Caunca

Liberty

Salazar
of

abode

(Constitutional
and

Law)
travel

Sec. 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.
Facts:
This is an action for habeas corpus brought by Bartolome Caunca in behalf
of his cousin Estelita Flores, an orphan and an illiterate, who was employed
by the Far Eastern Employment Bureau, owned by Julia Salazar, respondent
herein.
An advanced payment has already been given to Estelita by the employment
agency, for her to work as a maid. However, Estelita wanted to transfer to
another residence, which was disallowed by the employment agency. Further
she was detained and her liberty was restrained. The employment agency
wanted that the advance payment, which was applied to her transportation
expense from the province should be paid by Estelita before she could be
allowed
to
leave.
Issue:
Whether or Not an employment agency has the right to restrain and detain a
maid
without
returning
the
advance
payment
it
gave?
Held:
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 ones residence. Freedom may be
lost due to external moral compulsion, to founded or groundless fear, to
erroneous belief in the existence of an imaginary power of an impostor to
cause harm if not blindly obeyed, to any other psychological element that
may curtail the mental faculty of choice or the unhampered exercise of the

will. If the actual effect of such psychological spell is to place a person at the
mercy of another, the victim is entitled to the protection of courts of justice as
much as the individual who is illegally deprived of liberty by duress or
physical
coercion.
Ratio:
On the hypothesis that petitioner is really indebted, such is not a valid reason
for respondents to obstruct, impede or interfere with her desire to leave.
Such indebtedness may be multiplied by thousands or millions but would not
in any way subtract an iota from the fundamental right to have a free choice
of abode. The fact that power to control said freedom may be an effective
means of avoiding monetary losses to the agency is no reason for
jeopardizing a fundamental human right. The fortunes of business cannot be
controlled by controlling a fundamental human freedom. Human dignity is not
merchandise appropriate for commercial barters or business bargains.
Fundamental freedoms are beyond the province of commerce or any other
business
enterprise.
Also, under the Revised Penal Code, penalties are imposed "upon any
person who, in order to require or enforce the payment of a debt, shall
compel the debtor to work for him, against his will, as household servant or
farm
laborer."
Moral restraint is a ground for the issuance of this writ, as where a
housemaid is prevented from leaving her employ because of the influence of
the person detaining her
Rubi vs Provincial Board of Mindoro
G.R. No. 14078, March 07, 1919
Facts: The provincial board, by Resolution No. 25, selected a site in the sitio
of Tigbao on Naujan Lake for the permanent settlement of Mangyanes in
Mindoro. Pursuant to the provisions of section 2145 of the revised
Administrative Code, all the Mangyans in the vicinities of the townships of
Naujan and Pola and the Mangyans east of the Baco River including those in
the districts of Dulangan and Rubis place in Calapan are directed to take up
their habitation on the site of Tigbao, Naujan Lake.
This is an application for habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and other
Manguianes of the Province of Mindoro. It is alleged that the Mangyanes 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.

they were being takento a police station for an investigation and had no
knowledge that they were being sent to Mindanao. Moreover, the women
were not asked whether they wanted to leave Manila and live in Davao.

Issue: Whether Section 2145 of the Administrative Code deprives a person

of his liberty of abode and is therefore unconstitutional

3. The vessels reached Davao on October 29. The women were received by
the provincial governor, Francisco Sales and by haciendero Feliciano Yigo.

Held: No. Section 2145 of the Administrative Code does not deprive a
person of his liberty without due process of law and does not deny to him the
equal protection of the laws, and that confinement in reservations in
accordance with said section does not constitute slavery and involuntary
servitude. The court further ruled that section 2145 of the Administrative
Code is a legitimate exertion of the police power and thus constitutional.

Ruling:
1. Alien prostitutes can be expelled from the Philippine Islands in
conformity with anAct of Congress. The Governor-General can order the
eviction of undesirable aliens after a hearing from the Islands. Act No. 519 of
the Philippine Commission and Section 733 of the Revised Ordinances of
the city of Manila provide for the conviction and punishment by a court of
justice of any person who is a common prostitute.

Petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty. Habeas

corpus can, therefore, not issue.

2. But one can search in vain for any law, order or regulation, which even
hints at the right of the Mayor of the City of Manila or the chief of police of
that city to force citizens of the Philippine Islands
and these women despite their being in a sense lepers of society are
nevertheless not chattels but Philippine citizens protected by the same
constitutional guaranties as are other citizens
to change domicile from Manila to another locality. On the contrary
Philippine penal law specifically punishes any public officer who, not being
expressly authorized by law or regulation, compels any person to change his
residence.

One cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered with when
the degree of civilization of the. Manguianes is considered. They are
restrained for their own good and the general good of the Philippines. Nor
can one say that due process of law has not been followed. To go back to our
definition of due process of law and equal protection of the laws, there exists
a law; the law seems to be reasonable; it is enforced according to the regular
methods of procedure prescribed; and it applies alike to all of a class.
The public policy of the Government of the Philippine Islands is shaped with
a view to benefit the Filipino people as a whole. The Manguianes, in order to
fulfill this governmental policy, must be confined for a time, as we have said,
for their own good and the good of the country.

