Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

Caunca v Salazar (Constitutional Law) psychological spell is to place a person at the

mercy of another, the victim is entitled to the

Caunca v Salazar protection of courts of justice as much as the
GR. No. L-2690 individual who is illegally deprived of liberty by
January I, 1949 duress or physical coercion.

Liberty of abode and travel Ratio:

Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the On the hypothesis that petitioner is really
same within the limits prescribed by law shall not indebted, such is not a valid reason for
be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. respondents to obstruct, impede or interfere with
Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except her desire to leave. Such indebtedness may be
in the interest of national security, public safety or multiplied by thousands or millions but would not
public health, as may be provided by law. in any way subtract an iota from the fundamental
right to have a free choice of abode. The fact that
Facts: power to control said freedom may be an effective
This is an action for habeas corpus brought by means of avoiding monetary losses to the agency
Bartolome Caunca in behalf of his cousin Estelita is no reason for jeopardizing a fundamental
Flores, an orphan and an illiterate, who was human right. The fortunes of business cannot be
employed by the Far Eastern Employment Bureau, controlled by controlling a fundamental human
owned by Julia Salazar, respondent herein. freedom. Human dignity is not merchandise
appropriate for commercial barters or business
An advanced payment has already been given to bargains. Fundamental freedoms are beyond the
Estelita by the employment agency, for her to work province of commerce or any other business
as a maid. However, Estelita wanted to transfer to enterprise.
another residence, which was disallowed by the
employment agency. Further she was detained and Also, under the Revised Penal Code, penalties are
her liberty was restrained. The employment imposed "upon any person who, in order to
agency wanted that the advance payment, which require or enforce the payment of a debt, shall
was applied to her transportation expense from the compel the debtor to work for him, against his
province should be paid by Estelita before she will, as household servant or farm laborer."
could be allowed to leave.
Moral restraint is a ground for the issuance of this
Issue: writ, as where a housemaid is prevented from
Whether or Not an employment agency has the leaving her employ because of the influence of the
right to restrain and detain a maid without person detaining her.
returning the advance payment it gave?

An employment agency, regardless of the amount
it+-- may advance to a prospective employee or
maid, has absolutely no power to curtail her Manotoc v. CA, 142 SCRA 149
freedom of movement. The fact that no physical
force has been exerted to keep her in the house of Its object is to relieve the accused of imprisonment
the respondent does not make less real the and the state of the burden of keeping him, pending
deprivation of her personal freedom of movement, the trial, and at the same time, to put the accused as
freedom to transfer from one place to another, much under the power of the court as if he were in
freedom to choose one’s residence. Freedom may
custody of the proper officer, and to secure the
be lost due to external moral compulsion, to
founded or groundless fear, to erroneous belief in appearance of the accused so as to answer the call
the existence of an imaginary power of an of the court and do what the law may require of him.
impostor to cause harm if not blindly obeyed, to
any other psychological element that may curtail The condition imposed upon petitioner to make
the mental faculty of choice or the unhampered himself available at all times whenever the court
exercise of the will. If the actual effect of such requires his presence operates as a valid

restriction on his right to travel. As we have held consequence of the nature and function of
in People vs. Uy Tuising, 61 Phil. 404 (1935). a bail bond. The condition imposed upon
petitioner to make himself available at all
... the result of the obligation times whenever the courtrequires his
assumed by appellee (surety) to presence operates as a valid restriction on
hold the accused amenable at
his right to travel. Indeed, if the accused
all times to the orders and
processes of the lower court, were allowed to leave the Philippines
was to prohibit said accused without sufficient reason, he may be
from leaving the jurisdiction of placed beyond the reach of the courts.
the Philippines, because, Petitioner has not shown the necessity for
otherwise, said orders and his travel abroad. There is no indication
processes will be nugatory, and that the business transactions cannot be
inasmuch as the jurisdiction of
undertaken by any other person in his
the courts from which they
issued does not extend beyond behalf.
that of the Philippines they
would have no binding force Petitioner cites the Court of Appeals case of
outside of said jurisdiction.
People vs. Shepherd (C.A.-G.R. No. 23505-R,

