The Supreme Court affirmed that the Sandiganbayan, a special court for cases involving public officials, possesses the inherent power to issue Hold Departure Orders (HDOs) to prevent those accused of crimes from leaving the Philippines. This power is essential for maintaining the court’s jurisdiction and ensuring that defendants are present throughout legal proceedings. The ruling clarifies that while the right to travel is constitutionally protected, it is not absolute and can be restricted in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as provided by law, or to ensure court proceedings are upheld.

Can the Sandiganbayan Restrict Travel? Examining the Scope of Judicial Power in Graft Cases

This case revolves around Gwendolyn F. Garcia, the former governor of Cebu, who faced criminal charges before the Sandiganbayan for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Technical Malversation. The charges stemmed from the controversial purchase of the Balili Estate by the provincial government. In response to the charges, the Sandiganbayan issued Hold Departure Orders (HDOs) against Garcia, preventing her from leaving the Philippines. Garcia challenged these HDOs, arguing that the Sandiganbayan lacked the legal authority to issue them and that they violated her constitutional right to travel. The central legal question is whether the Sandiganbayan, as a special court, possesses the inherent power to issue HDOs, even without an explicit statutory grant of such power.

Garcia argued that the absence of a specific law authorizing the Sandiganbayan to issue HDOs meant it lacked the power to do so. She pointed to Supreme Court Circular No. 39-97, which grants the power to issue HDOs to Regional Trial Courts (RTCs), arguing that the omission of the Sandiganbayan indicated a lack of such authority. She also cited Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 41, which grants the Secretary of the DOJ the authority to issue HDOs, and claimed that the Sandiganbayan had not been given a similar authority. However, the Supreme Court rejected Garcia’s arguments, asserting that the power to issue HDOs is an inherent power belonging to the courts, essential for preserving their jurisdiction and ensuring the effectiveness of legal proceedings.

The Court distinguished its ruling from its earlier decision in Genuino v. De Lima, which declared DOJ Circular No. 41 unconstitutional because it lacked a legal basis. Unlike an administrative issuance, the power of a court to issue HDOs stems from its inherent authority. The Court clarified that Supreme Court Circular No. 39-97, which outlines guidelines for issuing HDOs, was not intended to limit this power solely to RTCs. Instead, the circular aimed to regulate the exercise of this power to prevent its indiscriminate use, particularly in less serious criminal cases. The circular, according to the Court, was not meant to exclude all other courts from issuing HDOs, but rather to make a distinction among the types of criminal offenses by excluding less grave and light offenses from instances when an HDO may be validly issued. This is to avoid unnecessary restraint on the right to travel, especially when the gravity of the offense is not serious enough to warrant a restriction.

Building on this principle, the Court emphasized the unique role and responsibilities of the Sandiganbayan. It is a special court tasked with hearing and deciding cases against public officers and employees, entrusted with the difficult task of policing and ridding the government ranks of the dishonest and corrupt. Confronted with the heavy responsibility of restoring “public office as a public trust,” the Sandiganbayan needs all means within its powers to hold erring public officials accountable for their misdeeds. Given its mandate to address corruption and misconduct among public officials, the Sandiganbayan requires the authority to take necessary actions to ensure the integrity of the legal process.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed Garcia’s argument that the HDOs violated her constitutional right to travel. The Court acknowledged that while the right to travel is a fundamental right, it is not absolute. Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution states that the right to travel may be impaired in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. Apart from these exclusive grounds, there is a further requirement that there must be a law authorizing the impairment. The requirement for a law ensures that the necessity for the impairment has undergone the validation and deliberation of Congress before its enactment.

The Court clarified that the restriction on Garcia’s right to travel was a necessary consequence of her being charged with a crime and the court’s need to maintain jurisdiction over her case. Once Garcia posted bail, she subjected herself to the jurisdiction of the court and could validly be restricted in her movement and prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction. The issuance of the HDO was a process complementary to the granting of bail since it puts the Bureau of Immigration on notice that a certain person is charged before the courts of law and must not be allowed to leave our jurisdiction without the permission of the court. After all, the granting of bail does not guaranty compliance by the accused of the conditions for his temporary liberty, particularly, his presence at every stage of the proceedings.

The Supreme Court also dismissed Garcia’s argument that the HDOs were prematurely issued because she had not exhausted all her legal remedies and there had not been a final determination of probable cause against her. The Court stressed that as far as crimes cognizable by the Sandiganbayan are concerned, the determination of probable cause during the preliminary investigation, or reinvestigation for that matter, is a function that belongs to the Office of the Ombudsman. The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan acquired jurisdiction over the case upon the filing of the informations against Garcia, and the HDOs were a valid exercise of its inherent power to control the proceedings and ensure her presence.

Moreover, the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman expressly provides that the filing of a motion of reconsideration does not prevent the filing of information. Section 7, Rule II of Administrative Order No. 07 reads: “The filing of a motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation shall not bar the filing of the corresponding information in Court on the basis of the finding of probable cause in the resolution subject of the motion.” As can be understood from the foregoing, an information may be filed even before the lapse of the period to file a motion for reconsideration of the finding of probable cause. The investigating prosecutor need not wait until the resolution of the motion for reconsideration before filing the information with the Sandiganbayan, especially that his findings and recommendation already carry the stamp of approval of the Ombudsman.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Sandiganbayan has the authority to issue Hold Departure Orders (HDOs) against individuals facing charges before it, even without a specific law granting that power.
What is a Hold Departure Order (HDO)?	An HDO is a written order issued by a court directing the Bureau of Immigration to prevent a person suspected of a crime from leaving the Philippines. It is a measure to ensure the person remains within the court’s jurisdiction.
Why did Gwendolyn Garcia challenge the HDOs?	Garcia argued that the Sandiganbayan lacked the legal authority to issue HDOs and that the orders violated her constitutional right to travel. She claimed the HDOs were premature since she had not exhausted her legal remedies.
What did the Supreme Court decide?	The Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan has the inherent power to issue HDOs as a means of preserving its jurisdiction and ensuring the presence of the accused in court proceedings. The court stated that this power does not require a specific statutory grant.
Is the right to travel absolute?	No, the right to travel is not absolute. It can be restricted in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as provided by law, or when a person is facing criminal charges and the court needs to maintain jurisdiction.
What is the role of the Office of the Ombudsman in these cases?	The Office of the Ombudsman is responsible for determining probable cause in cases involving public officials and for filing the necessary charges before the Sandiganbayan. Once the charges are filed, the Sandiganbayan has full control over the case.
Can a person restricted by an HDO ever travel abroad?	Yes, a person restricted by an HDO can request permission from the court to travel abroad, citing valid reasons. The court has the discretion to grant such requests, often with certain conditions attached.
What is the significance of posting bail?	Posting bail means the accused submits to the court’s jurisdiction and can be validly restricted in their movement. They cannot leave the country without the court’s permission because they must be available for court proceedings.

This case underscores the judiciary’s inherent authority to ensure the integrity of legal proceedings, particularly in cases involving public officials and corruption. By affirming the Sandiganbayan’s power to issue HDOs, the Supreme Court reinforced the court’s ability to maintain jurisdiction and hold those accused of wrongdoing accountable.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Gwendolyn F. Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 205904-06, October 17, 2018