Section 6, Article 3:

LIBERTY OF ABODE AND RIGHT TO TRAVEL

The Liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired
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.

SIMILARITIES

Leave Division of OCA vs.

Rubi vs. Provincial Board of
Marcos vs. Manglapus
Gudani vs. Senga
177 SCRA 668 (1989)
498 SCRA 671 (2006)
Heusdens
Mindoro
662 SCRA 126 (2011)
39 Phil. 660 (1919)
1. These landmark cases fall under the jurisprudence of Liberty of Abode and Right to Travel.
2. Freedom of movement has two aspects: (a) Freedom to choose and change ones domicile, and (b) Freedom to travel
within and outside the country. A persons place of abode or domicile is his permanent residence.
3. The following are the limitations to such right:
a) Freedom of movement is not an absolute right. It has limitations. Liberty of abode may be impaired or restricted
when there is a lawful court order.
b) The right to travel may also be restricted in interest of national security, public safety, or public health, or when a
person is on bail, or under a watch-list and hold departure order.

DISSIMILARITIES

1. Respondent left for

abroad without waiting for
the
result
of
her
application. It turned out
that no travel authority
was issued in her favor
because she was not
cleared of all of her
accountabilities
as
evidenced
by
the
SC
Certificate of Clearance.
The OCA found respondent
to have violated the OCA
circular for failing to
secure the approval of her
application for
travel authority.

1. It was alleged that the

Manguianes
are
being
illegally deprived of their
liberty by the provincial
officials of that province.
Rubi and his companions
are said to be held on the
reservation established at
Tigbao, Mindoro, against
their will, and one Dabalos
is said to be held under
the
custody
of
the
provincial sheriff in the
prison at Calapan for
having run away from the
reservation.
The provincial governor of
Mindoro
directed
the
Manguianes in question to
take up their habitation in
Tigbao, a site on the shore
of Lake Naujan, selected
by the provincial governor
and approved by the
provincial
board.
The
action
was
taken
in
accordance with section
2145 of the Administrative
Code of 1917, and was
duly approved by the
Secretary of the Interior as
required by said action.

1. After Ferdinand Marcos

was deposed from the
presidency, he ad his family
fled to Hawaii. Now in his
deathbed, petitioners are
asking the court to order
the respondents to issue
their travel documents and
enjoin the implementation
of the Presidents decision
to bar their return to the
Philippines.
Petitioners
contend
under
the
provision of the Bill of
Rights that the President is
without power to impair
their liberty of abode
because only a court may
do so within the limits
prescribed by law. Nor,
according
to
the
petitioners,
may
the
president impair their right
to travel because no law
has authorized her to do
so.

1. The Senate invited Gen.

Gudani
and
Lt.
Col.
Balutan
to
clarify
allegations of 2004 election
fraud and the surfacing of
the
Hello
Garci
tapes. PGMA issued EO
464 enjoining officials of
the executive department
including
the
military
establishment
from
appearing in any legislative
inquiry
without
her
consent. AFP Chief of Staff
Gen. Senga
issued
a
Memorandum, prohibiting
Gudani, Balutan et al from
appearing in the Senate
Committee w/o Presidents
approval. However, the two
appeared before the Senate
in spite the fact that a
directive has been given to
them. As a result, the two
were relieved of their
assignments for allegedly
violating the Articles of War
and the principle of the
Chain
of
Command.
Senga ordered them to be
subjected before the Gen.
Court Martial proceedings

for violating an order.

2. What are the inherent

and statutory limitations
on the constitutional right
to travel?

2. Does section 2145 of

the Administrative Code of
1917
constitute
an
unlawful
delegation
of
legislative power by the
Philippine legislature to a
provincial official and a
department
head,
therefore
making
it
unconstitutional?

2. Does the President have

the power to bar the
Marcoses from returning to
the Philippines?

2. Whether or not the

President has the authority
to issue an order to the
members
of
the
AFP
preventing
them
from
testifying
before
a
legislative inquiry.

3. The exercise of ones right

to travel is not absolute.
There are Constitutional,
statutory
inherent
limitations regulating the
right to travel.

RULING

Section 6 provides that

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.
Inherent limitation to the
right to travel are those
that naturally emanate
from the source.

3. No. The Philippine

Legislature
has
here
conferred authority upon
the Province of Mindoro, to
be
exercised
by
the
provincial governor and
the provincial board.
In determining whether
the delegation of legislative
power is valid or not, the
distinction is between the
delegation of power to
make the law, which
necessarily
involves
a
discretion as to what it
shall be, and conferring an
authority or discretion as
to its execution, to be
exercised under and in
pursuance of the law. The
first cannot be done; to the
later no valid objection can
be made. Discretion may
be committed by the
Legislature to an executive
department or official.
The Legislature may make
decisions
of
executive
departments
of
subordinate
official
thereof, to whom it has

3. The President has the

obligation
under
the
Constitution to protect the
people,
promote
their
welfare
and
advance
national interest. This case
calls for the exercise of the
Presidents
power
as
protector of the peace.
The documented history of
the Marcoses and their
followers to destabilize the
country
bolsters
the
conclusion
that
their
return at this time would
only
exacerbate
and
intensify
the
violence
directed against the state
and instigate more chaos.

3. Yes. The SC hold that

President
has
constitutional authority to
do so, by virtue of her
power as commander-inchief, and that as a
consequence a military
officer who defies such
injunction is liable under
military justice.

The State, is not precluded

from
taking
preemptive
actions against threats to
its existence if, though still
nascent they are perceived
as apt to become serious
and direct protection of the
people is the essence of the
duty of the government.

At the same time, any

chamber
of
Congress,
which
seeks
the
appearance before it of a
military officer against the
consent of the President,
has adequate remedies
under law to compel such
attendance. Any military
official whom Congress
summons to testify before
it may be compelled to do
so by the President. If the
President
is
not
so
inclined, the President may
be commanded by judicial
order
to
compel
the
attendance of the military
officer.

The Supreme Court held

Final judicial orders have

committed the execution

of certain acts, final on
questions of fact. The
growing tendency in the
decision
is
to
give
prominence
to
the
"necessity" of the case.

that the President did not

act arbitrarily or with grave
abuse of discretion in
determining the return of
the petitioners at the
present time and under the
present
circumstances
poses a serious threat to
national
interest
and
welfare prohibiting their
return to the Philippines.
The petition is DISMISSED.

the force of the law of the

land which the President
has the duty to faithfully
execute.
The duty falls on the
shoulders of the President,
as commander-in-chief, to
authorize the appearance
of the military officers
before Congress. Even if
the President has earlier
disagreed with the notion
of officers appearing before
the legislature to testify,
the Chief Executive is
nonetheless
obliged
to
comply with the final
orders of the courts.