Hold Departure Orders and the Right to Travel: What Philippine Courts Can Do

The right to travel is a fundamental right under the Philippine Constitution. But it is not absolute. In Pichay, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 241742 and 241753-59, May 12, 2021), the Supreme Court clarified when courts may issue hold departure orders (HDOs) against persons facing criminal charges. The ruling is important for anyone who wants to understand how the right to travel can be restricted in a criminal case.

The Case: What Happened

Prospero A. Pichay, Jr., then Chairperson of the Local Water Utilities Administration, faced multiple criminal charges before the Sandiganbayan. The charges included violations of banking regulations, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and malversation. The cases arose from his alleged failure to obtain prior approval before purchasing shares of stock in a bank.

On July 18, 2016, the Sandiganbayan issued a hold departure order on its own initiative. The HDO directed the Bureau of Immigration to prohibit Pichay and his co-accused from leaving the country without prior written permission from the court.

Pichay later filed a Motion to Lift the HDO. He argued that the right to travel may only be restricted in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as provided by law. He insisted that none of these grounds existed in his case. The Sandiganbayan denied his motion, and Pichay elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

The Issue

The central question was whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion when it denied the motion to lift the HDO and upheld its validity.

The Ruling: Courts Have Inherent Power to Issue HDOs

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan's resolutions. The Court held that courts possess inherent powers necessary for the ordinary and efficient exercise of their jurisdiction. These powers include the authority to issue HDOs.

The Constitution states that the right to travel shall not be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. However, the Court explained that there are also statutory and inherent limitations on the right to travel.

The Court cited several statutes that restrict the right to travel, including the Human Security Act, the Philippine Passport Act, the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act, and the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act. But more importantly, the Court emphasized that courts have inherent powers that go beyond these statutory limits.

Why the HDO Was Valid

The Court reasoned that the Sandiganbayan's HDO was a valid exercise of its inherent power to preserve and maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case and the person of the accused. The Sandiganbayan is a special court tasked to hear cases against public officers. While no law specifically grants it the authority to issue HDOs, such a grant is not necessary. The court has all the inherent powers of a court of justice.

The Court also pointed to the nature of bail. When an accused posts bail, the accused assumes the obligation to appear in court whenever required. This obligation operates as a valid restriction on the right to travel. A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. Otherwise, court orders and processes would be nugatory if the accused could simply leave the country and place themselves beyond the court's reach.

Practical Takeaways

• The right to travel is not absolute. Courts can restrict it through HDOs even when the constitutional grounds of national security, public safety, or public health are not present.
• Courts have inherent powers. The authority to issue HDOs comes from a court's inherent power to preserve its jurisdiction, not from any specific statute.
• Bail carries conditions. Posting bail means submitting to the court's authority, including restrictions on leaving the country.
• HDOs are discretionary. Courts decide whether an HDO is necessary based on the circumstances of each case.
• The Sandiganbayan has special authority. As a court that handles cases against public officers, it has full disposition of all inherent powers of courts of justice.

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