travel abroad.

Limitations on the Right to Travel

The Constitution enumerates specific grounds for which the right to travel may be restricted:

In the interest of national security: If the movement of individuals poses a threat to the country's security, the government may impose travel restrictions. Examples include travel bans on individuals with known links to terrorist organizations or in times of internal conflict.
Public safety: Travel may be restricted to protect the public from harm, such as in cases of curfews or lockdowns due to natural disasters or civil disturbances.
Public health: Health emergencies, such as epidemics or pandemics, may warrant restrictions on movement to prevent the spread of diseases. This can take the form of travel bans, quarantines, or lockdowns.

Judicial Interpretation and Exceptions

Presidential Decree No. 1083 (Code of Muslim Personal Laws) allows certain restrictions on a woman's travel under specific marital situations in line with Islamic law. However, this remains subject to constitutional scrutiny for potential violations of equality and non-discrimination.
Habeas corpus: Individuals who believe their right to travel has been unjustly restricted may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their detention or restriction of movement.

Examples of Limitations in Philippine Jurisprudence

Flight risk: Courts may prevent a person facing criminal charges from leaving the country by issuing hold departure orders (HDOs) or precautionary hold departure orders (PHDOs). These are common for individuals charged with serious crimes or facing imminent trial.
Fugitives from justice: Persons who are deemed fugitives from justice may be barred from traveling until they have addressed their legal obligations.

4. Relevant Jurisprudence

Philippine case law provides significant interpretations of these rights, particularly on their limitations:

Genuino v. De Lima (2016): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 41, which allows the DOJ to issue HDOs, citing that the right to travel is not absolute. It can be restricted for reasons grounded on national security, public safety, or public health.
Manotoc v. Court of Appeals (1986): This case involved an individual subject to a hold departure order. The Court clarified that the issuance of an HDO must be based on evidence that the person poses a flight risk. The HDO must also have a clear legal basis.
Silverio v. Court of Appeals (2002): The Supreme Court ruled that while individuals generally have the right to choose their residence, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the courts. In this case, the court ordered the restricted movement of a person facing charges related to fraudulent activities.
David v. Macapagal-Arroyo (2006): In this case, the Court ruled that the President's declaration of a state of emergency was insufficient to justify a nationwide curtailment of the right to travel. The Court emphasized that any restriction must be grounded on the specific exceptions enumerated in the Constitution.

5. Travel Bans and Government Regulation

Government agencies have the authority to impose travel bans under specific circumstances. For instance:

The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) can cancel or deny passports to individuals facing criminal charges or other legal constraints.
The Bureau of Immigration (BI) can prevent individuals from leaving the country if there is a court order or if the person is on a watchlist or hold departure list.

Watchlist Orders and Precautionary Hold Departure Orders

A watchlist order allows the DOJ to monitor individuals who may be involved in legal proceedings but are not yet facing formal charges.
A precautionary hold departure order (PHDO) is issued by the court when an individual is under preliminary investigation for a crime punishable by at least six years of imprisonment. This prevents the individual from fleeing the country before formal charges are filed.

6. Interaction with Other Rights

The liberty of abode and right to travel are intertwined with other constitutional rights and principles, including:

Due process of law: Any restriction on these rights must observe due process, which includes proper notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a court decision based on evidence.
Equal protection of the law: Any restriction must apply uniformly to individuals similarly situated and must not be arbitrary or discriminatory.

7. State of Emergency and Martial Law

During periods of national emergency or martial law, the government may impose additional travel restrictions. However, such restrictions must still conform to the constitutional requirements of necessity, legality, and proportionality. Courts retain jurisdiction to review the validity of restrictions, even under extraordinary circumstances.

8. International Law Perspective

The right to freedom of movement, including the right to choose one's residence and travel freely, is also recognized under international law:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 13): Recognizes the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state and the right to leave and return to one's country.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, Article 12): Protects the right to liberty of movement and the freedom to choose residence. However, like the Philippine Constitution, it permits restrictions for reasons of national security, public order, public health, or morals.

In conclusion, the liberty of abode and right to travel are enshrined in the Bill of Rights under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. While these rights are fundamental, they are not absolute and may be subject to specific limitations provided by law, particularly in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health. Courts play a crucial role in ensuring that any restrictions imposed on these rights are lawful, necessary, and proportionate, in line with the principles of due process and equal protection of the law.