Cases

CASES FACTS DOCTRINE RULING

Mirasol vs. DPWH
Summary: It is valid to regulate
the mode of transportation to be
allowed in tollways. Right to travel
does not mean the right to
choose any vehicle in traversing
certain roads.
DPWH declared the Manila-Cavite
(Coastal Road) Toll Expressway as
limited access facilities. In short, they
banned bicycles, tricycles, pedicab,
motorcycles and non motorized
vehicles from the Expressway. The
Petitioners filed a case in court to
declare the administrative orders of
the DPWH void for being violative of
the equal protection clause,
particularly the right to travel.
The right to travel does not mean the
right to choose any vehicle in
traversing a toll way. The right to
travel refers to the right to move from
one place to another. Petitioners can
traverse the tollway any time so long
as they do so in four-wheeled
vehicles. Petitioners are not denied
the right to move from Point A to Point
B along the tollway. Petitioners are
free to access the toll way, much as
the rest of the public can. The mode
by which petitioners wish to travel
pertains to the manner of using the
tollway, a subject that can be validly
limited by regulation. The right to
travel does not entitle a person to the
best form of transport or to the most
convenient route to his destination.
The SC declare VOID Department
Order Nos. 74, 215, and 123 of the
Department of Public Works and
Highways, and the Revised Rules
and Regulations on Limited Access
Facilities of the Toll Regulatory
Board. The SC declare VALID
Administrative Order No. 1 of the
Department of Public Works and
Communications.
(Note: DPWH Orders are void not
because modes of transportation
traversing tollways cannot be
regulated for they can be, but
because it is within the power of the
DOTC to regulate such)

Marcos vs. Manglapus
Summary: It is within the power
of the President to limit a
person’s right to travel if there are
factual bases.
Pres. Marcos, in his deathbed,
signified his wish to return to the
Philippines to die. However, Pres.
Aquino, considering the dire
consequences to the nation of his
return, barred the return of Marcos
and his family. Petitioners filed a
petition for mandamus and prohibition.
They asked the court to order
respondents to issue travel documents
to the Marcos family and enjoin the
implementation of Pres. Aquino to bar
their return to the Philippines.
The President, as head of state and Petition to issue travel documents to
government, possesses powers that Marcos family and to enjoin the
go beyond enforcement of laws. The implementation of Pres. Aquino’s
rights Marcoses are invoking are not order DENIED.
absolute. They’re flexible depending
on the circumstances. The request of
the Marcoses to be allowed to return
to the Philippines cannot be
considered based solely on the
constitutional provisions guaranteeing
liberty of abode and the right to
travel. It is proven that there are
factual bases in Pres. Aquino’s
decision to bar Marcos’ return. The
supervening events that happened
before her decision are factual. The
President must take preemptive
measures for the self-preservation of
the country & protection of the people.
She has to uphold the Constitution.
Manotoc vs. CA
Summary: Courts have power to
prohibit a person admitted to bail
from leaving the country. Even if
bailed, a person has to appear
before any court whenever
required.
Ricardo Manotoc, Jr. acts as President
of Trans-Insular Management and
Manotoc Securities Inc. Following the
“run” on stock brokerages, Manotoc
(who was then in US) came home and
filed a petition with SEC for the
appointment of a management
committee Pending disposition, SEC
requested the then Commissioner of
Immigration not to clear Manotoc for
departure. When a Torrens title
submitted to and accepted by Manotoc
Securities Inc was suspected to be a
fake, its clients filed separate criminal
complaints. Criminal charges for estafa
were filed. In all cases, Manotoc has
been admitted to bail.Manotoc filed a
motion for permission to leave the
country to go to US “relative to his
business transactions and
opportunities.
A court has the power to prohibit a Petition to leave the country and go
person admitted to bail from leaving to US in light of Manotoc’s grant of
the PH. This is a necessary bail DENIED.
consequence of the nature and
function of a bail bond. RULE 114
SEC 1 ROC defines bail as security
required and given for the release of a
person who is in the custody of the
law, that he will appear before any
court in which his appearance may be
required as stipulated in the bail bond
or recognizance. 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.

Silverio vs. CA Ricardo Silverio was charged with
violation of the Revised Securities Act
Summary: Courts have the in a Criminal Case. He posted bail for
power to order for the his provisional freedom. The people
cancellation of a person’s filed a case against Silverio because
passport in light of the decision in he allegedly abused his freedom to go
Manotoc vs CA. abroad repeatedly without court
approval in order to avoid the
summons of the court to arraign his
case. They wanted to cancel Silverio’s
passport and wanted the Commission
of Immigration to prevent Silverio from
going abroad. The lower courts
granted the cancellation of Silverio’s
passport.
Judicial orders and processes would Decision of the lower courts to cancel
be rendered nugatory if an accused Silver’s passport and order the
were to be allowed to leave or to Commission of Immigration to
remain, at his pleasure, outside the prevent Silvero from going abroad
territorial confines of the country. UPHELD.
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.

