Lifting a Watchlist Order in the Philippines

A comprehensive doctrinal and practical guide

NOTE This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for independent legal advice. Procedural details may change; always check the latest Department of Justice (DOJ) circulars, court issuances, and Bureau of Immigration (BI) notices before acting.

1. What a “Watchlist Order” (WLO) originally was

Feature	Watchlist Order (pre‑2011)	Hold‑Departure Order	Immigration Look‑Out Bulletin Order (ILBO)¹
Issuer	Secretary of Justice (DOJ) under a series of administrative circulars, last of which was DOJ Circular No. 41‑2010	Trial court after a criminal case is filed (Rule 136 § 3, Rules of Court; Supreme Court Circular No. 39‑97)	Secretary of Justice (post‑2015) via DOJ Circular No. 036‑2015
Legal force	Direction to the BI to prevent exit of the named person	Court order that bars exit until lifted	Direction to the BI to monitor, not bar exit; person may travel subject to secondary inspection
Typical subjects	Respondents under preliminary investigation, accused on bail, parolees, etc.	Accused in information or indictment	High‑risk respondents, personalities, or witnesses in major investigations
Duration	60 days (extendible) or until lifted	Until modified by the issuing court	Six months (extendible) or until lifted
Cure/relief	Allow‑Departure Order (ADO) or lifting by DOJ; judicial review via certiorari	Motion to lift in the same court; bail can include travel leave	Request to DOJ for lifting; no actual travel ban to begin with

¹ Strictly speaking, ILBOs replaced WLOs after the Supreme Court voided the prohibitive portions of Circular 41 (see § 3). Lawyers still colloquially say “watchlist order,” but the formal instrument is now an ILBO.

2. Constitutional and statutory backdrop

Right to travel – 1987 Constitution, Art. III § 6

“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.”
Immigration Act of 1940 (C.A. 613) gives the BI power to inspect and exclude, but not to issue independent travel bans. It must rely on a warrant, court order, or a valid executive issuance.
Revised Penal Code Art. 157 (“Evasion of service of sentence”) and Art. 91 (Effect of pardon) sometimes underlie hold‑departure requests but do not themselves authorize WLOs.

3. Supreme Court jurisprudence that gutted the traditional WLO

Case	G.R. No. & Date	Core holding
Genuino v. Secretary of Justice	G.R. 197930‑31, 17 Apr 2013	DOJ Circular 41 is ultra vires insofar as it authorizes the Secretary to restrain travel of persons not yet charged in court. Only courts may impair the constitutional right to travel.
Gloria Macapagal‑Arroyo v. De Lima (TRO incident)	G.R. 199034 & 199046, 15 Nov 2011	The SC issued a TRO against the WLO that prevented the former President from leaving. Although the main case became moot, the Court’s separate opinions stressed that an executive WLO cannot trump a citizen’s constitutional right absent a law or court order.
Santiago v. Bureau of Immigration	G.R. 99052, 26 Jan 1993	Earlier case confirming that the BI may not impede travel without “authority of law” (i.e., express statute or court process).

After Genuino, the DOJ stopped issuing WLOs that directly bar departure. In their place it now issues ILBOs, whose purpose is merely to “alert” immigration officers so that they can coordinate with the DOJ when a flagged person appears at the airport.

4. Where does a WLO still appear today?

Legacy orders issued before 2013 may still exist in BI databases.
Some prosecutors still insert “watchlist” language in requests; BI interprets these today as ILBOs unless backed by a court’s HDO.
Military/administrative bodies (e.g., AFP Provost Marshal) occasionally request that a person be “placed on watchlist,” but BI will treat this as a look‑out bulletin and will not bar exit without a court HDO.

5. Grounds and procedure for lifting a Watchlist or ILBO

Even though an ILBO does not legally stop you at passport control, most travelers prefer to have it cancelled or clarified to avoid secondary inspection delays.

5.1 Who has the power to lift?

Instrument	Lifting authority
Legacy WLO	Secretary of Justice (or the deputized Undersecretary) because the order originated from the DOJ. When already nullified by Genuino, a short letter citing that decision often suffices.
Current ILBO	Secretary of Justice (same circular that created it).
Hold‑Departure Order	The same court that issued it. DOJ has no power over court HDOs.

5.2 Standard documentary requirements (ILBO / WLO)

Verified letter‑request or motion addressed to the Secretary of Justice.
Copy of the ILBO/WLO (obtainable from BI or from your counsel).
Proof of status change, e.g.:
- Resolution dismissing the complaint or information;
- Certificate of no criminal case filed;
- Clearance/bail receipt;
- Medical or humanitarian justification for travel.
Affidavit of undertaking to (a) return on a fixed date, (b) keep the DOJ informed of whereabouts, and (c) accept service of subpoenas through counsel.
Travel itinerary & tickets (if asking for an Allow‑Departure Order (ADO) rather than outright lifting).
Filing fee (ranges from ₱ 500 to ₱ 1,000) plus ₱ 200 legal research fund.

5.3 Step‑by‑step process

1. Compile documents ▸ 2. File at DOJ Docket Receiving Section
3. Pay fee ▸ 4. Docket number issued ▸ 5. Raffled to an Office of the Undersecretary
6. Evaluation (5‑10 working days typical) ▸ 7. Draft order prepared
8. Secretary signs lifting/ADO ▸ 9. DOJ transmits to BI Law and Investigation Division
10. BI deletes name or, if ADO, inserts limited validity dates in database

Practical tip Send a follow‑up messenger to BI Headquarters (Magallanes Drive, Intramuros) to verify deletion; airport field offices update their list overnight, but bring a certified copy of the lifting order on travel day just in case.

