Provisional Remedies under Human Security Act of 2007 (RA 9372)

Declaration of Policy: It is declared a policy of the State to protect life, liberty, and property
from acts of terrorism, to condemn terrorism as inimical and dangerous to the national
security of the country and to the welfare of the people, and to make terrorism a crime
against the Filipino people, against humanity, and against the law of nations.

1. Restriction on Travel (sec.26, RA 9372)

 Limitations of the right to travel of the accused within the municipality or city where
he resides or where the case is pending
 In cases where evidence of guilt is not strong, and the person charged with the
crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism is entitled to bail and if
granted the same, the court, upon application by the prosecutor, shall limit the
right of travel of the accused to within the municipality or city where he
resides or where the case is pending, in the interest of national security and
public safety, consistent with Article III, Section 6 of the Constitution.

 Travel outside of said municipality or city, without the authorization of the

court, shall be deemed a violation of the terms and conditions of his bail, which
shall then be forfeited as provided under the Rules of Court.

 House arrest of the accused at his usual place of residence

 While under House Arrest, he or she may not use telephones, cell
phones, e-mails, computers, the internet or other means of
communication with people outside the residence until otherwise
ordered by the court.

 The restrictions above-mentioned shall be terminated upon the acquittal

of the accused or of the dismissal of the case filed against him or earlier
upon the discussion of the court on motion of the prosecutor or of the
accused.

2. Examination of Bank Deposits, Accounts, and Records (sec.27, RA 9372)

The Court of Appeals, after satisfying themselves of the existence of probable cause in a
hearing called for that purpose may authorize in writing any police or law enforcement officer
and the members of his/her team duly authorized in writing by the anti-terrorism council to:
  examine, or cause the examination of, the deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets
and records in a bank or financial institution; or
 gather or cause the gathering of any relevant information about such deposits,
placements, trust accounts, assets, and records from a bank or financial institution

The bank or financial institution concerned, shall not refuse to allow such examination or to
provide the desired information, when so, ordered by and served with the written order of the
Court of Appeals.

Section 27 of R.A. No. 9372 is an exception to R.A. No. 1405: An act prohibiting
disclosure of or inquiry into, deposits with any banking institution.

3. Seizure and Sequestration (sec.39, RA 9372)

Sequestration - the act of removing, separating, or seizing anything from the possession of its
owner under process of law for the benefit of creditors or the state.

What are to be seized?

 Deposits and their outstanding balances, trust accounts, assets and records in any bank
or financial institutions
 Moneys, businesses
 Transportation or communication equipment, supplies
 other implements and property of what kind and nature

Whom to seized or sequestrate?

 to any person suspected of or charged before a competent Regional Trial Court for the
crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism
 a judicially declared and outlawed organization, association, or group of persons
 a member of such outlawed organization, association, or group of persons

Purpose of Seizure or sequestration

 to prevent the use, transfer, or conveyance for purposes that are inimical to the safety
and security of the people or injurious to the interest of the State while their case for
violation of this act is pending
 The accused or a person suspected of may withdraw such sums as may be reasonably
needed by the monthly needs of his family, including the services of his or her counsel and his
or her family’s medical needs, upon approval of the court. He or she may also use any of his
property that is under seizure or sequestration or frozen because of his/her indictment as a
terrorist upon permission of the court for any legitimate reason.

Any person who unjustifiably refuses to follow the order of the proper division of the
Court of Appeals to allow the person accused of the crime of terrorism or of the crime of
conspiracy to commit terrorism to withdraw such sums from sequestered or frozen deposits,
placements, trust accounts, assets and records as may be necessary for the regular sustenance
of his/her family or to use any of his/her property that has been seized, sequestered or frozen
for legitimate purposes while his/her case is pending shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years
and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.
ILLUSTRATIVE CASE:

Joseph C. Sy vs. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 37703, October 3, 2018

Doctrine: “The constitutional right to travel is part of liberty, which a citizen cannot be deprived
of without due process of law. However, this right is not absolute, as it is subject to
constitutional, statutory, and inherent limitations. One of the inherent limitations is the power
of courts to prohibit persons charged with a crime from leaving the country. As a result, a
person with a pending criminal case and provisionally released on bail does not have an
unrestricted right to travel.”

Facts:

Information filed before Sandignbayan (SB) charging SY with violation of Sec. 3 of RA 3019. Sy
posted bond for his provisional remedy. The SB however issued a Hold Departure Order to
prevent him from leaving the country.

November 16, 2017, Sy filed a motion for an Allow Departure Order for the period from
November 28 to December 7, 2017 (Motion A) to embark on business trips in Hong Kong,
Macau, and Xiamen, China. He stated that such travel was necessary for him to personally
attend to important business matters that needed his direct and special attention.

The SB denied Motion A, explaining that: (i) Sy failed to show the indispensability of his
business trip; (ii) the alleged need for the intended travel cannot outweigh the SB's inherent
power to preserve the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over his person; and (iii) business
interests and ties do not, by themselves, remove the probability of flight.

On December 5, 2017, Sy filed another motion to travel this time to Japan and Hong Kong for
the period from December 17, 2017 to January 5, 2018 (Motion B) to accompany his wife and
minor son for a family vacation. The SB denied the motion stating that a similar motion was
previously denied and there were no new matters to substantially address.

On January 8, 2018, Sy filed the third motion to travel, this time to Hong Kong and China for the
period from January 17 to 31, 2018 (Motion C) to attend business meetings but was again
denied.