Indeed, if the accused were allowed to leave the Feb. 13, 1980) as authority for his claim that he
Philippines without sufficient reason, he may be could travel. The S.C. held however that said
placed beyond the reach of the courts. case is not squarely on all fours with the case
at bar. Unlike the Shepherd case, petitioner
The effect of a recognizance or bail bond, when
fully executed or filed of record, and the prisoner has failed to satisfy the courts of the urgency
released thereunder, is to transfer the custody of of his travel, the duration thereof, as well as
the accused from the public officials who have the consent of his surety to the proposed
him in their charge to keepers of his own
selection. Such custody has been regarded travel.
merely as a continuation of the original
imprisonment. The sureties become invested e. It may thus be inferred that the fact that a
with full authority over the person of the principal criminal case is pending against an accused
and have the right to prevent the principal from
does not automatically bar him from travelling
leaving the state.14
abroad. He must however convince the courts
The constitutional right to travel being invoked by of the urgency of his travel, the duration
petitioner is not an absolute right. Section 5, Article
thereof, and that his sureties are willing to
IV of the 1973 Constitution states:
undertake the responsibility of allowing him
to travel.
The liberty of abode and of travel shall not be
impaired except upon lawful order of the court, or
when necessary in the interest of national security, Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668
public safety or public health.
Assuming that the President has the power to
urgency of his travel, the duration thereof, as bar former President Marcos and his family from
well as the consent of his surety to the proposed returning to the Philippines, in the interest of
travel, "national security, public safety or public health

A court has the power to prohibit a person Article II is the most loosely drawn chapter of the
admitted to bail from leaving the Constitution. To those who think that a
Philippines. This is a necessary constitution ought to settle everything

beforehand it should be a nightmare; by the be free to leave any country, including his own.
same token, to those who think that constitution Such rights may only be restricted by laws
makers ought to leave considerable leeway for protecting the national security, public order,
the future play of political forces, it should be a public health or morals or the separate rights of
vision realized. others. However, right to enter one's country
cannot be arbitrarily deprived. It would be
This case involves a petition of mandamus and therefore inappropriate to construe the limitations
prohibition asking the court to order the to the right to return to ones country in the same
respondents Secretary of Foreign Affairs, etc. To context as those pertaining tothe liberty of abode
issue travel documents to former Pres. Marcos and the right to travel.
and the immediate members of his family and to
enjoin the implementation of the President's
decision to bar their return to the Philippines. The Bill of rights treats only the liberty of abode
Petitioners assert that the right of the Marcoses and the right to travel, but it is a well considered
to return in the Philippines is guaranteed by the view that the right to return may be considered,
Bill of Rights, specifically Sections 1 and 6. They as a generally accepted principle of International
contended that Pres. Aquino is without power to Law and under our Constitution as part of the law
impair the liberty of abode of the Marcoses of the land.
because only a court may do so within the limits
prescribed by law. Nor the President impair their The court held that President did not act arbitrarily
right to travel because no law has authorized her or with grave abuse of discretion in determining
to do so. that the return of the Former Pres. Marcos and
his family poses a serious threat to national
They further assert that under international law, interest and welfare. President Aquino has
their right to return to the Philippines is determined that the destabilization caused by the
guaranteed particularly by the Universal return of the Marcoses would wipe away the
Declaration of Human Rights and the gains achieved during the past few years after the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Marcos regime.
Rights, which has been ratified by the Philippines.
The return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat
ISSUE: Whether or not, in the exercise of the and therefore prohibiting their return
powers granted by the constitution, the President tothe Philippines, the instant petition is hereby
(Aquino) may prohibit the Marcoses from DISMISSED
returning to the Philippines.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