6. Relationship with other remedies

Scenario	Better remedy than lifting WLO/ILBO
Criminal case already filed, court issued an HDO	Motion to lift / travel leave in that court (Rule 37 if judgment; Rule 15 otherwise).
Still at preliminary investigation, but facing a string of subpoenas	Petition for certiorari and prohibition (Rule 65) questioning jurisdiction, plus prayer for writ of injunction vs. ILBO.
Name erroneously similar to a suspect (homonym)	Request for clarification with BI Intelligence Division; attach NSO/PSA‑certified birth certificate & passport bio‑page.
Multiple countries involved / red notice	INTERPOL delisting request through NCB‑Manila PLUS an ADO, because BI flags red‑noted persons even without WLO/ILBO.

7. Expiration & automatic lifting

Basis	Effect of time	Notes
DOJ Circular 41‑2010 (legacy WLO)	60 days from issuance unless sooner lifted or renewed	Technically moot post‑Genuino; BI should have auto‑purged but often did not.
DOJ Circular 036‑2015 (ILBO)	6 months; renewable for 6‑month blocks upon prosecutor’s request	Renewal must attach status report on investigation.
Court HDO	No auto‑expiry	May be tied to bail or to completion of trial; vacation of conviction ≠ auto‑lifting—you must move to lift.

8. Notable jurisprudence and issuances to cite in pleadings

People v. Manero, A.M. 05‑7‑29‑SC – requires courts to justify HDOs with specific findings.
A.M. No. 18‑04‑05‑SC (2018) – latest consolidated guidelines on HDOs, alias HDOs, allow‑departure orders.
DOJ Circular 041‑B‑2010 – matrix of grounds for WLO, ADO, & HDO (still useful historically).
DOJ Circular 027‑2011 – humanitarian criteria for an ADO (life‑saving medical treatment abroad, etc.).
BI Operations Order SBM‑2014‑018 – mandates secondary inspection for all ILBO hits.

9. Draft template: Motion to Lift ILBO/WLO

Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Manila

MOTION TO LIFT IMMIGRATION LOOK‑OUT BULLETIN ORDER
[or WATCHLIST ORDER]

x---------------------------------------------x

               (Name of movant)
               Respondent

x---------------------------------------------x

     1.  On 12 January 2024, the Honorable Secretary issued an ILBO (Docket No. ____) against Movant in connection with NPS Docket No. ____.
     2.  On 22 March 2025, the investigating prosecutor DISMISSED the complaint for lack of probable cause (Annex “A”).
     3.  No criminal information has been filed in any court, and Movant has no other pending criminal case (Annex “B”, certificate of no case).
     4.  In view of the dismissal, the continued inclusion of Movant’s name in immigration derogatory lists serves no lawful purpose and unduly impairs his constitutional right to travel.
     5.  Movant respectfully requests the immediate lifting of the said ILBO and the deletion of his name from the BI derogatory database.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the ILBO dated 12 January 2024 be LIFTED and that the Bureau of Immigration be directed to DELIST Movant forthwith.

Manila, 17 April 2025.

                       _________________________
                       Counsel for Movant
                       Roll No. _______; IBP #_____

10. Key distinctions to remember

WLO ≠ ILBO – If your order was issued after 2013 it is almost certainly an ILBO, not a pre‑Genuino WLO.
Lifting ≠ allow‑departure – An ADO is temporary and keeps your name on the list. Lifting deletes it.
Court > DOJ – Once an information is filed, only the court can restrain or restore travel.
BI’s role is ministerial – It cannot decide whether to keep or delete a name; it merely enforces whatever the DOJ or a court transmits.

11. Practical tips from practitioners

Bring hard copies of the lifting order plus the BI stamp of receipt on travel day; systems sometimes sync slowly.
Double‑check airport terminals – some provincial airports keep outdated print‑outs; present the lifting order immediately to the immigration officer.
Renew your passport early – a person once subject to a WLO/ILBO can find passport renewal flagged for “clearance.” Attach your lifting order to DFA applications.
Consider a court‑annexed compromise (e.g., conditional travel) rather than fighting the ILBO if a criminal complaint is obviously imminent; it saves time and litigation cost.

12. Looking forward

A bill titled “Right‑to‑Travel Protection Act” has been filed in every Congress since 2016 to codify criteria for ILBOs and create judicial review within 48 hours, but none has passed as of April 2025.
The Supreme Court is drafting a new circular to unify HDO, Witness Protection Program coverage, and ILBO protocols—expected late 2025.
Digital integration between DOJ and BI is slated for completion by 3Q‑2025, promising real‑time delisting within minutes of a lifting order.

13. Checklist before you fly ✈️

Is there any court case against you? → Secure court clearance or travel leave.
2. Was the criminal complaint dismissed? → Attach the resolution to your lifting request.
3. Do you need to leave urgently? → Ask for an Allow‑Departure Order while waiting for full lifting.
4. After you receive the lifting order, verify at BI main office and print a copy for yourself.
5. Arrive at the airport earlier than usual the first time you travel post‑lifting.

Bottom line:
If you are still tagged under an old Watchlist Order—or its modern cousin, the ILBO—the remedy lies with the Secretary of Justice unless a court has already stepped in. Thanks to Genuino and later circulars, lifting is largely a paper exercise: present proof the investigation is over (or secure court permission), file a verified request, and follow up with the BI. Once lifted, your constitutional right to travel fully revives, subject only to ordinary immigration and airport security procedures.