GR L 62100; (May, 1986) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-62100 May 30, 1986
RICARDO L. MANOTOC, JR., petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HONS. SERAFIN E. CAMILON and RICARDO L. PRONOVE, JR., as Judges of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig branches, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, the SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, HON. EDMUNDO M. REYES, as Commissioner of Immigration, and the Chief of the Aviation Security Command (AVSECOM), respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr., a principal stockholder of Manotoc Securities, Inc., faced multiple criminal charges for estafa before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. He was provisionally released after posting bail bonds totaling P105,000.00. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in a related proceeding concerning the corporation’s management, requested the Commissioner of Immigration to issue a hold-departure order against Manotoc, which was implemented. Subsequently, Manotoc filed motions before the trial courts seeking permission to travel to the United States for business purposes. The prosecution opposed these motions. Both trial judges, Camilon and Pronove, denied his requests. Judge Camilon found no urgency in the stated business reasons, while Judge Pronove cited concerns over the potential discharge of the surety’s liability should the court authorize travel outside its jurisdiction.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether a person under criminal indictment and released on bail possesses an unrestricted constitutional right to travel abroad.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional right to travel is not absolute. Under Section 5, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, the liberty of travel can be impaired upon a lawful court order. The Court held that the trial court’s order releasing the petitioner on bail constitutes such a lawful order. The grant of bail involves an implied understanding that the accused shall remain within the court’s jurisdiction unless permitted to leave. The right to bail and the right to travel, while both constitutional, must be balanced. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of the travel permission. Petitioner failed to demonstrate the urgency of his trip, specify its duration, and, crucially, secure the explicit assent of his surety. The Court emphasized that allowing an accused to leave the country without the surety’s consent could increase the surety’s risk and potentially discharge its obligation under the bail bond. Therefore, the appellate court’s decision affirming the trial courts’ orders was upheld, and the petition was dismissed.