HELD: "It must be emphasized that the individual provides:
right involved is not the right to travelfrom the
Philippines to other countries or within the
Article 13. (1) Everyone has the
Philippines. These are what the rightto
right to freedom of movement
travel would normally connote. Essentially, the
and residence within the
right involved in this case at bar is the right to
borders of each state.
return to one's country, a distinct right under
international law, independent from although
related to the right to travel. Thus, the Universal (2) Everyone has the right to
Declaration of Human Rights and the leave any country, including his
International Covenant on Civil and Political own, and to return to his
Rights treat the right to freedom of movement and country.
abode within the territory of a state, the right to
leave the country, and the right to enter one's Likewise, the International Covenant on Civil
country as separate and distinct rights. What the and Political Rights, which had been ratified by
Declaration speaks of is the "right to freedom of the Philippines, provides:
movement and residence within the borders of
each state". On the other hand, the Covenant Article 12
guarantees the right to liberty of movement and
freedom to choose his residence and the right to

1) Everyone lawfully within the It may be conceded that as
territory of a State shall, within formulated by petitioners, the
that territory, have the right to question is not a political
liberty of movement and question as it involves merely a
freedom to choose his determination of what the law
residence. provides on the matter and
application thereof to petitioners
2) Everyone shall be free to Ferdinand E. Marcos and family.
leave any country, including his But when the question is
own. whether the two rights claimed
by petitioners Ferdinand E.
Marcos and family impinge on
3) The above-mentioned rights
or collide with the more
shall not be subject to any
restrictions except those which primordial and transcendental
are provided by law, are right of the State to security and
safety of its nationals, the
necessary to protect national
question becomes political and
security, public order (order
this Honorable Court can not
public), public health or morals
consider it.
or the rights and freedoms of
others, and are consistent with
the other rights recognized in There are thus gradations to the question, to wit:
the present Covenant.
Do petitioners Ferdinand E.
4) No one shall be arbitrarily Marcos and family have the
deprived of the right to enter his right to return to the Philippines
own country. and reestablish their residence
here? This is clearly a justiciable
question which this Honorable
On the other hand, the respondents' principal
argument is that the issue in this case involves a Court can decide.
political question which is non-justiciable.
According to the Solicitor General: Do petitioners Ferdinand E.
Marcos and family have their
right to return to the Philippines
As petitioners couch it, the
question involved is simply and reestablish their residence
whether or not petitioners here even if their return and
residence here will endanger
Ferdinand E. Marcos and his
national security and public
family have the right to travel
safety? this is still a justiciable
and liberty of abode. Petitioners
question which this Honorable
invoke these constitutional
rights in vacuo without reference Court can decide.
to attendant circumstances.
Is there danger to national
security and public safety if
Respondents submit that in its
petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos
proper formulation, the issue is
whether or not petitioners and family shall return to the
Philippines and establish their
Ferdinand E. Marcos and family
residence here? This is now a
have the right to return to the
political question which this
Philippines and reside here at
Honorable Court can not decide
this time in the face of the
determination by the President for it falls within the exclusive
that such return and residence authority and competence of the
President of the Philippines.
will endanger national security
[Memorandum for Respondents,
and public safety.
pp. 9-11; Rollo, pp. 297-299.]

Respondents argue for the primacy of the right ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW,
of the State to national security over individual
rights. In support thereof, they cite Article II of UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, IS PART OF THE
the Constitution, to wit: LAW OF THE LAND.
To the President, the problem is one of
Section 4. The prime duty of the
Government is to serve and balancing the general welfare and the
protect the people. The common good against the exercise of rights of
Government may call upon the certain individuals. The power involved is
people to defend the State and,
in the fulfillment thereof, all the President’s RESIDUAL POWER to protect
citizens may be required, under the general welfare of the people.
conditions provided by law, to
render personal, military, or civil
The court cannot close its eyes to present
realities and pretend that the country is not
Section 5. The maintenance of besieged by the insurgency, separatist
peace and order, the protection movement in Mindanao, rightist conspiracies to
of life, liberty, and property, and
the promotion of the general grab power, etc. With these before her, the
welfare are essential for the President cannot be said to have acted
enjoyment by all the people of
arbitrarily, capriciously and whimsically.
the blessings of democracy.

