G.R. No. 94284
April 8, 1991
Doctrine
The right to travel to travel can be impaired not only on the grounds of “interest of national security, public safety or public health” but also if an accused is out on bail.
Facts
- Petitioner was charged for violating Section 20 (4) of the Revised Securities Act
- Petitioner posted bail.
- 2 years after, respondent People of the Philippines filed an Urgent ex parte Motion to cancel the passport of and to issue a hold departure Order against accused-petitioner on the ground that he had gone abroad several times without the necessary Court approval resulting in postponements of the arraignment and scheduled hearings.
- RTC issued an order directing DFA to cancel petitioner’s passport and to deny the latter’s application and Commission on Immigration to prevent petitioner from leaving the country.
- Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the RTC and the CA. Hence, this petition.
- Petitioner contends that the CA erred in dismissing his motion for reconsideration since it found that the right to travel can be impaired upon lawful of the Court even on grounds other than the “interest of national security, public safety, or public health.”
Issue
Whether or not the right to travel can be impaired by a lawful order of the Court even on grounds other than the interest of national security, public safety or public health.
Held
Yes. The 1987 Constitution restricts the allowable impairment of the right to travel only on grounds of interest of national security, public safety or public health. However, the Constitution also provides that the executive officers or administrative authorities can impose limits on the right to travel on the basis of national security, public safety or public health and as may be provided by law.
The law conferred inherent powers to the Court to use all means to carry their orders into effect in criminal cases pending before them (Rule 135, Section 6, Rules of Court). With that, a person facing criminal charges may be restrained by the Court for leaving the country or if abroad, compelled to return. Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should by no means be construed as delimiting the inherent power of the Courts to use all means necessary to carry their orders into effect in criminal cases pending before them.
In this case, the bail bond petitioner had posted had been cancelled and Warrants of Arrest had been issued against him by reason, in both instances, of his failure to appear at scheduled arraignments. Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance before any court when so required by the Court or the Rules. The foregoing condition imposed upon an accused to make himself available at all times whenever the Court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction of his right to travel. Hence, petition dismissed.