Liberty of Abode and Right to Travel (Article III, Section 6, 1987 Philippine Constitution)

1. Constitutional Provision: Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution guarantees the right to liberty of abode and the right to travel:

“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 outlines two fundamental rights:

Liberty of Abode: The right to choose where to live.
Right to Travel: The right to freely move within the country and internationally, subject to certain limitations.

These rights, however, are not absolute. They can be restricted under specific conditions or pursuant to lawful authority.

2. Watch-List and Hold Departure Orders

Watch-list and hold departure orders (HDOs) are mechanisms by which the government can restrict an individual's right to travel, particularly to leave the country, usually to secure the presence of a person in judicial or administrative proceedings or to prevent flight from justice.

A. Legal Framework

The issuance of Watch-list and Hold Departure Orders is grounded in specific statutes and rules, notably:

Administrative issuances by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Immigration (BI)
The Rules of Court and jurisprudence

These orders involve a balancing act between safeguarding the right to travel and ensuring the enforcement of justice or national security interests.

B. Types of Orders

Watch-List Order (WLO)
- A Watch-List Order places an individual under a watch-list by the Bureau of Immigration (BI), notifying the BI of any attempt by the individual to leave the country. While this order does not outright bar a person from traveling, it signals to authorities to monitor the movements of the person, usually due to an ongoing investigation or proceedings.
- Basis for Issuance:
  - Ongoing investigation or preliminary investigation by the DOJ or law enforcement agencies
  - Requests from law enforcement agencies or courts to monitor an individual suspected of being involved in criminal activities
  - The WLO is generally valid for a period of 60 days and may be extended or lifted depending on the circumstances.
Hold Departure Order (HDO)
- A Hold Departure Order (HDO) prevents an individual from leaving the Philippines. It is a more restrictive measure than a WLO because it effectively bars the person from traveling outside the country. This order is typically issued by courts or competent authorities under specific legal circumstances.
- Issuance by Courts:
  - Criminal Cases: The court can issue an HDO if the person is charged with a crime and it believes there is a risk of flight to evade prosecution.
  - Civil Cases: An HDO may also be issued in civil cases, especially if the subject matter involves the custody of children or where the travel might frustrate court proceedings.
- Issuance by the Department of Justice: The DOJ may issue an HDO in cases of persons under investigation or where there is sufficient reason to believe the person may flee the country before charges are filed.
Precautionary Hold Departure Order (PHDO)
- A Precautionary Hold Departure Order is issued before formal charges are filed. Under A.M. No. 18-07-05-SC, the Supreme Court of the Philippines issued guidelines on the issuance of PHDOs. These are different from HDOs in that they are preventive and used by prosecutors during preliminary investigations.
- Grounds for Issuance:
  - Issued only in cases where the crime involved is punishable by at least six (6) years and one (1) day imprisonment.
  - There is a strong likelihood that the person charged will attempt to flee the country to evade criminal prosecution.

C. Restrictions on the Right to Travel

Court Orders:
- Courts can issue HDOs to restrict travel if a person is charged with a criminal offense, particularly if there is a risk that the individual might abscond. For example, in cases of plunder, graft, or similar offenses, the court may issue such an order to ensure that the accused will face trial.
- Jurisprudence supports the validity of this restriction, noting that the right to travel is not absolute and can be limited in the "interest of national security, public safety, or public health," or to prevent flight from prosecution.
Pending Criminal Cases:
- If a person is subject to an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution, the right to travel may be curtailed to ensure that the individual will not abscond and avoid judicial processes.
- The Rules of Court allow for the issuance of an HDO to prevent a person charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years from leaving the country.
Administrative Issuances by DOJ:
- The DOJ has the authority to issue WLOs and HDOs to prevent individuals under investigation for criminal activities from traveling abroad, especially when there is sufficient evidence to warrant such preventive measures.

D. Constitutional and Jurisprudential Limitations

Case Law:
- Manotoc v. Court of Appeals (2006): The Supreme Court ruled that the right to travel is not absolute. It may be curtailed for valid reasons, including national security, public safety, public health, or to ensure that justice is served.
- Genuino v. De Lima (2012): The Supreme Court clarified that WLOs and HDOs issued by the DOJ must be supported by legal basis, and individuals must be given the opportunity to contest the orders. The Court emphasized that such orders cannot be arbitrary and should have a legitimate purpose.
- Silverio v. CA (1996): The SC ruled that HDOs cannot be issued whimsically, and there must be a compelling reason based on national interest or public safety.
Administrative Guidelines:
- DOJ Circular No. 41 (2010) was the administrative basis for issuing HDOs and WLOs by the DOJ. This circular allowed the Secretary of Justice to issue these orders, but it was challenged in the Supreme Court for allegedly violating constitutional rights.
- Following the ruling in Genuino v. De Lima, the DOJ's authority to issue these orders has been limited, ensuring stricter adherence to constitutional safeguards and due process.

3. Remedies Against Watch-List and Hold Departure Orders

Individuals affected by a WLO or HDO can seek the following remedies:

Petition for the Lifting or Cancellation of the Order:
- Affected individuals can file a motion with the issuing court or administrative body (such as the DOJ) to lift or cancel the WLO or HDO.
- They may argue that there is no legal basis for the continued restriction or that the circumstances that warranted the issuance of the order no longer exist.
Petition for Certiorari:
- If the individual believes that the issuance of the WLO or HDO was made with grave abuse of discretion, they may file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
Temporary Lifting:
- Courts and authorities may grant the temporary lifting of HDOs, particularly if there are compelling reasons, such as urgent medical treatment abroad or attending international conferences, and when there is assurance that the individual will return to face proceedings.

4. Conclusion

The liberty of abode and the right to travel are fundamental rights under the Philippine Constitution, but they can be restricted in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health. Watch-list and Hold Departure Orders serve as mechanisms to safeguard the country’s legal and security interests, ensuring that individuals facing serious criminal charges or investigations do not evade justice. However, these restrictions must always comply with due process and be supported by valid legal grounds.