Santiago vs. Vasquez A criminal case was filed against The Hold Departure Order does not Petition to leave PH to study

Summary: Courts do not violate
Due Process in issuing a Hold
Departure Order even if there
was Notice and Hearing so long
as the immediacy of
circumstances demands. More
so, the ruling in Manotoc applies
even in cases where the purpose
of travelling abroad is to study.
Marcos vs. Sandiganbayan
Summary: It is within the power
of the courts to form a committee
to confirm a claim of danger in
health by an accused to justify
leaving the PH. Hence, it is within
the court’s discretion whether to
allow an accused to leave country
for humanitarian reasons.
Miriam Defensor-Santiago with the
Sandiganbayan for an alleged
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. Miriam issued a cash
bail bond, upon authorization of the
court, in order to secure her liberty.
Miriam then wanted the SB to cancel
her original cash bail bond, in favor of
a recognizance (a type of bond where
the issuer is bound to the court by a
condition, like appearance when
summoned). In 1992, the SB issued a
hold departure order against Miriam in
light of her Media announcement that
she intends to leave the country for an
extended stay abroad for study
purposes. Hence, Miriam filed this
case to the SC.
Cong. Imelda Marcos is a defendant to
several criminal cases for Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act. Pending
the appeal in SB, petitioner filed a
“Motion for Leave to Travel Abroad” to
seek diagnostic examination in China
due to serious and life threatening
medical condition as the equipment is
not available in the PH. SB formed a
committee and consulted specialists to
confirm the danger in Marcos’ health.
SB denied above motion as its
committee found that Marcos’ health is
not actually in danger.
violate Due Process even if there was DISMISSED.
no Notice and Hearing. The court is Hold Departure Order SUSTAINED.
vested with inherent powers to protect
its Jurisdiction and to ensure the
proper administration of Justice.
Given the immediacy of the
circumstances (Miriam pronouncing
her quick plans to go abroad) justifies
the court issuance despite lack of
Notice and Hearing. The Hold
Departure Order does not violate right
to travel. The right to travel should by
no means be construed as delimiting
the inherent power of the Courts to
use all means necessary to carry their
orders into effect in criminal cases
pending before them.
The SB did not commit any grave Petition to leave PH to seek
abuse of discretion when it disallowed diagnostic examination DENIED.
Imelda Marcos from leaving PH. The
SB only took a prudent course in
seeking the opinion of specialists in
the field to determine medical
condition of the petitioner. It is
indispensable in the determination
whether or not it is necessary and
urgent for petitioner to travel abroad.
The unusual and unorthodox conduct
of the trial (this refers to the formation
of the committee of medical expert) is
due to the Presiding Justice robust
rather than ill motive and hostility.
Even though the conviction is not yet
final, a person’s right to travel is
subject to the usual constraints
imposed by the very necessity of
safeguarding the system of justice. It
follows then that whether the accused
will be allowed to leave for
humanitarian reason is a matter of
court’s sound discretion.
Yap vs. CA
Summary: Courts have the
power to fix conditions and
restrictions on accused’ right to
travel and abode. The condition
for an accused to secure
guaranty from his mayor that he
remains a resident therein and
that he shall file a prior notice in
case of transfer of residence is
valid.
Court Administrator vs.
Macarine
Summary: OCA Circular No. 49-
2003 which requires that all
foreign trips of judges and court
personnel be with prior
permission from the courts is
valid. It is a mere regulation and
not restriction of right to travel.
Yap was convicted of estafa by RTC
Pasig City. Yap filed with CA a motion
to fix bail. The CA allowed him to fix
bail on the following conditions: (1)
Yap secures a guaranty from the
mayor of his residential town that he
will remain a resident therein and will
file a prior notice in case he transfer,
(2) CID issues a hold departure order,
(3) Yap surrender his passport, (4)
violation of said conditions will cause
his immediate arrest and confinement
in jail. Hence, Yap filed this petition
claiming that CA effectively deprived
him of his bail.
Judge Macarine wrote a letter to Court
Administrator Perez, requesting for
authority to travel to Hongkong.
However, he did not submit the
corresponding application leave. His
reason was that sensing the time
constraint, he opted not to immediately
complete the requirements and simply
went ahead with their travel abroad.
The OCA found him guilty of violation
of OCA Circular No. 49-2003 for
travelling out of the country without
filing the necessary application for
leave and without first securing a
travel authority from the Court. OCA
Circular No. 49-2003 requires that all
foreign travels of judges and court
personnel, regardless of the number of
days, must be with prior permission
from the Court.
The condition that YAP secures a Petition PARTLY GRANTED.
guaranty from the Mayor where he Original amount of bail which is
resides does not violate his liberty of P5.5M should be decreased.
abode and travel. It is merely Restrictions on his right to travel and
consistent with the nature and abode are AFFIRMED.
function of a bail bond which is to
ensure that he will make himself
available at time when he is required
by the court. Besides he is not
precluded from changing his abode
but merely to inform the court in case
he does so.
The exercise of right to travel under Judge Macarine, by virtue of OCA
Section 6, Article 3 of the Constitution Circular No. 49-2003, is
is not absolute.This, however, should ADMONISHED.
by no means be construed as limiting
the Court’s inherent power of
administrative supervision over lower
courts. OCA Circular No. 49-2003
does not restrict but merely regulates,
by providing guidelines to be complied
by judges and court personnel, before
they can go on leave to travel abroad.
To ensure the proper management of
court dockets and to avoid disruption
in the administration of justice, OCA
Circular No. 49-2003 requires a judge
who wishes to travel abroad to submit
complete requirements to the OCA at
least 2 weeks before intended time of
travel.