Genuino v. De Lima, GR 197930, 17 April

Genuino v. De Lima, GR 197930, 17 April ​

FACTS:
The case is a consolidated case of Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition against former DOJ Secretary Delima for her issuance of DOJ circular no. 41. Series of 2010, known as the “Consolidated Rules and Regulations Governing Issuance and Implementation of Hold Departure Orders (HDO), Watch list Orders (WLO) and Allow Departure Orders (ADO)” . The Petitioners questions the constitutionality of this DOJ circular on the ground that it infringes the constitutional right to travel.
The petitioners in these consolidated cases are former Presiden tArroyo and her husband, and Efraim and Erwin Genuino. Former DOJ Secretary De lima issued HDO and WLO against petitioners on the ground that criminal charges of plunder, qualified theft and violation of the Omnibus Election Code were filed against them. Petitioners, particularly Spouses Arroyo, file temporary restraining order against the issued HDO and WLO of DOJ seeking relief and grant from court to allow them to travel so that former president Arroyo may seek medical treatment abroad. The court granted relief sought on a condition that petition will file a bond of PhP2M, an undertaking that petitioners shall report to Philippine consulate in the countries they are to visit (Germany, Singapore, USA, Italy, Spain and Austria) and shall appoint a representative to receive on their behalf subpoena, orders and other legal processes. Petitioners complied with all the conditions instead of following the order of the court, DOJ caused for the refusal to process the petitioners travel documents.
 
ISSUE/S: 
Whether or not the DOJ Circular  No.  41  is unconstitutional  for  being  a violation of the right to travel
 
RULING:
Yes.  The  DOJ  has  no  authority  to  issue  DOJ Circular  No.  41  which  effectively  restricts  the  right to  travel  through  the  issuance  of Watchlist Orders (WLOs) and  Hold  Departure  Orders(HDOs).  There  are  only  three considerations  that  may  permit  a  restriction  on the  right  to  travel:  national  security,  public  safety or public health. Further, there must be  an explicit provision  of  statutory  law  or  Rules  of  Court providing for the impairment.
DOJ  Circular  No.  41  is  not  a  law.  It  is  not  a legislative  enactment,  but  a  mere  administrative issuance  designed  to  carry  out  the  provisions  of  an enabling law. DOJ is not authorized to issue WLOs and  HDOs  to  restrict  the  constitutional  right  to travel.  There  is  no  mention  of  the  exigencies  stated in  the  Constitution  that  will  justify  the  impairment. The provision simply grants the DOJ the power to investigate  the  commission  of  crimes  and prosecute  offenders.  It  does  not  carry  the  power  to indiscriminately devise all means it deems proper in  performing  its  functions  without  regard  to constitutionally-protected rights.
DOJ  cannot  justify  the  restraint  in  the  liberty  of movement imposed by the circular on the ground that  it  is  necessary  to  ensure  presence  and attendance in the preliminary investigation of the complaints.  There  is  no  authority  of  law  granting it  the  power  to  compel  the  attendance  of  the subjects  of  a  preliminary  investigation  pursuant  to its  investigatory  powers.  Its  investigatory  power  is simply  inquisitorial and,  unfortunately,  not  broad enough  to  embrace  the  imposition  of  restraint  on the liberty of movement.