MANOTOC VS. COURT OF APPEALS [142 SCRA 149; G.R. NO.

L-62100; 30 MAY
1986]
Friday, February 06, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes 
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts: Petitioner was charged with estafa. He posted bail. Petitioner filed before each of

the trial courts a motion entitled, "motion for permission to leave the country," stating as
ground therefor his desire to go to the United States, "relative to
his business transactions and opportunities." The prosecution opposed said motion and
after due hearing, both trial judges denied the same. Petitioner thus filed a petition for
certiorari and mandamus before the then Court of Appeals seeking to annul the orders
dated March 9 and 26, 1982, of Judges Camilon and Pronove, respectively, as well as
the communication-request of the Securities and Exchange Commission, denying his
leave to travel abroad. He likewise prayed for the issuance of the appropriate writ
commanding the Immigration Commissioner and the Chief of the Aviation
SecurityCommand (AVSECOM) to clear him for departure. The Court of Appealsdenied
the petition. 

Petitioner contends that having been admitted to bail as a matter of right, neither the
courts which granted him bail nor the Securities and Exchange Commission which has
no jurisdiction over his liberty could prevent him from exercising his constitutional right
to travel. 

Issue: Whether or Not his constitutional right to travel has been violated.

Held: A court has the 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.
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.
Indeed, if the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without sufficient reason,
he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts. Petitioner has not shown the
necessity for his travel abroad. There is no indication that the businesstransactions
cannot be undertaken by any other person in his behalf.
FERDINAND E. MARCOS vs. HON. RAUL MANGLAPUS (177 SCRA 668) Case
Digest
Facts:

After Ferdinand Marcos was deposed from the presidency, he and his family fled to
Hawaii. Now in his deathbed, petitioners are asking the court to order the respondents
to issue their travel documents and enjoin the implementation of the President’s
decision to bar their return to the Philippines. Petitioners contend under the provision of
the Bill of Rights that the President is without power to impair their liberty of abode
because only a court may do so “within the limits prescribed by law.” Nor, according to
the petitioners, may the President impair their right to travel because no law has
authorized her to do so.

Issue:

Does the president have the power to bar the Marcoses from returning to the
Philippines? 

Ruling:

The President has the obligation, under the Constitution to protect the people, promote
their welfare and advance national interest.

This case calls for the exercise of the President’s power as protector of the peace. The
president is not only clothed with extraordinary powers in times of emergency, but is
also tasked with day-to-day problems of maintaining peace and order and ensuring
domestic tranquility in times when no foreign foe appears on the horizon.

The documented history of the efforts of the Marcoses and their followers to destabilize
the country bolsters the conclusion that their return at this time would only exacerbate
and intensify the violence directed against the state and instigate more chaos.

The State, acting through the Government, is not precluded from taking preemptive
actions against threats to its existence if, though still nascent they are perceived as apt
to become serious and direct protection of the people is the essence of the duty of the
government.

The Supreme Court held that the President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of
discretion in determining the return of the petitioners at the present time and under
present circumstances poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare prohibiting
their return to the Philippines. The petition is DISMISSED.

SILVERIO VS. COURT OF APPEALS [195 SCRA 760 ; G.R. 94284; 8 APR 1991]
Friday, February 06, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes 
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts: Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 2 (4) of the revised securities
act. Respondent filed to cancel the passport of the petitioner and to issue a hold
departure order. The RTC ordered the DFA to cancel petitioner’s passport, based on
the finding that the petitioner has not been arraigned and there was evidence to show
that the accused has left the country with out the knowledge and the permission of the
court.

Issue: Whether or Not the right to travel may be impaired by order of the court.

Held: The bail bond posted by petitioner has been cancelled and warrant of arrest has
been issued by reason that he failed to appear at his arraignments. There is a valid
restriction on the right to travel, it is imposed that the accused must make himself
available whenever the court requires his presence. A person facing criminal charges
may be restrained by the Court from leaving the country or, if abroad, compelled to
return (Constitutional Law, Cruz, Isagani A., 1987 Edition, p. 138). So it is also that "An
accused released on bail may be re-arrested without the necessity of a warrant if he
attempts to depart from the Philippines without prior permission of the Court where the
case is pending (ibid., Sec. 20 [2nd
par. ]).

Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution 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 (The Constitution,
Bernas, Joaquin G.,S.J., Vol. I, First Edition, 1987, p. 263). Apparently, the phraseology
in the 1987 Constitution was a reaction to the ban on international travel imposed under
the previous regime when there was a Travel Processing Center, which issued
certificates of eligibility to travel upon application of an interested party (See Salonga vs.
Hermoso & Travel Processing Center, No. 53622, 25 April 1980, 97 SCRA 121).
Holding an accused in a criminal case within the reach of the Courts by preventing his
departure from the Philippines must be considered as a valid restriction on his right to
travel so that he 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 interest that
criminal prosecutions should run their course and proceed to finality without undue
delay, with an accused holding himself amenable at all times to Court Orders and
processes

Defensor-Santiago v Vasquez; G.R. Nos. 99289-90; 27 Jan 1993; 217 SCRA 633
FACTS:
Petitioner posted a cash bond for her provisionary liberty in connection with an
information filed against her for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The
Sandiganbayan issued a hold-departure order after it was revealed in the media that
she intended to leave the country to study.
ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the hold-departure order violates petitioner’s right to travel.
RULING:
NO. The hold-departure order is but an exercise of the court’s inherent power to
preserve and to maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case and the
person of the accused. Under the obligations assumed by petitioner in her bail bond she
holds herself amenable at all times to the orders and processes of the court, she may
legally be prohibited from leaving the country during the pendency of the case.
Petition is DENIED for lack of merit

Marcos vs. Sandiganbayan

247 SCRA 127
August 9, 1995

Petitioner: Imelda R. Marcos

Respondent: Sandiganbayan (First Division) and the People of the Philippines

Case: Petition for certiorari to review the judgment resolutions of the First Division of the
Sandiganbayan.
Facts:
 Former First Lady Imelda Romualdez Marcos is the defendant in several criminal
cases for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), now
pending in the Sandiganbayan and in the regular courts.
 In two of these cases, she was found guilty by the First Division of the
Sandiganbayan and was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 9-12 years,
with perpetual disqualification from office. A motion for reconsideration is
pending.
 December 24, 1993 - After her conviction, she filed a “Motion for Leave to
Travel Abroad” to seek diagnostic tests and treatment in China because of
a “serious and life-threatening medical condition” requiring facilities not
available in the Philippines. This was denied cause of failure to give notice to
the prosecution and the time asked was too short for the court to inform itself of
the basis of the motion.
 December 29, 1993 – Marcos filed in another case an “Urgent Ex-Parte Motion
for Permission to Travel Abroad” to undergo diagnosis and treatment in China.
This motion was supported by medical reports conducted by her physician and
cardiologist, Dr. Roberto V. Anastacio and other doctors from Makati Medical
Center.
 January 4, 1994 – She filed in another case a “Motion for Leave to Travel
Abroad” to place including the United States and Europe, “if necessary,” for
treatment of “hypertensive heart diseases, uncontrolled angina pectoris and
anterior myocardial infarction.” Alleged that these tests are not available locally.
 The Chairman of Sandiganbayan’s First Division, Presiding Justice Francis E.
Garchitorena wrote a letter to Dr. Gregorio B. Patacsil, Officer-in-Charge of the
Philippine Heart Center asking for an “expert opinion on coronary medicine.”
The questions asked were the following:
o Is petitioner’s condition life-threatening?

o What are the “sophisticated biochemical tests” necessary (not merely

desirable, in any are needed at all, to ascertain and remedy her condition?
o Are these tests available here?