3. In other countries, as in Spain and Japan, the privilege of domicile is

deemed so important as to be found in the Bill of Rights of the
Constitution. Under the American constitutional system, liberty of abode is a
principle so deeply imbedded in jurisprudence and considered so elementary
in nature as not even to require a constitutional sanction. Even the GovernorGeneral of the Philippine Islands, even the President of the US, who has
often been said to exercise more power than any king or potentate, has no
such arbitrary prerogative, either inherent or express. Much less, therefore,
has the executive of a municipality, who acts within a sphereof delegated
powers

Villavicencio v. Lukban
The mayor of the City of Manila ordered the closure of prostitution houses
found in his municipality and had the prostituted women deported to Davao.
Facts:
1.Justo Lukban, the Mayor of the City of Manila, ordered the segregated
district for women of ill repute, which had been permitted for a number of
years in the city of Manila, closed. From October 16 to 25, 1918, 170 women
were kept confined to their houses in the district by the police. During said
period, the city authorities, with some arrangements with the Bureau of
Labor, planned to send the women to Davao as laborers.
2. On the midnight of October 25, the police and Lukban went to the houses
and hustled the 170 prostituted women into patrol wagons and placed them
aboard the steams Corregidor and Negros. The women were given no
opportunity to collect their belongings, and were under the impression that

Salonga vs Hermoso
97 SCRA 121 Political Law Right to Travel Even During Martial Law

Right to travel is not suspended during martial law

A republican State under martial law must still abide by the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights

Basic constitutional rights are still protected during martial law

FACTS:During the time of Martial Law, Jovito Salonga filed a case for
mandamus against Rolando Hermoso of the Travel Processing Center to
compel the latter to issue a certificate of eligibility to travel in favor
of Salonga.
ISSUE: Whether or not the right to travel may be prohibited during martial
law.
HELD: No. This issue became moot and academic because it appears that
Hermoso did issue and did not deny Salongas request for a certificate of
eligibility to travel.
The issuance of the certificate was in pursuant to the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights on the Right to Travel. The Philippines, even though it is
under martial law, shall in no instance facilitate the erosion of human rights.
The Travel Processing Center should exercise the utmost care to avoid the
impression that certain citizens desirous of exercising their constitutional right
to travel could be subjected to inconvenience or annoyance this is to avoid
such similar cases to face the Court which needlessly expire the Courts
effort and time.

Manotoc v. CA
Petitioner was charged for estafa by six clients of his Manotor Securities,
Inc. Wanting to go to the US, petitioner applied for a motion for permission to
leave the country. But, it was denied.
Facts:

1. Ricardo Manotoc Jr. appointed a management committee, not only for

Manotoc Securities, Inc. but also for Trans-Insular Management, Inc., after
petitioner came home from the US following the run on stock brokerages
caused by stock broker Santamarias flight from this jurisdiction. He filed this
petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Pending disposition,
SEC requested the Commissioner of Immigration not to clear petitioner for
departure and a memorandum to this effect.
2. When a Torrens title submitted to and accepted by Manotoc Securities,
Inc. was suspected to be a fake, six of its clients filed six separate criminal
complaints against petitioner (President) and Raul Leveriza (vice-President)
for estafa .Petitioner, wanting to go to the US, filed a motion for permission
to leave the country. It was denied.
3. Petitioner contends that having been admitted to bail as a matter of right,
neither the courts which granted him bail nor the SEC which has no
jurisdiction over his liberty, could prevent him from exercising his
constitutional right to travel.
Ruling:
1. A court has power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the
Philippines. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a
bail bond for he needs to appear before any court in which his appearance
may be required as stipulated in the bail bond or recognizance. The condition
imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all times whenever the
court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his right to
travel
Marcos v Manglapus
GR No. 88211 September 15, 1989
FACTS:
(1) This is a petition for prohibition and mandamus to order respondents to
issue travel documents to Mr. Marcos and the immediate members of his
family and to enjoin the implementation of the Presidents decision to bar
their return to the Philippines. This is in response to Marcoss wish to return
to the Philippines to die. The petitioners case is founded on the following
provisions in the Bill of Rights:
Section 1.No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the
laws.

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.
And other contentions including:
President is without power to impair the liberty of abode of the
Marcoses because only a court may do so "within the limits prescribed by
law." Nor may the President impair their right to travel because no law has
authorized her to do so.
the right to travel may be impaired by any authority or agency of the
government, there must be legislation to that effect.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides:
Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence
within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to
return to his country.
Likewise, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides:
Article 12
1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory,
have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except
those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security,
public order (order public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms
of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present
Covenant.
4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
(2) The respondents contend primacy of the right of the State to national
security over individual rights, citing Article II
Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the
people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and,
in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions
provided by law, to render personal, military, or civil service.
Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty,
and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the
enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy and the decision
of other countries to ban deposed dictators like Cuba (Fulgencio Batista), etc.
ISSUES:

