G.R. Nos. 241742 and 241753-59, May 12, 2021
PROSPERO A. PICHAY, JR., PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

On July 12, 2016, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed eight informations against petitioner Prospero A. Pichay, Jr. with the Sandiganbayan. The charges involved violation of banking regulations and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, stemming from his actions as Chairperson of the Local Water Utilities Administration in purchasing shares of stock of Express Savings Bank, Inc. without the required prior approvals. On July 18, 2016, the Sandiganbayan issued a Hold Departure Order (HDO) against Pichay. After some charges were dismissed and probable cause was found for others, Pichay filed a Motion to Lift HDO on February 14, 2018. The Sandiganbayan denied this motion in a Resolution dated March 16, 2018, and subsequently denied his motion for reconsideration on June 19, 2018. Pichay filed the present Petition for Certiorari, arguing the HDO impaired his constitutional right to travel.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the Motion to Lift HDO and in sustaining the HDO’s validity.

RULING

The petition lacks merit. The Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse its discretion. The right to travel, while fundamental under Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution and international law, is not absolute and is subject to constitutional, statutory, and inherent limitations. The Court held that the issuance of an HDO is an exercise of a court’s inherent power to preserve and maintain its jurisdiction over the case and the person of the accused, as established in Defensor-Santiago v. Vasquez. This power is necessary for the administration of justice and is recognized under Section 6, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court. The Sandiganbayan, as a special court with jurisdiction over graft cases, possesses this inherent power. Furthermore, by posting bail for his provisional liberty, Pichay assumed the responsibility to appear in court whenever required, which constitutes a valid restriction on his right to travel. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan’s denial of the motion to lift the HDO was a valid exercise of its judicial discretion and not a violation of Pichay’s constitutional rights.