o Is the present level of expertise in the Philippines adequate to respond to

her condition?
 The Presidential Commission on Good Government filed a manifestion
interposing no objection based on humanitarian reasons, as long as petitioner
complies with the terms and conditions for the travel.
 The Office of the Special Prosecutor opposed the motionssince necessaity to go
abroad was not demonstrated and that her conviction in two previous criminal
cases may motivate her not to return.
 January 7, 1994 – Hearing on the motion. Petitioner’s counsel asked the court to
add a further question to be sent to Dr. Patacsil. (“Without the Biochemical test,
may proper treatment be administered to Mrs. Marcos?”). They also included the
list of medicines being taken by petitioner as part of the study.
 January 17, 1994 – another “Supplement to the Motion for Leave Abroad” was
filed together with letters and endorsement from various doctors and hospitals
from the United States and China.
 January 20, 1994 – The Sandiganbayan received the report from the
Philippine Heart Center done by a committee of cardiologists led by Dr.
Abarquez. This contained findings which were contrary to the conclusions
of petitioner’s physicians.
 February 18, 1994 – The court denied the petitioner’s motions.
 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and a “Motion to Admit Clinical
Summary and to Resolve Motion for Reconsideration.” The clinical summary was
a recent medical report conducted at the Philippine Heart Center.
 Petitioner also filed a “Motion to Admit Recognizance in Support of, and to
Resolve Soonest, the Motion for Reconsideration to Travel Abroad.” Attached to
this were letter from Vice President Joseph Estrada offering to be guarantor for
the return of petitioner and letters from 24 congressmen (including Speaker Jose
de Venecia) requesting the court to allow petitioner to travel abroad.
 April 19, 1994 – Respondent Court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
for lack of merit. It also expressed disapproval of the interventions of the Vice
President and the congressmen.
 Hence this petition. Petitioners claim the following:
o The Sandiganbayan arbitrarily disregarded the testimonies and medical
findings of Imelda’s attending physicians and merely substituted them with
the academic views of the committee from the Philippine Heart Center,
who never examined the victim personally.
o It adopted an unusual and unorthodox conduct of trial since it contacted a
third part asking for an opinion on petitioner’s motion and medical findings
and that this evidence was not presented by the petitioner.
 o It failed to resolve that, in the clash between basic constitutional
rights of the petitioner and the authority of the court over the
petitioner, the basic constitutional rights must prevail.
o It considered the conviction of petitioner in two criminal cases which are
pending reconsideration as factors in denying her rights.
o The perception that there is “no imperative necessity” for petitioner to avail
of medical treatment abroad cannot constitute a cause to deny or deprive
petitioner of her constitutional rights.

Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in

denying petitioner’s request to travel abroad for medical treatment.  NO!!!

Ratio:
 Regarding Expert Opinions / Amici-Curiae
o Respondent court had to seek expert opinion because petitioner's motion
was based on the advice of her physician. The court could not be
expected to just accept the opinion of petitioner's physician in resolving
her request for permission to travel.
o The subject lay beyond the competence of the court, and hence, it
only followed the prudent course available of seeking the opinion of
specialists in that field.
o Indeed, when even in their own field of expertise (law) courts are allowed
to invite amici curiae to shed light on recondite points of law, there is no
reason for denying them assistance on other subjects
o Presiding Justice Garchitorena's letter to Dr. Patacsil is notable in this
regard for its sedulous concern for "greater need for information and
expert advise" to the end that respondent court may be able to determine
"whether or not it is necessary and urgent for petitioner to travel abroad.”
o What would be objectionable would be if respondent court obtained
information without disclosing its source to the parties and used it in
deciding a case against them. Then the parties could justifiably complain
that their right to due process has been violated. But, in this case,
everything was on the level, with the parties taking part in the proceedings
of the court.
 o Also, petitioner is estoped from questioning what she now calls the
"unusual and unorthodox" manner of resolving her request for
permission to travel abroad since her counsel even submitted
additional questions and later on cross-examined the leader of the
committee (Dr. Abarquez)
 The Sandiganbayan disregarded the findings and recommendations of
petitioner’s own physicians because petitioner failed to prove the necessity
for a trip abroad.
 considering the fact that she is facing charges before the courts in several cases,
in two of which she was convicted although the decision is still pending
reconsideration, petitioner did not have an absolute right to leave the country and
the burden was on her to prove that because of danger to health if not to her life
there was necessity to seek medical treatment in foreign countries
 it was unnecessary for the Philippine Heart Center's specialists to examine the
petitioner personally. Given the findings of petitioner's own physicians, they
found that petitioner had not been shown to be suffering from coronary artery
disease and uncontrolled high blood pressure (labile hypertension).
 Relevant portions of the Dr. Abarquez and The Committe’s findings:
o The diagnosis of hypertensive heart disease is questionable.

