Overseas Travel While a Criminal Case Is Pending in the Philippines

(Updated 26 April 2025 — Philippine jurisdiction)

Disclaimer
This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for individualized advice from a licensed Philippine lawyer. Rules change, and courts exercise discretion case-by-case.

1. The Constitutional Baseline

Article III, section 6 of the 1987 Constitution guarantees that:

“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.”

The right is thus not absolute; it yields to express statutory limitations and to lawful court orders issued in furtherance of a criminal proceeding.

2. Why a Pending Criminal Case Restricts Travel

An accused is presumed innocent, but once a complaint or information is filed, the court (or, in limited circumstances, the Department of Justice) acquires jurisdiction over the person. Its first duty is to assure the accused’s presence until the final disposition of the case. International travel introduces the obvious risk of flight.

3. Bail, Recognizance, and the “Travel-Permit” Condition

3.1 Statutory and Rule-Based Conditions

Under Rule 114 of the 2019 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, bail is a contract: in exchange for provisional liberty, the accused binds himself to:

appear in court whenever required;
waive the right to be present upon notice; and
inform the court of any change of address.

Most trial courts go further and insert an explicit “no-travel without permission” clause in the bail order or undertakings. Failure to seek leave renders departure a breach of the bond and authorises immediate arrest and bond forfeiture.

3.2 Travel While on Recognizance

Recognizance (release to the custody of a responsible citizen or LGU official) carries the same implicit restraint: the custodian’s guarantee is jeopardised if the accused leaves the Philippines without court clearance.

4. Hold-Departure Orders (HDOs)

Feature	Judicial HDO	Look-out Bulletin (ILBO)
Issuer	Trial court (including Sandiganbayan)	Secretary of Justice
Basis	After information filed; “probable cause and flight risk”	Even before filing of information; “public interest”
Legal Font	SC Adm. Circ. No. 58-2017; OCA Circ. No. 67-2014	DOJ Circ. No. 41 (2010) as amended
Effect	Absolute bar to departure until lifted	Immigration may alert authorities and defer boarding, but accused can negotiate an “allow departure” notation
Remedy	Motion to lift or allow travel filed in the issuing court	Letter-request to DOJ; petition for certiorari or mandamus to Court of Appeals

Key Supreme Court rulings
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo v. DOJ (G.R. 199034-35, 15 Nov 2011):
The DOJ cannot substitute an HDO for a court order once the case is in court, but an ILBO is a permissible “watchlist.”

5. The Mechanics of Securing a Permit to Travel

Verified Motion — filed by counsel, stating:
- purpose (e.g., business meeting, medical treatment);
- destination(s) and exact dates;
- assurance of no conflict with scheduled hearings; and
- commitment to submit to the court within five days of return a sworn travel report with passport stamps/boarding passes.
Attachments — itinerary, invitation, medical certificate, confirmed round-trip tickets, hotel booking.
Additional Travel Bond — discretionary. Trial courts typically fix it at
₱200,000–₱1 million for white-collar offenses, higher for capital offenses.
Service on the Prosecution — at least three days before the scheduled hearing; the prosecutor may oppose.
Order and Clearance — if granted, the order is furnished to the Bureau of Immigration (BI) Commissioner for encoding into the e-Travel system. Carry certified copies to the airport.

6. Consequences of Unauthorized Departure

Consequence	Legal Basis
Arrest without warrant and commitment to jail	Rule 5, Sec. 5(b) Rules of Criminal Procedure
Forfeiture of bail; bondsman may be ordered to produce the body within 30 days	Rule 114, Sec. 21
Contempt of court	Rule 71
Issuance of HDO and Red Notice to Interpol	SC Adm. Circ. No. 57-2017; BI/Interpol protocol
Possible passport cancellation for “outstanding criminal case” under DFA Dept. Order No. 37-03

7. Special Settings

7.1 Sandiganbayan and Anti-Graft Cases

Public officers facing graft charges must seek leave from the Sandiganbayan. The Court regularly requires:

an undertaking to appear at least ten calendar days before promulgation of judgment; and
a waiver allowing the release of bank secrecy data if they abscond.

7.2 Accused Already Convicted but Free on Bail Pending Appeal

Under Rule 114, Sec. 5, bail after conviction is discretionary. Appellate courts almost never allow foreign travel because flight risk is greater when a judgment of guilt already exists.

7.3 Persons on Probation or Parole

Probationers may not leave the Philippines without written permission of the probation officer and prior approval of the trial court. Parolees require the Board of Pardons and Parole’s consent.

8. Interaction with Extradition and Deportation

An accused who is a foreign national may face deportation proceedings independent of the criminal case. Conversely, a Filipino accused who flees may become subject to extradition once a warrant (not merely an HDO) has been issued and the offense is extraditable under the relevant treaty.

9. Frequently Asked Questions

Question	Answer
Can I travel while the case is still with the prosecutor (no information yet)?	Yes, constitutionally; but an ILBO may delay departure. Prudence dictates securing an allow departure notation from the DOJ.
Is an HDO automatically lifted when the case is dismissed?	Yes, the dismissal order operates proprio motu, but BI databases may lag. Present certified copies to Immigration.
What if the complainant executes an affidavit of desistance?	The court—not the parties—decides. Until the case is formally dismissed, obtain leave to travel.
Does posting a higher bond guarantee approval?	No. Courts weigh (a) the gravity of the offense, (b) accused’s roots, (c) track record of appearances, and (d) proximity of trial dates.
Can I use an e-Visa or offshore immigration desk to avoid airport scrutiny?	That is evasion; if discovered, you risk summary exclusion and new criminal charges.

10. Practical Tips for Accused and Counsel

Plan ahead — File the motion at least three weeks before departure.
Synchronize calendars — Ask the clerk of court for all upcoming dates; seek re-settings early.
Maintain good faith — Always report back exactly when promised and keep copies of boarding passes.
Keep the prosecution in the loop — Surprise fosters opposition; a jointly manifested motion often sails through.
Mind connecting flights — A route touching U.S. or E.U. territory may trigger extra checks if an Interpol notice exists.

11. Conclusion

Although the Constitution zealously protects the Filipino’s right to travel, pending criminal proceedings place that right under the court’s vigilant supervision. The governing principle is simple: access to the accused is the lifeblood of criminal justice. By following established procedures—seeking leave, posting a travel bond, and returning as promised—an accused may continue to meet urgent family, business, or medical needs abroad without jeopardising his provisional liberty.

Always consult competent counsel; procedural missteps can convert a brief trip into permanent exile—or jail upon return.