“In the Philippines, there is no statute that allows trial courts to restrict the right to travel of individuals still just suspected of committing a crime. This is the dilemma recognized by the Court in Genuino. There, the Court invalidated the DOJ Circular No. 41 because it authorized the DOJ Secretary, without an enabling law, to issue HDOs and restrict the tr4avel of individuals facing criminal complaints filed before the prosecutor notwithstanding that these individuals have not been indicted in court but are still subject to preliminary investigation. Thus, the Court was cognizant of certain situations where respondents may abscond from the proceeding as, leave the country and avoid eventual arrest when an. Information is ultimately filed in Court. The Court was firm, however, that the DOJ “may not promulgated rules that have a negative impact of constitutionally-protected rights without the authority of a valid law. Even with the predicament of preventing the proliferation of crimes and evasion of criminal responsibility, it may not overstep the constitutional boundaries and skirt the prescribed legal process.”
To address this legal lacuna, the Court issued the Rule on PHDO on August 7, 2018, or more than three months since the promulgation of Genuino. Indeed, the Rule was a “remedy formulated to fill in the vacuum created by the declaration of nullity of DOJ Circular No. 41[.]”
In essence, the Rule on PHDO empowers an RTC to issue a PHDO, which is “an order in writing issued by a court commanding the Bureau of Immigration [(BI)] to prevent any attempt by a person suspected of a crime to depart from the Philippines [.’]” The PHDO :”shall be issued ex-parte in cases involving crimes where the minimum of the penalty prescribed by law is at least six years and one day or when the offender is a foreigner regardless of the impossible penalty.”
An application for a PHDO may be filed by the prosecutor with the RTC within whose territorial jurisdiction the alleged crime was committed. However, for compelling reasons, the application may be filed with the RTC within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known. Furthermore, the RTC s of Manila,. Quezon City, Cebu City, Iloilo City, Davao City and Cagayan de Oro City have been empowered to act on applications based on complaints filed by the National Bureau of Investigation, irrespective of where the crime was committed.
Upon the filing of the application, the RTC judge shall personally examine under oath or affirmation, in the form of searching questions and answers in writing, the applicant and witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to the, and attaching to the record their sworn statement. If the judge finds that probable cause exists, and there is high probability that the respondents will depart from the Philippines to evade arrest and prosecution of the crime against him or her, the PHDO shall be issued and the BI shall be directed to hold and prevent the departure of the respondent at any Philippines airport or port. Otherwise, the judge shall order the dismissal of the application.
Since the finding of probable cause by the judge for the purpose of issuance of PHDO is solely based on the complaint, it shall be without prejudice to the resolution of the prosecutor of the criminal complaint. If the prosecutor dismisses the complaint for lack of probable cause, the respondent may use the dismissal as a ground for the lifting of the PHDO. However, if the prosecutor finds probable cause and files the Information, the case with the RTC that issued the PHDO, on motion of the prosecutor, shall be consolidated with the RTC where the Information is filed.
The PHDo may be temporarily lifted upon the filing before the issuing court a verified motion based on meritorious grounds — that is, based on the complaint and the evidence that the respondent will present, there is doubt that probable cause exists to issue the PHDO or it is shown that the respondent is not a flight risk. Inman such case, the respondent must post a bond. The temporary lifting of the PHDO is without prejudice to the resolution of the preliminary investigation against the respondent.
Thus, with the rule on PHDO, the Court addressed the situation that an individual who is suspected of committing a crime may have his or her right to travel restricted for the purpose of enduring that individual’s attendance at the proceedings and prevent him or her from absconding in the event that criminal. Information is filed with the courts. The issuance of the Rule on PHDo is in line with the Court’s power to “[p]romulgate rules con. Corning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, [and] pleading, practice and procedure in all courts.” Since the Rule provides a simplified procedure by which Courts can restrict the right to travel by criminal suspects.
What the Rule restricts, through the valid issuance of a PHDO, is the respondent’s ability to leave the country and nothing else. It is limited to the ability of an individual, who is suspected of committing a crime publishable by an afflictive penalty and has a high propensity to leave the c country and avoid the impending proceedings against him or her, to travel abroad. At any rate, the Rule provides that a respondent who has been issued a PHDO against him or her is not without any remedy. The respondent may file a motion to lift the PHDO if the grounds for the issuance have already ceased. I.e. the criminal complaints have been dismissed by the prosecutor or that the circumstances show that he or she is not a flight risk. Likewise, the RTC may temporarily allow the respondent to travel abroad notwithstanding that a PHDO has been issued if it is shown that the respondent’s travel is based on meritorious grounds and that, as a measure of security, the respondent posted a bond.
Again, an individual’s right iOS travel is not absolute. I*t can be circumscribed by constitutional, statutory and inherent limitations. In deciding whether an individual can leave the Philippines, “the [C]ourt must delicately balance, on the one hand, the right of the accused to the presumption of his innocence and the exercise of his fundamental rights, and on the other hand, the interest of the State to ensure that the accused will be ready to serve or suffer the penalty should he [or she] be eventually found liable for the crime charged. With the issuance of the Rule on PHDO, the Court has provided for a mechanism by which the courts can properly balance these interested, albeit applicable t individuals suspected of committing an offense, under an orderly and nuanced procedure with transparent standards and practical remedies available to the parties concerned.”[1] (Citations omitted)
[1] Abad v. People of the Philippines and GHT Travel and Tours, G.R. No. 256320, January 13, 2026