Lastly, the issue involved in the case at bar is

It must be emphasized that the individual right
not political in nature since under Section 1,
involved in this case is not the right to travel
Art. VIII of the Constitution, judicial power now
from the Philippines to other countries or
includes the duty to “determine whether or
within the Philippines. These are what the right
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
to travel connote. Essentially, the right to
amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of
return to one’s country, a totally distinct right
any branch or instrumentality of the
under international law, independent from,
though related to the right to travel. Thus,
even the Universal declaration of Human Rights NOTE:
and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights treat the right to freedom of The main opinion was concurred in by 7 justices
movement and abode within the territory of (CJ Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera,
the state, the right to leave a country and the Gancayco, Grino-Aquino, Medialdea and
right to enter one’s country as separate and Regalado) or a total of 8 justices in voting in
distinct rights. favor of DISMISSING the petition. Seven justices
filed separate dissenting opinions (Gutierrez,
THE RIGHT TO RETURN TO ONE’S COUNTRY IS Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin and
CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE RIGHT TO RETURN G.R. No. 81958 June 30, 1988, Sarmiento,

(Labor Standards, Police Power defined) 1 applies only to "female contract workers," but it
does not thereby make an undue discrimination
between the sexes. It is well-settled that "equality
FACTS: before the law" under the Constitution does not
import a perfect Identity of rights among all men
and women. It admits of classifications, provided
that (1) such classifications rest on substantial
Phil association of Service Exporters, Inc., is distinctions; (2) they are germane to the purposes
engaged principally in the recruitment of Filipino of the law; (3) they are not confined to existing
workers, male and female of overseas conditions; and (4) they apply equally to all
employment. It challenges the constitutional members of the same class.
validity of Dept. Order No. 1 (1998) of DOLE The Court is satisfied that the classification made-
entitled “Guidelines Governing the Temporary the preference for female workers — rests on
Suspension of Deployment of Filipino Domestic substantial distinctions.
and Household Workers.” It claims that such
order is a discrimination against males and
females. The Order does not apply to all Filipino Silverio v. CA
workers but only to domestic helpers and females
"Bail is the security given for the release of a
with similar skills, and that it is in violation of the
right to travel, it also being an invalid exercise of person in custody of the law, furnished by him or
the lawmaking power. Further, PASEI invokes a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance
Sec 3 of Art 13 of the Constitution, providing for before any court when so required by the Court
worker participation in policy and decision- or the Rules
making processes affecting their rights and
benefits as may be provided by law. Thereafter
the Solicitor General on behalf of DOLE
Petitioner is facing a criminal charge. He has
submitting to the validity of the challenged
posted bail but has violated the conditions
guidelines involving the police power of the State
and informed the court that the respondent have thereof by failing to appear before the Court
lifted the deployment ban in some states where when required. Warrants for his arrest have
there exists bilateral agreement with the been issued. Those orders and processes would
Philippines and existing mechanism providing for be rendered nugatory if an accused were to be
sufficient safeguards to ensure the welfare and allowed to leave or to remain, at his pleasure,
protection of the Filipino workers. outside the territorial confines of the country.
Holding an accused in a criminal case within the
ISSUE: reach of the Courts by preventing his departure
from the Philippines must be considered as a
Whether or not D.O. No. 1 of DOLE is valid restriction on his right to travel so that he
constitutional as it is an exercise of police power. may be dealt with in accordance with law. The
offended party in any criminal proceeding is the
People of the Philippines. It is to their best
“[Police power] has been defined as the "state interest that criminal prosecutions should run
authority to enact legislation that may interfere their course and proceed to finality without
with personal liberty or property in order to undue delay, with an accused holding himself
promote the general welfare." As defined, it amenable at all times to Court Orders and
consists of (1) an imposition of restraint upon processes.
liberty or property, (2) in order to foster the
common good. It is not capable of an exact
definition but has been, purposely, veiled in
Justice Douglas, in Aptheker v. Secretary of State,
general terms to underscore its all-
comprehensive embrace. said: “Free movement by the citizen is, of course, as
dangerous to a tyrant as free expression of ideas or
the right of assembly, and it is therefore controlled in
“The petitioner has shown no satisfactory reason
most countries in the interest of security . . . . That is
why the contested measure should be nullified.
why the ticketing of people and the use of
There is no question that Department Order No.

