“Indeed, in Leave Division v. Heudens, the Court declared that “the exercise of one’s right to travel or the freedom to move from one place to another, as assured by the Constitution, is not absolute.” The Court then listed down some statutory limitations on such right, which the Court now brings up to date as follows:
- The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020. The law, particularly Section 34 thereof, provides for restrictions on the right to travel prior to and upon filing of the Information regarding the commission of any acts punished under the said law. It also provides for restrictions to the accused’s right to travel even if bail is granted;
- New Philippine Passport Act. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs or any authorized consular official may deny the issuance of a passport or cancel a passport in the interest of national security, public safety and public health;
- Anti-Trafficking on Persons Act of 2003 and Expanded Anti-Trafficiking in Persons Act of 2022. The Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking (IACAT) has issued the 2023 Revised IACAT Guidelines on Departure Fromalities for International-Bound Filipino Passegners that governs the conduct of immigration inspections for assessment, clearance and documentation of international-bound Filipino passengers. It provides for the required travel documents that a Filipino passenger must possess, and the inspection procedures to be conducted by immigration officers who have the discretion to withhold clearance for departure of any Filipino passenger;
- Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino ACT OF 1995 and Department of Migrant Workers Act. The Secretary of Migrant Workers os empowered to terminate, suspend, or impose a total ban on the deployment of migrant workers when the conditions in the receiving country or Oregon are inimical and not protective of the best interest, welfare and safety of migrant workers;
- Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. The law restricts the movement of an individual against whom the protection order is intended;
- Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. Section 8 of the Rules and Regulations on the Trafficking of Children, which implements Section 32 of the law, provides that an unaccompanied child will not be allowed to travel alone to a foreign country without a travel clearance issued by the Department of Social Welfare and Development or a written permit issued under oath by the natural or adoptive parents or legal guardian;
- Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995. Pursuant to the statute, the Inter-Country Adoption Board, which has been reorganized into the National Authority for Child Care, may issue rules restrictive of an adoptee’s right to travel to protect the Filipino child from abuse, exploitation, trafficking and sale or any other practice in connection with adoption which is harmful, detrimental or prejudicial to the child; and
- Mandatory Reporting of Notifiable Diseases and Health Events of Public Health Concern Act. Section 6 €(4) of the law grants statutory and regulatory authority to the Department of Health and its local counterparts to conduct rapid containment, quarantine and isolation measures that restrict the movement of people.
Aside from the abovementioned statutes, there are other limitations recognized under our legal system. Fore example, there is the constitutional power of the Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, and with it comes the power to hold a person in contempt upon which the House may imprison an uncooperative individual. Another example is the overseas travel by government officials and employees, for which they must first secure the authorization of the concerned heads of departments and offices. For officials and employees of the Judiciary, travel abroad must be authorized in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Court in the exercise of its power of administrative supervision over all court personnel.
Notwithstanding that the constitutional provision provides that the right to travel may be impaired only in three instances and when there is a law that permits it, jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to travel may also be impaired upon lawful order of the court. The bifurcation of the two cognac rights under Article III, Section 6 of the Constitution should not lead to any confusion that the right to travel may also be the subject of regulation by the judicial department in certain instances.”[1] (Citations omitted)
[1] Abad v. People of the Philippines and GHT Travel and Tours, G.R. No. 256320, January 13, 2-26