G.R. No. 197930, April 17, 2018
Efraim C. Genuino, Erwin F. Genuino and Sheryl G. See, Petitioners vs. Hon. Leila M. De Lima, in her capacity as Secretary of Justice, and Ricardo V. Paras III, in his capacity as Chief State Counsel, Cristino L. Naguiat, Jr. and the Bureau of Immigration, Respondents

FACTS

The petitioners, including former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) in consolidated cases, assailed the constitutionality of Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 41, series of 2010. This circular consolidated rules for issuing Hold Departure Orders (HDOs), Watchlist Orders (WLOs), and Allow Departure Orders (ADOs). Petitioners challenged specific orders issued under this circular, including WLOs and an HDO against them, arguing these issuances infringed upon their constitutional right to travel.
Criminal complaints were filed against GMA before the DOJ after her presidency. Pursuant to DOJ Circular No. 41, then Secretary Leila De Lima issued WLOs against her, effectively placing her on the Bureau of Immigration’s watchlist. GMA subsequently applied for an ADO to seek medical treatment abroad, which was denied. Similarly, an HDO was issued against the Genuinos. The petitioners contended that the circular and the orders issued under it constituted an invalid exercise of the President’s executive power and violated the right to travel.

ISSUE

Whether DOJ Circular No. 41 and the Watchlist and Hold Departure Orders issued pursuant thereto are unconstitutional for infringing on the right to travel.

RULING

The Supreme Court declared DOJ Circular No. 41 UNCONSTITUTIONAL and NULLIFIED the specific orders issued under it. The Court held that the right to travel is a fundamental liberty protected under Section 6, Article III of the Constitution. While this right may be impaired only under specific, narrowly-tailored circumstances—national security, public safety, or public health—and only upon a clear and specific finding of such a necessity, DOJ Circular No. 41 failed to meet this strict standard.
The legal logic is grounded in the separation of powers and the nature of executive power. The Court ruled that the authority to issue hold departure and watchlist orders is inherently judicial or legislative, not executive. The circular improperly granted the DOJ Secretary a blanket authority to restrict travel based merely on the pendency of a preliminary investigation, which is an executive function, without the requisite judicial determination of probable cause. This constituted an invalid encroachment on judicial power and an overreach of executive authority. The circular’s provisions allowed for restrictions based on vague grounds like “interest of national security” without the required factual basis and procedural safeguards, making it an impermissible prior restraint on the right to travel. Consequently, all orders issued under this invalid circular, including those against the petitioners, were void.