identification papers are routine matters under As to liberty of travel, under the 1987 law, it may be
totalitarian regimes.” impaired even without a court order, but the
Freedom of movement in Philippine law has evolved appropriate executive officer is not armed with
through the 1935, 1973 and 1987 constitutions. The arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. He can
“watch list order” issued by the justice secretary must impose limits only on the basis of “national security,
be measured against the present status of the current public safety, or public health” and “as may be
constitutional provision. provided by law,” a limitive phrase which had
The 1935 provision simply said: “The liberty of disappeared from the less libertarian 1973 text.
abode and of changing the same within the limits My questions, therefore, are two. First, in what way
prescribed by law shall not be impaired.” The will the travel of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo be a
teaching then was that no one could be compelled to threat to “national security, public safety, or public
change his or her home except in accordance with health”? Second, by what statutory authority is the
law. Thus, when the mayor of Manila sought to justice secretary preventing the exit of GMA?
cleanse the city of prostitutes by sending them to In issuing “watch list orders” the Department of
Davao, the Supreme Court stopped him. The Court Justice has relied on its prosecutorial powers as found
then said: “If [the City Mayor and Chief of Police] in Section 3[1], [2] & [6], Chapter I, Title III, Book
can take to themselves such power, then any official IV of the Administrative Code. Of these, the only
can do the same . . . And if a prostitute could be sent part specifically related to travel is Section 3(6)
against her wishes and under no law from one which deals with the admission and stay of aliens! In
locality to another within the country, then effect, the policy being followed now claims even a
officialdom can hold the same club over the head of broader executive discretion than that given under the
any citizen.” 1973 Constitution which at least was limited by the
ADVERTISEMENT needs of “national security, public safety, or public
The 1973 Constitution altered the 1935 text to read: The limitation on the right to travel must be based on
“The liberty of abode and of travel shall not be law and not on a mere executive circular. The
impaired except upon lawful order of the court, or limitation may also be by legitimate court order
when necessary in the interest of national security, under the Rules of Court. As the Court has said in
public safety, or public health.” The liberty could reference to persons out on bail, (and who are
thus be impaired either “upon lawful order of the therefore under the jurisdiction of a court), the right
court” or even without such order provided that the to travel should not be “construed as delimiting the
restriction was “necessary in the interest of national inherent power of the courts to use all means
security, public safety, or public health.” The phrase necessary to carry their orders into effect in criminal
“within the limits prescribed by law” in the 1935 cases pending before them. When by law jurisdiction
provision disappeared. Thus, the net effect was that is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary
an executive officer could impair liberty of abode and writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it
of travel even without a prior court order provided into effect may be employed by such court or
only that in the executive officer’s judgment officer.” The executive department is claiming
impairment was “necessary in the interest of national similar discretionary power and without relation to
security, public safety, or public health.” national security, public safety, and public health.
Drastic attempts by the government to control the Incidentally, the celebrated case on the right to travel
travel of citizens during the period of martial law did was the ban of President Cory Aquino on former
reach the Court. The curtailment took the form of President Ferdinand Marcos’ return to the
denial of exit permits. The Court had occasion to Philippines. Since the authority to impair the right to
warn the Travel Processing Center not to treat the travel must be based on law, there was need to point
constitutional guarantee of the right to travel as an to a law giving her such authority. The Court found it
empty phrase in a pauper’s will. in the “faithful execution clause” of Article VII,
The 1987 Constitution has strengthened the guarantee Section 17. The Court accepted the argument that the
by splitting freedom of movement into two distinct return of Marcos then could be a threat to public
sentences and treating them differently. The liberty of safety and the stability of the government at that
abode is treated in a separate sentence. It may be time. Is the justice secretary making such claim even
impaired only “upon lawful order of the court,” and if President Aquino himself has been quoted as
the court is to be guided by “the limits prescribed by saying that he has no objection to the foreign travel
law” on the liberty itself. The clear intent was to of GMA?
proscribe practices like “hamletting.”

