Article III Section 6 Flashcards
Section 6. Liberty of Abode and Right to Travel
Art. III, Section 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.
Liberty of Abode is restricted by:
- Congress – Within the limits prescribed by law
This is an implied grant for Congress to limit the power for you to decide your
abode. - Court – Lawful order of the court (Yap Case)
Courts also have the power, by direct provision of the Constitution.
1996, No. 2: The military commander-in charge of the operation against rebel groups directed the inhabitants of the island which would be the target of attack by government forces to evacuate the area and offered the residents temporary military hamlet. Can the military commander force the residents to transfer their places of abode without a court order?
Explain.
: No, the military commander cannot compel the
residents to transfer their places of abode without a court order. Under
Section 6, Article III of the Constitution, a lawful order of the court is
required before the liberty of abode and of changing the same can be
impaired.
1998, No. 8. Juan Casanova contracted Hansen’s disease (leprosy) with open lesions. A law requires that lepers be isolated upon petition of the City Health Officer. The wife of Juan Casanova wrote a letter to the City Health Officer to have her formerly philandering husband confined in some isolated leprosarium. Juan Casanova challenged the constitutionality of the law as violating his liberty of abode. Will the suit prosper? [5%]
No, the suit will not prosper. Section 6, Article
III of the Constitution provides: “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. “The liberty of abode is subject to the police power of the State. Requiring the segregation of lepers is a valid exercise of police power. In Lorenzo vs. Director of Health. 50 Phil 595, 598, the
Supreme Court held: “Judicial notice will be taken of the fact that leprosy is commonly believed to be an infectious disease tending to cause one afflicted with it to be shunned and excluded from society, and that
compulsory segregation of lepers as a means of preventing the spread of
the disease is supported by high scientific authority
The Sandiganbayan issued a Hold Departure ‘ Order against Governor Gwendolyn Garcia of Cebu, who was facing charges of violation of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft Law. Considering that Supreme Court Circular
39-97 only authorizes the Regional Trial Courts to issue such order, does the questioned order violate her constitutional right to travel “which may be impaired only in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law?
No. The power to issue Hold Departure Orders is an exercise of the court’s inherent power to preserve and to maintain the effectiveness of its . jurisdiction over the case and the person of the accused. Inherent powers are innate and essential to the faculties that are fundamental to the constitution of an effective judicial system. They are integral to the creation
of courts. They do not require legislative conferment or constitutional recognition; they co-exist with the grant of judicial power. Broadly defined, they “consist of all powers reasonably required to enable a court to perform efficiently its judicial functions to protect its dignity, independence and
integrity, and to make its lawful actions effective. These powers are inherent
in the sense that they exist because the court exist.
Who can restrict the right travel?
- Courts generally on people out on bail (discretionary power) or probation/not civil People out on bail – Discretionary
Discretionary because you can convince court to allow you to travel for medical reasons. If you have some valid grounds, the court may allow you to travel.
* Generally, in civil cases, the right to travel cannot be restricted. It can only be done in criminal cases because of . the danger of the flight on the part of the accused. In Civil
Procedure, what you simply do is once you have served summons, the defendant leaves the country then he might be declared in default or the case can go on without him and
if he loses the case, the judgment will simply be executed in , his property, if he has any. There is no need to force him to remain in the country. - Executive and administrative officials, if they do not act arbitrarily Meaning that there is a law authorizing them [this entity] and they do it on the basis of national security, public safety, and public health [Hold Departure Orders]
- Congress – “within the limits prescribed by law”
We have no problem with Congress because it is textually granted in the
Constitution
Facts: This pertains to former Pres. Marcos, who was leaving in exile in Hawaii but he wanted to return to the PH but Cory Aquino issued a EO barring him from coming back to the PH.
Issue: CAN THE PRESIDENT BAR THE RETURN OF A CITIZEN TO THE PHILIPPINES?
Held:
1. What the right to travel protects is the right to leave the country, not the right to return.
2. But the right to return is protected by International Law. – That is found in Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3. Since it is not protected by the Bill of Rights, the Constitution is silent on who can restrict it.
