The Right to Travel Can Be Restricted by Courts to Ensure Justice

Prospero A. Pichay, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 903 Phil. 271 (2021)

Imagine planning an international trip, only to be stopped at the airport because of a court order. This is the reality faced by Prospero A. Pichay, Jr., a former public official charged with multiple criminal offenses. The Supreme Court’s ruling in his case sheds light on the delicate balance between an individual’s right to travel and the court’s power to issue Hold Departure Orders (HDOs). At the heart of this case is the question: under what circumstances can a court legally restrict someone’s freedom to travel?

Prospero A. Pichay, Jr., once the Chairperson of the Local Water Utilities Administration, was charged with various financial misconducts, including violations of banking regulations and anti-graft laws. After being indicted, the Sandiganbayan issued an HDO to prevent him from leaving the country. Pichay challenged this order, arguing it violated his constitutional right to travel. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the HDO, emphasizing the court’s inherent power to ensure the administration of justice.

Legal Context: Understanding the Right to Travel and Court Powers

The right to travel is enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution under Section 6, Article III, which states, “The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.”

This right is also recognized internationally through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), to which the Philippines is a signatory. Article 13 of the UDHR states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”

However, the right to travel is not absolute. Courts possess inherent powers to issue HDOs to maintain jurisdiction over a case and ensure the accused’s presence. The Supreme Court has clarified that such orders are necessary to prevent the accused from evading justice. In the case of Defensor-Santiago v. Vasquez, the Court emphasized that these powers are essential for the efficient administration of justice.

Statutory limitations on the right to travel include laws like the Human Security Act, the Philippine Passport Act, and the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act, which allow for restrictions under specific circumstances. These laws demonstrate that while the right to travel is fundamental, it can be curtailed to protect broader societal interests.

Case Breakdown: The Journey of Prospero A. Pichay, Jr.

Prospero A. Pichay, Jr.’s legal troubles began when the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed eight informations against him in the Sandiganbayan. The charges ranged from violations of the Manual of Regulation for Banks (MORB) to malversation and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

On July 18, 2016, the Sandiganbayan issued an HDO against Pichay and his co-accused, preventing them from leaving the country without prior permission. Pichay contested this order, arguing it violated his constitutional right to travel. He filed a Motion to Lift the HDO, which the Sandiganbayan denied on March 16, 2018, and again upon reconsideration on June 19, 2018.

Pichay then brought his case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the HDO was not justified under the constitutional grounds of national security, public safety, or public health. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, affirming the Sandiganbayan’s decision.

The Court’s reasoning was clear: “The Sandiganbayan is a special court tasked to hear and decide cases against public officers and employees and entrusted with the difficult task of policing and ridding the government ranks of the dishonest and corrupt.” The Court further explained that the HDO was an exercise of the Sandiganbayan’s inherent power to preserve its jurisdiction over the case and ensure Pichay’s availability for trial.

Another critical aspect of the ruling was the condition of Pichay’s bail. The Court noted that by posting bail, Pichay assumed the responsibility to appear in court whenever required, which inherently restricted his right to travel. This was reinforced by the Court’s reference to Manotoc, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, where it was established that “a court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines.”

Practical Implications: Navigating the Right to Travel in Legal Proceedings

This ruling underscores that the right to travel can be legally restricted when necessary to ensure the administration of justice. For individuals facing criminal charges, this means that courts can issue HDOs to prevent them from leaving the jurisdiction, even if they are out on bail.

Businesses and public officials should be aware that engaging in activities that could lead to criminal charges might result in travel restrictions. It’s crucial to comply with all legal obligations and seek legal counsel if facing potential charges.

Key Lessons:

• Understand that the right to travel is not absolute and can be restricted by courts in the interest of justice.
• If charged with a crime, be prepared for potential travel restrictions, especially if out on bail.
• Seek legal advice promptly if facing charges that could lead to an HDO.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a Hold Departure Order (HDO)?

An HDO is a court order that prevents an individual from leaving the country. It is often used in criminal cases to ensure the accused remains within the jurisdiction of the court.

Can a court issue an HDO without a specific law allowing it?

Yes, courts have inherent powers to issue HDOs as part of their authority to maintain jurisdiction over a case and ensure the administration of justice.

Does posting bail affect my right to travel?

Yes, posting bail can imply a restriction on your right to travel, as it requires you to be available for court proceedings.

What are the constitutional grounds for restricting the right to travel?

The 1987 Philippine Constitution allows restrictions on the right to travel in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as provided by law.

How can I challenge an HDO?

You can challenge an HDO by filing a motion to lift it with the issuing court, and if denied, you can appeal to a higher court, such as the Supreme Court.

ASG Law specializes in criminal law and constitutional rights. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation and learn how we can assist you with your legal needs.