Ma. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo v. Hon. Leila de Lima, G.R No. 199034 [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

1. MA. GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO V. HON. LEILA DE LIMA, G.R NO. 199034, APRIL 17, 2018 FACTS: On March 19, 1998, then DOJ Secretary Silvestre Bello III issued circular No.17 prescribing rules and regulations in the issuance of Hold Departure Orders. The said issuance was intended to restrain the indiscriminate issuance of HDOs which impinge on the people’s right to travel.After the expiration of GMA’s term as President of the Republic of the Philippines and her subsequent election as Pampanga representative, criminal complaints were filed against her. Before the DOJ. In view of the on-going criminal complaints, De Lima issued DOJ Watch List Order pursuant to her authority under DOJ Circular No.41. She also ordered for the inclusion of GMA’s name in the watch-list which the Bureau of Immigration had immediately implemented upon. Meanwhile, GMA and her husband faced to complaints for Electoral Sabotage and Violation of the OEC. Following the complaints, Spouses. Arroyo requested for the issuance of ADO (Allow Departure Order) to be able to seek medical attention in the country where she intends to seek. She likewise undertook to return to the Philippines once her medical treatment is done to finally face the charges filed against the two of them as spouses. The petition was subsequently denied. GMA then immediately filed a supplemental Petition which included a prayer to annul and set aside the order which denied her petition of ADO. The court issued a TRO, enjoining the respondents from enforcing and implementing DOJ Circular No. 41 and the Watch List Order. On the same day, the petitioners proceeded to Ninoy Aquino International Airport, with an aide de camp ad private nurses. However, the Bureau of Immigration refused to process their travel documents which ultimately resulted to them not being able to join their flight. Not long after, Miguel Arroyo filed an Urgent Manifestation which they anchor their right in esse on the right to travel under Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. ISSUE: Whether or not the issuance Circular No. 41 by the DOJ has legal basis to restrain petitioner’s right to travel enshrined under Article III, Section 6 of the Constitution. HELD: The Supreme Court, in ruling this case had to lay down the foundations of right to travel. The right to travel is part of the “liberty” of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law. It is part and parcel of the guarantee of freedom of movement that the Constitution affords its citizen. Pertinently, Section 6, Article III of the Constitution. However, the right to travel is not absolute. There are constitutional, statutory and inherent limitations regulating the right to travel. Section 6 itself provides that the right to travel may be impaired only in the interest of national security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law. Clearly, the Constitution has only set three considerations that may permit restriction on the right to travel. A further requirement, therefore, needs legislative enactment to prevent inordinate restraints by officials who may be tempted to wield authority under the guise of national security, public safety or public health. Guided by the foregoing rules and principles, it is ruled that the issuance of DOJ Circular No. 41 has no legal basis. There is no law particularly providing for the authority of the secretary of justice to curtail the exercise of the right to travel, in the interest of national security, public safety or public health. DOJ Circular No. 41 is not a law; it is not legislative enactment which underwent the scrutiny and concurrence of lawmakers, and submitted to the President for approval. It is a mere administrative issuance apparently designed to carry out the provisions of an enabling law which the former DOJ Secretary was assigned to carry out.