Hold Departure Orders: Why Only Regional Trial Courts Can Issue Them

A hold-departure order is a powerful tool that restricts a person’s freedom to leave the country. Because it touches on the constitutional right to travel, Philippine courts have made clear that only certain courts may issue such orders. A 2001 Supreme Court resolution involving a Municipal Trial Court judge in Koronadal, South Cotabato settled the matter: municipal trial courts have no authority to issue hold-departure orders, and judges who do so face administrative penalties.

The Case: A Judge Who Overstepped

The case began when Judge Agustin T. Sardido of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Koronadal, South Cotabato, presiding over Criminal Case No. 19418 for estafa, granted the private complainants' motion and ordered the Bureau of Immigration to issue a hold-departure order against the accused, Jinky A. Besorio.

When the Department of Justice referred the matter to the Supreme Court, Judge Sardido was asked to explain his action. He admitted that he was unaware he lacked authority to issue the order, saying he acted on a mistaken belief that he was authorized to do so.

The Governing Rule: Circular No. 39-97

The Supreme Court resolved the issue by pointing to Circular No. 39-97, which explicitly states that hold-departure orders shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs).

This means that first-level courts — including Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and Metropolitan Trial Courts — cannot issue hold-departure orders, regardless of the nature of the case pending before them.

Guidelines for Issuing Hold-Departure Orders

To ensure strict compliance and prevent the indiscriminate issuance of hold-departure orders, the Court reiterated the following guidelines:

• Hold-departure orders may only be issued in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of RTCs.
• The issuing RTC must furnish the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Bureau of Immigration (BI) with a copy of the order within 24 hours of issuance, using the fastest available means of transmittal.
• The order must contain the complete name (including middle name), date and place of birth, and last place of residence of the person subject to the order.
• It must also state the complete title and docket number of the case, the specific nature of the case, and the date of the hold-departure order.
• If available, a recent photograph of the person should be included.
• When an accused is acquitted or the case is dismissed, the judgment or order must include the cancellation of the hold-departure order, and copies must be sent to the DFA and BI within 24 hours.

Why the Judge Was Not Excused

The Court rejected Judge Sardido's defense of ignorance. It noted that Circular No. 39-97 was not new — it had been circularized in 1997 and had already been the subject of several cases before the Court. Citing Canon 3, Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the Court reminded judges to be "faithful to the law and maintain professional competence."

The Court emphasized that judges have a duty to keep abreast of developments in law and jurisprudence. Ignorance of a well-established rule does not excuse an infraction, especially one that affects a person's fundamental right to travel.

The Penalty

Following precedent from similar cases, the Supreme Court reprimanded Judge Sardido and warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

Practical Takeaways

• Only RTCs may issue hold-departure orders. If a case is pending before a municipal or metropolitan trial court, that court cannot restrict a person's travel.
• A hold-departure order is not automatic. Even in RTC cases, it must be issued with complete and accurate information, and copies must be promptly sent to the DFA and BI.
• The right to travel is protected. Courts are cautious about restricting this right, and any order that does so must strictly follow the rules.
• Judges are expected to know the rules. Ignorance of a circular or a well-settled rule is not a valid excuse in administrative proceedings.
• Acquittal or dismissal cancels the order. The court must include the cancellation in its judgment or order and notify the relevant agencies within 24 hours.

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