o The committee questioned the need for petitioner to have biochemical

tests abroad. Even without these tests, it noted, Dr. Anastacio had
"already been treating her with medicines that are used for hypertension
and coronary heart disease."
o With respect to Dr. Anastacio's claim that petitioner is in the high risk
group of sudden cardiac death, the committee stated that a history of
sudden death in the family alone will not support such a conclusion
o The tests we have recommended are available in the Philippines.
Proper treatment can be given to Mrs. Marcos even in the absence of the
suggested biochemical tests.
o The present facilities and expertise in the Philippines are more than
adequate to diagnose and treat patients with hypertension and/or
coronary heart disease. 
 The evidence submitted to it, according to the Abarquez committee, "[did] not
confirm the allegation that Mrs. Marcos is in the high risk group of sudden cardiac
death." Perhaps the best proof that she is not in the group is the fact that
she ran in the last election for a seat in the House of Representative and
 won. It may be assumed that she waged an arduous political campaign but
apparently is none the worse for it.
 Despite the fact that Imelda was given permission to travel on three previous
occasions before, her later conviction in two cases dictated the need for
greater caution.
 Indeed, conviction is not yet final due to the motion for reconsideration. But a
person's right to travel is subject to the usual contraints imposed by the
very necessity of safeguarding the system of justice. In such cases,
whether the accused should be permitted to leave the jurisdiction for
humanitarian reason is a matter of the court's sound discretion.
 The active intervention of the Presiding Judge is justified by the fact that the
subject with which the court was dealing was a highly technical one and he
wanted to clarify for himself a number of medical question.
 The Court’s Suggestion
o Petitioner should have requested an examination of her medical condition
by a joint team of cardiologist and other medical experts instead of having
the findings of her physician reviewed by the other specialists. A joint
investigation will have the advantage of not being unduly adversarial since
the purpose is the common objective of arriving at a consensus among the
experts.
o It is not yet late for the petitioner to ask for this. She can file another
motion before the Sandiganbayan. This is suggested because during
the pendency of this action, petitioner filed a motion for leave to
travel, this time on the ground that she is suffering from a difficult
type of glaucoma which threatens to make her blind.
o This is supported by a medical certificate of Dr. Manuel B. Agulto,
opthalmologist and glaucoma expert, who recommends that petitioner see
Dr. Richard J. Simmons of Boston, Massachusetts, and avail herself of his
"internationally renowned expertise and recognized authority in this
particularly difficult glaucoma type."
o This motion should be addressed to the Sandiganbayan not only because
whether petitioner should be allowed to leave the country is its primary
concern but also because the determination of petitioner's eye condition is
question of fact to be made in the first instance by the Sandiganbayan.

Held: The petitioner is DISMISSED without prejudice to the filling of another motion for
leave to travel abroad, should petitioner still desire, based on her heart condition. In
such an event the determination of her medical condition should be made by joint panel
of medical specialists recommended by both the accused and the prosecution.
Petitioner's motion for leave to travel for medical treatment of her alleged failing
eyesight is hereby REFERRED to the Sandiganbayan with directive to the latter to
appoint a joint panel of eye specialists as outlined above.

Memory Aid / Crammer-Friendly Version:

 Former First Lady Imelda Marcos is charged with several cases of graft
and corruption lodged with the Sandiganbayan and other lower courts.
 She was already convicted in two of these cases.
 She filed several petitions asking the court to allow her to leave the
country to seek medical treatment abroad, primarily because of heart
problems. She alleged that the proper treatments are not available in the
Philippines.
 The First Division of the Sandiganbayan, through its Presiding Justice
Francis Garchitorena wrote a letter to the Philippine Heart Center to ask
for an expert opinion on the matter.
 The eventual reply by the team of cardiologists from the Philippine Heart
Center is that the diagnoses conducted by Imelda’s personal doctors are
questionable. Her sickness could not be proved outright. Also, it said that
the tests can be conducted in the Philippines and that there are more than
adequate facilities available locally.
 Hence, the Sandiganbayan denied the motions. The motion for
reconsideration was also not granted.
 Petitioner alleges that the Sandiganbayan committed GADALEJ in not
allowing her to travel because it is an attack against the right to travel of
Mrs. Marcos. Also, she questions the act of the Sandiganbayan in giving
more weight to the report conducted by the team of cardiologists than her
own physician.
 SC ruled in favour of Sandiganbayan. It upheld the expert opinions given
by the medical practitioners since the subject is beyond the competence of
the court.
 A person's right to travel is subject to the usual constraints imposed by the
very necessity of safeguarding the system of justice. In such cases,
whether the accused should be permitted to leave the jurisdiction for
humanitarian reason is a matter of the court's sound discretion.