On March 16, 2018, Sy filed the instant certiorari petition assailing the SB's three (3)
Resolutions, which denied his motions to allow his foreign travels.

The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) insisted that the SB acted within the scope of its
jurisdiction when it denied Sy's motions for travel abroad based on reasonable and valid
grounds. The OSP further argued that Sy failed to convince the SB that he is not a flight risk,
especially since he acknowledged his strong business connections in China and his Chinese
lineage.

On April 5, 2018, pending the resolution of the petition, Sy filed before the Court a Motion for
an Allow Departure Order for the period from April 23, 2018 to May 23, 2018 to attend
business meetings with Baiyin International Investment Ltd. in Hong Kong and several places in
China.

The OSP contended that the motion is already moot because the period of Sy's intended travel
had already lapsed. At any rate, the OSP vehemently opposed the motion on the grounds that:
(a) Sy is a flight risk, which is further highlighted by the uncertainty of his assertion on his
citizenship; and (b) there is no urgent necessity for the business trip; and (c) as held by the SB,
the alleged need for the intended travel cannot outweigh the SB's inherent power to preserve
and maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over Sy's person by making himself available
whenever it requires.

Issue:

Whether the petition for certiorari assailing the SB's denial of Sy's motions for the issuance of
allow departure orders should be granted.

Ruling:

It has been argued that the petition is already moot because the travel period for which Sy
requested an allow departure order (i.e., January 17 to 31, 2018) had already lapsed. While the
assertion is indeed true, the Court nonetheless deems it proper to take cognizance of this case
because it falls under certain exceptions to the mootness doctrine.

The constitutional right to travel is part of liberty, which a citizen cannot be deprived of
without due process of law. However, this right is not absolute, as it is subject to
constitutional, statutory, and inherent limitations. One of the inherent limitations is the
power of courts to prohibit persons charged with a crime from leaving the country. As a
result, a person with a pending criminal case and provisionally released on bail does not have
an unrestricted right to travel.

Verily, the purpose of the restriction on an accused's right to travel is to ensure that courts
can effectively exercise their jurisdiction over such person. As such, courts are authorized to
issue hold departure orders against the accused in criminal cases, and accordingly, the court's
permission is required before an accused can travel abroad.
Based on this premise, the Court finds that the SB committed grave abuse of discretion when it
denied Sy's third request to travel abroad on the grounds that he failed to "show the
indispensability of the business travel," that his "business interests and ties do not, by
themselves, remove the probability of flight," and that the SB remains unconvinced with Sy's
assertions relative to his citizenship.

While an accused requesting for permission to travel abroad has the burden to show the need
for his travel, such permission must not be unduly withheld if it is sufficiently shown that
allowing his travel would not deprive the court of its exercise of jurisdiction over his person, as
in this case.
SAMPLE FORM

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
QUEZON CITY
BRANCH 1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

CRIM. CASE NO. 08-203040

-versus-

JOHN DOE

Accused.

x----------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TRAVEL ABROAD

COMES NOW the undersigned counsel for the accused in the above-entitled case,
respectfully moves this Honorable Court for permission to travel abroad for business purposes
and in support thereof states:

1. That in an Order dated February 3, 2009 this Honorable Court granted the private
complainant’s “Motion for Issuance of Hold Departure Order” against the accused;

2. That on November 5, 2009, the accused and the private complainant entered into a
Compromise Agreement, which was approved by the Honorable Court on November 19, 2009;

3. That the accused has been diagnosed with Stage 3B colon cancer;

4. That the accused to seek medical treatment in New York, U.S.A.;

5. That in view of the above urgent health concerns, the accused is necessitated to
travel abroad for a period of FIFTEEN (15) DAYS only from March 1-15, 2010;
 6. That the accused’s medical certificate, flight schedules and hotel accommodations
are detailed in the itinerary prepared by the travel agency, hereto attached as Annexes “1” ,
“2”, “3”, and “4” respectively;

7. That the accused has been fully compliant with his obligations under the said
Compromise Agreement, and he is bent on complying faithfully with all the conditions specified
therein;

8. That the accused is not a flight risk. The above requested travel is necessary for his
immediate medical treatment, and he will return to the country as scheduled on March 15,
2010.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed on this Honorable Court to

grant this motion to allow the accused to travel abroad solely for business purposes.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Quezon City, February 10, 2010.

John Doe

Counsel for the Accused

PTR No.112345; Pasig City; 3 January 2010

IBP No. 23456; Pasig City; 5 January 2010

Attorney Roll No. 34567

MCLE Compliance III No. 0001111

123 Ditona Street

Pasig City

Telefax: (02) 666-6660

e-mail:
 NOTICE OF HEARING

THE CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court
Branch 1, Quezon City

Assistant City Prosecutor AL CAPON

Office of the City Prosecutor
Quezon City Hall

Atty. Gringo Poe

Counsel for the Private Complainant
Rm 55, The Round Table
Quezon City

G R E E T I N G S:

Please take notice that the undersigned shall submit the foregoing motion for the kind
consideration and approval of this Honorable Court on February 19, 2010 at 8:30 in the
morning as counsel shall be heard.

John Doe

Copy Furnished:

Assistant City Prosecutor AL CAPON

Office of the City Prosecutor
Quezon City Hall

Atty. Gringo Poe

Counsel for the Private Complainant
Rm 55, The Round Table
Quezon City
 Explanation

The undersigned counsel informs the Honorable Court that copy of the foregoing
motion was served upon the above-named counsel by registered mail due to distance and time
constraints, and unavailability of messenger to effect personal service.

John Doe