Travel Authority Rules for Judges: Supreme Court on Accountability and Compliance

The Supreme Court's 2012 decision in Office of Administrative Services-Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Ignacio B. Macarine (A.M. No. MTJ-10-1770, July 18, 2012) is a compact lesson in how the Court polices compliance with its own administrative circulars. It concerns a judge who flew to Hong Kong without the required travel authority, and it shows both the rule's strictness and the Court's willingness to temper penalties when the facts warrant leniency.

What the case is about

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) charged Judge Ignacio B. Macarine of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Gen. Luna, Surigao del Norte with violating OCA Circular No. 49-2003, the guidelines on requests for travel abroad. The circular requires all foreign travels of judges and court personnel, regardless of duration, to have prior permission from the Court, with a travel authority secured from the OCA.

The decision lists the requirements a judge must submit: an application or letter-request addressed to the Court Administrator stating the purpose of the travel; an application for leave covering the travel period, favorably recommended by the Executive Judge; and a certification from the Statistics Division, Court Management Office of the OCA as to the condition of the docket. These must reach the OCA at least two weeks before the intended travel. Requests with incomplete requirements are not acted upon, and leaving the country without a travel authority exposes the judge or personnel to disciplinary action.

The facts

In August 2009, Judge Macarine asked the Court Administrator for authority to travel to Hong Kong with his family from September 10 to 14, 2009 to celebrate his 65th birthday, charging the trip to his annual forced leave. He did not submit the corresponding application for leave. Because his requirements were incomplete, his request remained unacted upon, and he traveled anyway.

In January 2010, the OCA informed him that his leave of absence for September 9 to 15, 2009 had been disapproved and his travel considered unauthorized. His absences would not be deducted from his leave credits but from his salary for the seven days he was absent, pursuant to the Omnibus Rules on Leave as cited in the decision. He was asked to explain.

In his explanation, the judge said his daughter, a nurse in New Jersey, had gifted him the trip. In early September 2009 she called to say she had booked him, his wife, and two sons in a Hong Kong hotel from September 13 to 15. They flew from Surigao City to Manila on September 9 intending to prepare the papers at the Supreme Court the next day. Sensing time constraints and the futility of completing the requirements before their flight, he chose to travel and submit compliance upon his return. He acknowledged his mistake, regretted it, promised not to repeat it, and asked that his absences be charged to leave credits instead.

The OCA found him guilty and recommended a P5,000 fine, plus deduction of seven days' salary without charging his leave credits.

The ruling

The Court held that the right to travel, while guaranteed by the Constitution, is not absolute. Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution allows restrictions in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health as may be provided by law. The Court stressed that this does not limit its inherent administrative supervision over lower courts. OCA Circular No. 49-2003, it explained, does not restrict but merely regulates: to restrict is to restrain or prohibit; to regulate is to govern or direct according to rule.

The circular serves to ensure management of court dockets and avoid disruption in the administration of justice. A judge seeking to travel abroad must submit, with the leave application recommended by the Executive Judge, a certification on the condition of the docket based on the Certificate of Service for the month immediately preceding the intended travel, showing that cases or incidents have been decided or resolved within three months from submission, consistent with Section 15(1) and (2), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

For traveling abroad without official permission, the judge was guilty of violating OCA Circular No. 49-2003. Under Section 9(4), Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, violation of Supreme Court directives and circulars is a less serious charge punishable by suspension without salary and other benefits for one to three months, or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000.

The Court nevertheless found mitigating circumstances: his immediate effort to go to Manila, the short window before the booked trip, his acknowledgment of the mistake, his remorse, and his promise not to repeat it. Following precedent, it imposed only an admonition, warned that a similar violation would merit a more severe penalty, and approved the OCA's recommendation that his unauthorized absences be deducted from his salary rather than his leave credits.

Justice Sereno filed a concurring and dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Carpio, agreeing that a penalty was due for the failure to file a leave application and docket report but disagreeing that the lack of a travel authority should itself be penalized, viewing the prior-permission requirement as an undue impairment of the constitutional right to travel.

Practical takeaways

• Prior authority is mandatory. Judges and court personnel must secure a travel authority from the OCA before any foreign travel, regardless of the number of days.
• Complete the papers early. The full requirements must be received by the OCA at least two weeks before departure; incomplete requests are not acted upon.
• The docket report matters. A certification on the condition of the docket, tied to the constitutional deadlines for deciding cases, is part of the requirement.
• Unauthorized absence has financial consequences. Absences without approved leave are not paid and are charged against salary, not leave credits, under the Omnibus Rules on Leave as applied in this case.
• Mitigating circumstances can soften penalties. Length of service, remorse, age, and family considerations may lead the Court to impose a lighter penalty than the rules allow.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.