On 19 February 1968, Secretary Antonio V. Raquiza of the Department of Public Works and Communications issued AO 1, which, among
others, prohibited motorcycles on limited access highways. Petitioners also seek to declare Administrative Order No. 1 (AO 1) unconstitutional for violating their right to travel.
A toll way is not an ordinary road. As a facility designed to promote the fastest access to certain destinations, its use, operation, and maintenance require close regulation. Public interest and safety require the imposition of certain restrictions on toll ways that do not apply to ordinary roads. As a special kind of road, it is but reasonable that not all forms of transport could use it.
The right to travel does not mean the right to choose any vehicle in traversing a toll way. The right to travel refers to the right to move from
one place to another. Petitioners can traverse the toll way any time they choose using private or public four-wheeled vehicles. Petitioners are not denied the right to move from Point A to Point B along the toll way.
Petitioners are free to access the toll way, much as the rest of the public i can. The mode by which petitioners wish to travel pertains to the manner of using the toll way, a subject that can be validly limited by regulation.
Petitioners themselves admit that alternative routes are available to them.
Their complaint is that these routes are not the safest and most convenient. Even if their claim is true, it hardly qualifies as an undue curtailment of their freedom of movement and travel. The right to travel does not entitle a person to the best form of transport or to the most convenient route to his destination. The obstructions found in normal streets, which petitioners complain of (i.e., potholes, manholes, construction barriers, etc.), are not suffered by them alone.
In Proclamation No. 475 President Duterte declared a state of calamity in the Island of Boracay. It also ordered the temporary closure of the island as a tourist destination for six months (6) starting April 26 to October 25, 2018, to facilitate its rehabilitation. Issues Does this violate the right to travel? Does the President have the constitutional or statutory authority to restrict the right to travel?
Held: The case does not involve restriction on the right to travel. Any bearing that Proclamation No. 475 may have no the right to travel is merely corollary to the closure of Boracay and the ban of tourists and non-residents which were necessary incidents of the island’s rehabilitation.
There is certainly no showing that Proclamation No. 475 deliberately mean to impair the right to travel. The questioned proclamation is clearly focused on its purpose of rehabilitating Boracay and any intention to directly restrict the right cannot, in any manner, be deduced from its import. The impact, if at all, on the right to travel is not limited but merely consequential; and, the same is only for a reasonable short period of time or temporary. In this light. A discussion on whether the President exercised a power legislative loses its significance
Facts: In 2010, Acting DOJ Secretary Agra, under the administration of
Pres. Macapagal-Arroyo, issued Circular No. 41, which governed the
issuance of Hold Departure Orders and Watch List Orders of persons
facing complaint before the Department of Justice. The Circular
consolidated previous Circulars issued by former DOJ Secretaries Bello
and Gonzales. After the term of Pres. Arroyo ended in June 2010, various
cases were filed against her which were still undergoing preliminary
investigation. De Lima, as Secretary of Justice, issued a Hold Departure
Order against her and several others, pursuant to DOJ Circular No. 41. Is
the Hold Departure Order valid?
Held: No. DOJ Circular No. 41 is unconstitutional. Under Art. III, Sec. 6, of the 1987 Constitution, while administrative officials may restrict the ‘ right to travel, they can do so only on the basis of “national security, public safety, or public health” and “as may be provided by law.” To begin with, there is no law particularly providing for the authority of the
Secretary of Justice to curtail the exercise of the right to travel. As it is, the only ground for the former DOJ Secretary was the pendency of the
preliminary investigation of the Joint DOJ-COMELEC Committee on the complaints for electoral sabotage. DOJ Circular is not a law, but a mere administrative issuance apparently designed to carry out provisions of an enabling law. The broad enumeration of powers and functions of the Secretary under the Administrative Code cannot be interpreted as a grant of power to curtail a fundamental right as the language of the provision itself does not lend to that stretched construction.
