BOR_Liberty of Abode & the Right to Travel

Question 1

When may the liberty of abode be impaired? (2)

Answer 1

The liberty of abode may be impaired only:
1. Upon lawful order of the court and; and
2. Within the limits prescribed by law such as
public safety and security. (Sec. 6, Art. III, 1987
Constitution

Question 2

Case: Does the employment
agency have the right to restrain and detain a
maid who could not return the advance payment
it gave

Answer 2

NO. An employment agency, regardless of the
amount it may advance to a prospective employee
or maid, has absolutely no power to curtail her
freedom of movement.

The fact that no physical
force has been exerted to keep her in the house of
the respondent does not make less real the
deprivation of her personal freedom of movement,
freedom to transfer from one place to another,
freedom to choose one’s residence.

Question 3

Give the limitations on the Right to Travel.

Answer 3

1. Interest of national Security;
2. Public Safety; and
3. Public Health.
   (Sec. 6, Art. III, 1987 Constitution)

Question 4

PASEI challenged the validity of Department Order 1 of the Department of Labor
and Employment (DOLE) because it suspends
the deployment of female domestic and
household workers in Iraq, Jordan and Qatar. PASEI contends that it impairs the constitutional
right to travel. Is the contention correct?

Answer 4

NO. The deployment ban does not impair the right to travel.

The right to travel is subject, among other things, to the requirements of “public safety,” “as may be provided by law.”

Department Order No. 1 is a valid implementation of the Labor Code, in particular, its basic policy to “afford protection to labor,” pursuant to the Department of Labor’s rulemaking authority vested in it by the Labor Code.

The petitioner assumes that it is unreasonable simply because of its impact on the right to travel, but as we have stated, the right itself is not absolute. The disputed Order is a valid qualification thereto. (Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Drilon, G.R. No. 81958, 30 June 1988)

Question 5

WATCH-LIST AND HOLD DEPARTURE
ORDERS

Is DOJ Circular No. 41 unconstitutional for being a
violation of the right to travel?

Answer 5

The DOJ has no authority to issue DOJ Circular No. 41 which effectively restricts the right to travel through the issuance of WLOs and HDOs (Hold Departure Orders).

There are only three considerations that may permit a restriction on the right to travel: a. national security, b. public safety or c. public health. Further, there must be an explicit provision of statutory law or Rules of Court providing for the impairment.

DOJ Circular No. 41 is not a law.

It is not a legislative enactment, but a mere administrative issuance designed to carry out the provisions of an enabling law.

DOJ is not authorized to issue WLOs and HDOs to restrict the constitutional right to travel.

Its investigatory power is simply inquisitorial and, unfortunately, not broad enough to embrace the imposition of restraint on the liberty of movement

Question 6

Declaring a state of calamity in Boracay and ordering its closure for six (6) months. They attacked the order on the ground that it violates the right to travel

Answer 6

NO. This case does not actually involve the right to travel in its essential sense.

Any bearing that Proclamation No. 475 may have on the right to travel is merely corollary to the closure of Boracay and the ban of tourists and non-residents therefrom which were necessary incidents of the island’s rehabilitation.

There is certainly no showing that Proclamation No. 475 deliberately meant 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 of Proclamation No. 475 on the
right to travel is not direct but merely
consequential; and, the same is only for a
reasonably short period of time or merely
temporary.