Liberty of Abode and Right to Travel: Scope and Limitations

Legal Basis:
The liberty of abode and the right to travel are enshrined in Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which 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 affirms two distinct but related freedoms: the liberty of abode and the right to travel, both of which are subject to limitations grounded in law.

1. Liberty of Abode

Definition:
The liberty of abode refers to the right of an individual to choose where to live, and to change one’s place of residence. It is a fundamental aspect of personal freedom, connected to the right to privacy, autonomy, and self-determination.

Scope:

A person is free to choose and change their place of residence within the country without interference, except as provided by law.
This right includes both domestic and international relocation, subject to lawful constraints.

Limitations:

Lawful Order of the Court:
The liberty of abode may only be restricted upon a lawful order of the court. For example, a person may be ordered by a court to live within a certain jurisdiction (e.g., house arrest, probation, or parole).
Specific Orders (Example of Restraining Orders):
In cases involving protective or restraining orders, such as those related to domestic violence, a court may mandate that the individual cannot reside within a certain distance of another person.
Special Restrictions (Military and Public Officers):
Certain public officers and military personnel may be subject to limitations on their place of residence, especially if it affects their ability to perform public functions.

Jurisprudence:

Villavicencio v. Lukban (G.R. No. L-14639, 1919):
In this early case, the Supreme Court emphasized that the liberty of abode cannot be violated without legal authority. In this instance, women were forcibly relocated by the government to Davao, and the Court ruled that this was a violation of their liberty of abode.

2. Right to Travel

Definition:
The right to travel guarantees the freedom to move from one place to another, either within the country or across international borders.

Scope:

The right to travel encompasses both domestic and international travel.
It includes the right to leave the country and return without arbitrary interference by the government.

Limitations: The Constitution provides that the right to travel may be restricted only in three specific instances:

In the interest of national security:
Restrictions may be imposed if a person’s travel is deemed to pose a threat to the country’s security. For example, those suspected of espionage or terrorism might have their travel curtailed.
In the interest of public safety:
This includes circumstances where travel might endanger the general public, such as during states of emergency or periods of martial law.
In the interest of public health:
Travel restrictions may be imposed during times of public health crises, such as during pandemics or outbreaks of contagious diseases (e.g., COVID-19 travel restrictions).

Statutory and Jurisprudential Exceptions:

Hold Departure Orders (HDO):
Courts may issue Hold Departure Orders to prevent individuals from leaving the country if they are facing criminal charges or are under investigation. The authority to issue HDOs is found in the Rules of Court and specific laws such as Republic Act No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act).
Watchlist Orders:
Similar to HDOs, Watchlist Orders may be issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) under Department Circular No. 41, placing individuals under monitoring for travel abroad if there are pending legal cases against them. However, in Leila M. De Lima v. Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. (G.R. No. 212426, 2015), the Supreme Court ruled that DOJ Circular No. 41 was unconstitutional, affirming that only courts have the power to restrict the right to travel through lawful orders.
Bail and Travel:
Under the Rules of Court, a person out on bail is generally required to secure permission from the court before traveling abroad. Failure to secure this permission may result in the forfeiture of bail or other sanctions.
Citizenship Issues:
Travel restrictions may also apply in cases involving dual citizenship or expatriation, as regulated by laws such as Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003). A person who has renounced their Filipino citizenship may be barred from entering or exiting the Philippines without proper documentation.
Terrorism and Anti-Money Laundering Laws:
Under Republic Act No. 11479 (Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020), individuals designated as terrorists may have their right to travel curtailed in the interest of national security. Similarly, travel may be restricted under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) when financial transactions linked to criminal activities are suspected.

Special Considerations for Public Officials:
Public officials are sometimes required to secure travel authority from higher government offices before traveling abroad. For instance:

Government employees must seek permission from their department heads.
Military personnel must secure travel clearance in certain cases.

3. Balancing Test: Fundamental Right vs. State Interests

In interpreting and applying the limitations on the right to travel and liberty of abode, courts have consistently employed a balancing test. This test weighs an individual's fundamental right to travel against the state's interest in imposing restrictions based on national security, public safety, or public health.

Strict Scrutiny:
In cases where fundamental rights are involved, courts often apply strict scrutiny to assess whether the restriction serves a compelling state interest and whether it is the least restrictive means available.
Proportionality:
The principle of proportionality demands that restrictions be narrowly tailored and not broader than necessary to achieve the legitimate state purpose.

4. Right to Travel and International Law

Philippines' Obligations under International Law:
The right to travel is also recognized under international human rights instruments to which the Philippines is a signatory, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 12 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to freedom of movement, subject to certain restrictions for reasons of national security, public order, or public health.

Extradition and International Travel:
Extradition laws, particularly Presidential Decree No. 1069 (Philippine Extradition Law), may also affect the right to travel, as persons facing extradition may be subject to temporary detention and travel bans while their case is being processed.

Conclusion:

The liberty of abode and the right to travel are fundamental rights guaranteed under the Philippine Constitution but are not absolute. They may be restricted by lawful court orders or for reasons of national security, public safety, or public health. Any restriction on these rights must comply with statutory and constitutional safeguards, ensuring that the government’s actions are justified, narrowly tailored, and consistent with both domestic law and international obligations.