Conditions when court may allow travel:
ons when court may allow travel:
1. Prove urgency – e.g. medical reasons
FROM 2020 TSN: Example is the request of Maria Ressa of Rappler to travel
abroad to accept an award but the CA said she was not able to prove urgency
to travel. That is not urgent.
2. State duration
File a motion for leave of court to be allowed to travel abroad; e.g. there is
a criminal case and a Hold Departure Order, or one of the conditions attached
to your bail bond is you cannot travel. So file a motion, then state the
urgency, state duration, and obtain consent of surety.
3. Obtain consent of surety
Mr. Esteban Krony, A Filipino citizen, is arrested for the crime of smuggling. He posts bail for his release. Subsequently, he jumps bail and is
about to leave the country when the DFA cancels his passport. He sues the DFA claiming violation of his freedom to travel citing Sec. 6 Art. III, to wit:
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. Decide.
Take note here that he is on bail. If you are on bail, courts have inherent power to limit your right to travel. The DFA is also granted the right to travel. Right now, you have an arrest warrant against you and you go to the airport. When they see that there is a standing warrant
against you, the DFA can stop you from leaving. That is allowed now. Admin bodies can be delegated with that power.
There is no violation of his freedom to travel. Right to travel may be impaired in the interest of national security among others as may be provided by law.
Here, a law enacted by Congress, R.A. 8239, allows the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to withdraw a Filipino passport in the interest of national security such as to avoid the possibility of escape of accused on bail.
2012, I. Mr. Violet was convicted by the RTC of Estafa. On appeal, he filed with the Court of Appeals a Motion to Fix Bail for Provisional Liberty Pending Appeal. The Court of Appeals granted the motion and set a bail amount in
the sum of Five (5) Million Pesos, subject to the conditions that he secure “a certification/guaranty from the Mayor of the place of his residence that he is a resident of the area and that he will remain to be a resident therein until
final judgment is rendered or in case he transfers residence, it must be with prior notice to the court”. Further, he was ordered to surrender his passport to the Division Clerk of Court for safekeeping until the court orders its return.
* Mr. Violet challenges the conditions imposed by the Court of Appeals as
violative of his liberty of abode and right to travel. Decide with reasons.
(5%)
The Court has the authority to restrict the right to travel and even liberty of abode of people facing criminal cases. The order of the Court of Appeals is lawful, because purpose is to ensure that the accused will be available whenever his presence is required. He is not being prevented
from changing its abode. He is merely being required to inform the Court of Appeals if he does.
Are “liberty of abode” and “the right to travel” absolute rights?
Explain. What are the respective exception/s to each right if
any? (5%)
The liberty of abode and the right to travel are not absolute. The liberty of abode and changing it can be imposed within the limits prescribed by law upon lawful order of the court. The right to travel may be impaired in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health as may be provided by law. In addition, the court has the inherent power to restrict the right of an accused who has pending criminal case to travel abroad to maintain its jurisdiction over him.
Facts: The local government of Quezon City, Manila and Navotas separately passed curfew ordinances for children and all those below 18
years of age from 10:00 o’clock in the evening to 4:00 or 5:00 in the morning.
Issue: Can an ordinance be validly enacted restricting the right to travel?
Ruling: Yes. Under the 1987 Constitution, the State may impose limitations on the exercise of this right, provided that they:
(1) serve the interest of national security, public safety, or public health; and
(2) are provided by law. Interest of Public Safety
The purposes of the Curfew Ordinances, specifically the promotion of juvenile safety and prevention of juvenile crime, serve the interest of public safety. The restriction on the minor’s movement and activities during the curfew period is perceived to reduce the probability of the minor becoming victims of or getting involved in criminal activities.
Be provided by law – PD 603
As to the second requirement, i.e., that the limitation “be provided by law,” our legal system is replete with laws emphasizing the State’s duty to afford special protection to children. Particularly relevant to this case
is Article 139 of PD 603, which explicitly authorizes local government units, through their city or municipal councils, to set curfew hours for children. City councils are authorized to enact curfew ordinances and enforce the same. In other words, PD 603 provides sufficient statutory basis – as required by the Constitution – to restrict the minors’ exercise of the right to travel.
