Liberty of abode and of travel.

OUTLINE:

Freedom of Movement

1. Constitutional Provision. Section 6, Article III provides that 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.

2. Aspects of the Freedom. Freedom of movement has two aspects:

(a) Freedom to choose and change ones domicile,

(b) Freedom to travel within and outside the country. A persons place of abode or domicile is
his permanent residence.

Limitations

1. 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.

2. 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.

Right to Return to Ones Country

Although the right to return to ones country is not among the rights expressly mentioned in the Bill
of Rights, it is nonetheless recognized and protected in the Philippines. It is a generally accepted
principle of international law, and as such it is part of the law of the land, pursuant to the doctrine of
incorporation. It is different from the right to travel and is guaranteed under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

SUBSTANTIVE
1. Purpose:
The purpose of the guaranty is to further emphasize the individuals liberty
as safeguarded in general terms by the due process clause.
Liberty under that clause includes the right to choose ones residence, to
leave it whenever he pleases, and to travel wherever he wills.

2. Limitation on liberty of abode: lawful order of the court.

a.) In Villavicencio v. Lukban, supra., the deportation of some 170

women of ill repute to Davao on orders of the Mayor of Manila was held
unlawful.
In Caunca v. Salazar, 82 Phil 851, it was held that a maid has the right to
transfer to another residence even if she had not yet paid the amount
advanced for her transportation from the province by an employment agency
which was then effectively detaining her because of the moral duress
exerted on her.
i)However, in Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, supra., it was held
that the respondents were justified in requiring the members of certain non-
Christian tribes to reside only within a reservation. This restriction was
intended to promote their better education, advancement and protection.
b) Art. 13, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Art. 12,
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, provide that everyone has the
right of freedom of movement and residence within the border of each State.

3.Limitations on right to travel: interest of national security,

public safety or public health, as may be provided by law.
a) In Philippine Association of Service Exporters v. Drilon, supra., an
administrative order issued by the Secretary of Labor temporarily suspending
the deployment of Filipino female domestic helpers abroad was upheld, in
view of the need to extend protection to female domestics who were most
prone to exploitation and abuse by their foreign employers.
In Marcos v. Manglapus, 178 SCRA 760, the Supreme Court sustained
the refusal of the government to allow the petitioners return to the
Philippines, on the ground that it would endanger national security.
b) A lawful order of the court is also a valid restriction on the
right to travel.
In Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, 142 SCRA 149, the Court held that the
trial court may validly refuse to grant the accused permission to travel
abroad, even if the accused is out on bail.
In Silverio v. Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA 760, the Court said that Art.
Ill, Sec. 6, should be interpreted to mean that while the liberty of travel may
be impaired even without court order, the appropriate executive officers or
administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose
limitations. They can impose limits only on the basis of national security,
public safety or public health and as may be provided by law, a limitive
phrase which did not appear in the 1973 text, xxx Holding an accused in a
criminal case within the reach of the courts by preventing his departure from
the Philippines must be considered a valid restriction on his right to travel, so
that he may be dealt with in accordance with law.
In Defensor-Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SOFIA 633, the Court further
clarified the foregoing principles, saying:
 [i] The hold-departure order is but an exercise of the respondent
courts inherent power to preserve and maintain the effectiveness of its
jurisdiction over the case and over the person of the accused;
[ii] By posting bail, the accused holds herself amenable at all times to
the orders and processes of the court, thus, she may be legally prohibited
from leaving the country during the pendency of the case; and
[iii] Parties with pending cases should apply for permission to leave the
country from the very same courts which, in the first instance, are in the best
position to pass upon such applications and to impose the appropriate
conditions therefor, since they are conversant with the facts of the cases and
the ramifications or implications thereof.

In Imelda Romualdez Marcos v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 115132,

August 9, 1995, the Court upheld the denial by the Sandiganbayan of the
request to travel abroad filed by Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos, inasmuch as
she had already been convicted. The persons right to travel is subject to the
usual constraints imposed by the very necessity of safeguarding the system
of justice. Whether the accused should be permitted to leave the country for
humanitarian reasons is a matter addressed to the courts discretion
c)Art. 13 (2), Universal Declaration of Human Rights, provides
that everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to
return to his country.

Art. 12 (4), Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, provides that

no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.