Comendador v De Villa 200 SCRA 80
(1991) Held: The SC ruled that the bail invoked
"military members exempted from the right by petitioners is not available in the military as an
to bail” exception to the general rule embodied in the Bill
of Rights. Thus the right to a speedy trial is given
more emphasis in the military where the right to
bail does not exist. Justification to this rule
Facts: This is a consolidated case of members of
involves the unique structure of the military and
the AFP who were charged with violation
national security considerations which may result
ofArticles of War (AW) 67 (Mutiny), AW 96
to damaging precedents that mutinous soldiers
(Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a
will be released on provisional liberty giving them
Gentleman) and AW 94 (Various Crimes) in
the chance to continue their plot in overthrowing
relation to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code
the government. Therefore the decision of the
(Murder). The petitioners were questioning the
lower court granting bail to the petitioners was
conduct of the pre-trial investigation conducted
where a motion to bail was filed but was denied.
Petitioner applied for provisional liberty and
preliminary injunction before the court which was
granted. However De Villa refused to release
petitioner for provisional liberty pending the
resolution of the appeal they have taken before
the court invoking that military officers are an SABBUN MAGUDDATU,
exemption from the right to bail guaranteed by the petitioners, vs
Constitution. Decision was rendered reiterating
the release for provisional liberty of petitioners . Honorable COURT OF APPEALS (FOURTH DIVISION)
with the court stating that there is a mistake in the and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
presumption of respondents that bail does not
apply among military men facing court martial respondents.
proceeding. Respondents now appeal before the
higher court.

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines J
The Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines explained
For a human being who has been inside a prison
cell, a bail bond represents his only ticket to liberty,
Issue: Whether or not military men are exempted albeit provisional. But the right to bail is not always a
from the Constitutional guarantee on the right to demandable right. In certain instances, it is a matter
bail. of discretion. This discretion, however, is not full and
unfettered because the law and the rules set the
parameters for its proper exercise. Discretion is, of
Cases on constitutional law course, a delicate thing and its abuse of such grave
(Philippine casebook series) nature would warrant intervention of this Court by
way of the special civil action for
A historical and juridical study of the Philippine
Bill of rights certiorari

Sections 4, 5 and 7 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court The appellate court may review the resolution of the
provide: Regional Trial Court, on motion and with notice to
the adverse party.
SEC. 4. Bail, a matter of right.- All persons in custody
shall: (a) before or after conviction by the xxx
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court,
SEC. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by
Municipal Trial Court in Cities and Municipal Circuit
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not
Trial Court, and (b) before conviction by the Regional
bailable.- No person charged with a capital offense,
Trial Court of an offense not punishable by
or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, be
life imprisonment, when evidence of guilt is strong,
admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient
shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of
sureties, or be released on recognizance as
the criminal prosecution.
prescribed by law or this Rule.

SEC. 5. Bail, when discretionary.- Upon conviction by

the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable WHAT IS BAIL?
by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
the court, on application, may admit the accused to 1. It is the security given
2. For the release of a person in custody of the law
The court, in its discretion, may allow the accused to
3. Furnished by him or a bondsman
continue on provisional liberty under the same bail
bond during the period to appeal subject to the 4. To guarantee his appearance before any court as
consent of the bondsman. required

If the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment .

exceeding six (6) years but not more than twenty
(20) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his
bail previously granted shall be cancelled, upon a
showing by the prosecution, with notice to the
accused, of the following or other similar

(a) That the accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or

habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime
aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;

(b) That the accused is found to have previously

escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence,
or has violated the conditions of his bail without
valid justification;

(c) That the accused committed the offense while on

probation, parole, or under conditional pardon;

(d) That the circumstances of the accused or his case

indicate the probability of flight if released on bail;

(e) That there is undue risk that during the pendency

of the appeal, the accused may commit another