(1) Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution,
the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines
(2) Whether or not the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she determined
that the return of the Marcose's to the Philippines poses a serious threat to
national interest and welfare and decided to bar their return.
HELD:
Petition dismissed. President did not act with abuse of discretion in
determining the return of former President Marcos and his family at the
present time since it poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare.
RATIO:
(1) Even from afar, the Marcoses had the capacity to stir trouble to the
fanaticism and blind loyalty of their followers.
(2) Essentially, the right involved is the right to return to one's country, a
totally distinct right under international law, independent from although
related to the right to travel.
(3) "what the presidency is at any particular moment depends in important
measure on who is
President." (Corwin) Corollarily, the powers of the President cannot be said to
be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. In other
words, executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so
enumerated. It has been advanced that whatever power inherent in the
government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive.
(4) The Constitution declares among the guiding principles that "[t]he prime
duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people" and that "[t]he
maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property,
and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by
all the people of the blessings of democracy." The power involved is the
President's residual power to protect the general welfare
of the people. It is founded on the duty of the President, as steward of the
people.
(5) Protection of the people is the essence of the duty of government. The
preservation of the State the fruition of the people's sovereignty is an
obligation in the highest order. The President, sworn to preserve and defend
the Constitution and to see the faithful execution the laws, cannot shirk from
that responsibility.
Leave Division of OCA vs HeusdensA.M. No. P-11-2927, December 13,
2011
Facts:

Respondent left for abroad without waiting for the result of her application. It
turned out that no travel authority wasissued in her favor because she was
not cleared of all her accountabilities as evidenced by the SC Certificate
ofClearance. The OCA found respondent to have violated the OCA Circular
for failing to secure the approval of her application for travel authority.
Issue:
What are the inherent and statutory limitations on the constitutional right to
travel?
Ruling
The exercise of ones right to travel is not absolute. There are constitutional,
statutory and inherent limitations regulating the right to travel. 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 limitations on the right to travel are those that
naturally emanate from the source. An example of such inherent limitation is
the power of the trial courts top rohibit persons charged with a crime to leave
the country. Some of these statutory limitations are the following:
1.The Human Security Act of 2010 or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9372.
2.The Philippine Passport Act of 1996 or R.A. No. 8239.
3.The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 or R.A. No. 9208.
4. The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 or R. A. No.
8042, as amended by R.A. No. 10022.
5. The Act on Violence against Women and Children or R.A. No. 9262.
6. Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995 or R.A. No. 8043.
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES- OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE IGNACIO B. MACARINE A.M. No. MTJ-101770, 18 July 2012, SECOND DIVISION (Brion, J.)
The constitutional right to travel is not absolute since the OCA may regulate
the travels of Judges and personnel to avoid disruption in the administration
of justice.
Of ce of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued the Circular No. 49- 2003
requiring all foreign travels of judges and court personnel to be with prior

permission from the Court. Moreover, a travel authority must rst be secured
from the OCA. Accordingly, Judges must submit the complete requirements
to the OCA at least two weeks before the intended time of travel.
Judge Ignacio Macarine requested for authority to travel to Hongkong with
his family. Said travel was to be charged to Judge Macarines annual forced
leave. However, Judge Macarine did not submit the complete requirements
so his request for authority to travel remained unacted upon. Judge Macarine
proceeded with his travel abroad without the required travel authority. Judge
Macarine was informed by the OCA that his leave of absence had been
disapproved and his travel considered unauthorized by the Court.
Accordingly, the absences of Judge Macarine shall not be deducted from his
leave credits but from his salary. The OCA found Judge Macarine guilty of
violation of OCA Circular No. 49-2003 for traveling out of the country without
ling the necessary application for leave and without rst securing a travel
authority from the Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge Macarine is guilty of violation of OCA Circular No. 492003
HELD:
The right to travel is guaranteed by the Constitution. However, the exercise of
such right is not absolute. Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution allows
restrictions on ones right to travel provided that such restriction is in the
interest of national security, public safety or public health as may be provided
by law. This, however, should by no means be construed as limiting the
Courts inherent power of administrative supervision over lower courts.
OCA Circular No. 49-2003 does not restrict but merely regulates, by
providing guidelines to be complied by judges and court personnel, before
they can
ust law law review, vol lvii, no. 1, november 2012
political law 131
go on leave to travel abroad. To restrict is to restrain or prohibit a person
from doing something; to regulate is to govern or direct according to rule. To
ensure management of court dockets and to avoid disruption in the
administration of justice, OCA Circular No. 49-2003 requires a judge who
wishes to travel abroad to submit, together with his application for leave of
absence duly recommended for approval by his Executive Judge, a certi
cation from the Statistics Division, Court Management Of ce of the OCA. The
said certi cation shall state the condition of his docket based on his Certi cate
of Service for the month immediately preceding the date of his intended
travel, that he has decided and resolved all cases or incidents within three (3)
months from date of submission, pursuant to Section 15(1) and (2), Article
VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
Thus, for traveling abroad without having been of cially allowed by the Court,
Justice Macarine is guilty of violation of OCA Circular No. 49-2003.