Caunca v Salazar (Constitutional Law)

Liberty of abode and travel

Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall
not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety or public health, as may be
provided by law.

Facts:

This is an action for habeas corpus brought by Bartolome Caunca in behalf of his cousin Estelita
Flores, an orphan and an illiterate, who was employed by the Far Eastern Employment Bureau,
owned by Julia Salazar, respondent herein.

An advanced payment has already been given to Estelita by the employment agency, for her to
work as a maid. However, Estelita wanted to transfer to another residence, which was
disallowed by the employment agency. Further she was detained and her liberty was restrained.
The employment agency wanted that the advance payment, which was applied to her
transportation expense from the province should be paid by Estelita before she could be
allowed to leave.

Issue:

Whether or Not an employment agency has the right to restrain and detain a maid without
returning the advance payment it gave?

Held:

An employment agency, regardless of the amount it may advance to a prospective employee or

maid, has absolutely no power to curtail her freedom of movement. The fact that no physical
force has been exerted to keep her in the house of the respondent does not make less real the
deprivation of her personal freedom of movement, freedom to transfer from one place to
another, freedom to choose ones residence. Freedom may be lost due to external moral
compulsion, to founded or groundless fear, to erroneous belief in the existence of an imaginary
power of an impostor to cause harm if not blindly obeyed, to any other psychological element
that may curtail the mental faculty of choice or the unhampered exercise of the will. If the actual
effect of such psychological spell is to place a person at the mercy of another, the victim is
entitled to the protection of courts of justice as much as the individual who is illegally deprived of
liberty by duress or physical coercion.

Ratio:

On the hypothesis that petitioner is really indebted, such is not a valid reason for respondents to
obstruct, impede or interfere with her desire to leave. Such indebtedness may be multiplied by
thousands or millions but would not in any way subtract an iota from the fundamental right to
have a free choice of abode. The fact that power to control said freedom may be an effective
means of avoiding monetary losses to the agency is no reason for jeopardizing a fundamental
human right. The fortunes of business cannot be controlled by controlling a fundamental human
freedom. Human dignity is not merchandise appropriate for commercial barters or business
bargains. Fundamental freedoms are beyond the province of commerce or any other business
enterprise.

Also, under the Revised Penal Code, penalties are imposed "upon any person who, in order to
require or enforce the payment of a debt, shall compel the debtor to work for him, against his
will, as household servant or farm laborer."

Moral restraint is a ground for the issuance of this writ, as where a housemaid is prevented from
leaving her employ because of the influence of the person detaining her

Rubi vs Provincial Board of Mindoro

G.R. No. 14078, March 07, 1919
Facts: The provincial board, by Resolution No. 25, selected a site in the sitio of Tigbao on
Naujan Lake for the permanent settlement of Mangyanes in Mindoro. Pursuant to the provisions
of section 2145 of the revised Administrative Code, all the Mangyans in the vicinities of the
townships of Naujan and Pola and the Mangyans east of the Baco River including those in the
districts of Dulangan and Rubis place in Calapan are directed to take up their habitation on the
site of Tigbao, Naujan Lake.

This is an application for habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and other Manguianes of the Province
of Mindoro. It is alleged that the Mangyanes are being illegally deprived of their liberty by the
provincial officials of that province. Rubi and his companions are said to be held on the
reservation established at Tigbao, Mindoro, against their will, and one Dabalos is said to be held
under the custody of the provincial sheriff in the prison at Calapan for having run away from the
reservation.

Issue: Whether Section 2145 of the Administrative Code deprives a person of his liberty of
abode and is therefore unconstitutional

Held: No. Section 2145 of the Administrative Code does not deprive a person of his liberty
without due process of law and does not deny to him the equal protection of the laws, and that
confinement in reservations in accordance with said section does not constitute slavery and
involuntary servitude. The court further ruled that section 2145 of the Administrative Code is a
legitimate exertion of the police power and thus constitutional.

Petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty. Habeas corpus can,
therefore, not issue.

One cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered with when the degree of
civilization of the. Manguianes is considered. They are restrained for their own good and the
general good of the Philippines. Nor can one say that due process of law has not been followed.
To go back to our definition of due process of law and equal protection of the laws, there exists
a law; the law seems to be reasonable; it is enforced according to the regular methods of
procedure prescribed; and it applies alike to all of a class.

The public policy of the Government of the Philippine Islands is shaped with a view to benefit
the Filipino people as a whole. The Manguianes, in order to fulfill this governmental policy, must
be confined for a time, as we have said, for their own good and the good of the country.

Villavicencio v. Lukban
The mayor of the City of Manila ordered the closure of prostitution houses found in his
municipality and had the prostituted women deported to Davao.

Facts:
1.Justo Lukban, the Mayor of the City of Manila, ordered the segregated district for women of ill
repute, which had been permitted for a number of years in the city of Manila, closed. From
October 16 to 25, 1918, 170 women were kept confined to their houses in the district by the
police. During said period, the city authorities, with some arrangements with the Bureau of
Labor, planned to send the women to Davao as laborers.

2. On the midnight of October 25, the police and Lukban went to the houses and hustled the
170 prostituted women into patrol wagons and placed them aboard the steams Corregidor and
Negros. The women were given no opportunity to collect their belongings, and were under the
impression that they were being takento a police station for an investigation and had no
knowledge that they were being sent to Mindanao. Moreover, the women were not asked
whether they wanted to leave Manila and live in Davao.

3. The vessels reached Davao on October 29. The women were received by the provincial
governor, Francisco Sales and by haciendero Feliciano Yigo.

Ruling:

1. Alien prostitutes can be expelled from the Philippine Islands in conformity with anAct of
Congress. The Governor-General can order the eviction of undesirable aliens after a hearing
from the Islands. Act No. 519 of the Philippine Commission and Section 733 of the Revised
Ordinances of the city of Manila provide for the conviction and punishment by a court of justice
of any person who is a common prostitute.

2. But one can search in vain for any law, order or regulation, which even hints at the right of the
Mayor of the City of Manila or the chief of police of that city to force citizens of the Philippine
Islands
and these women despite their being in a sense lepers of society are nevertheless not
chattels but Philippine citizens protected by the same constitutional guaranties as are other
citizens
to change domicile from Manila to another locality. On the contrary Philippine penal law
specifically punishes any public officer who, not being expressly authorized by law or regulation,
compels any person to change his residence.

3. In other countries, as in Spain and Japan, the privilege of domicile is deemed so important as
to be found in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. Under the American constitutional system,
liberty of abode is a principle so deeply imbedded in jurisprudence and considered so
elementary in nature as not even to require a constitutional sanction. Even the Governor-
General of the Philippine Islands, even the President of the US, who has often been said to
 exercise more power than any king or potentate, has no such arbitrary prerogative, either
inherent or express. Much less, therefore, has the executive of a municipality, who acts within a
sphereof delegated powers

Salonga vs Hermoso

97 SCRA 121 Political Law Right to Travel Even During Martial Law

Right to travel is not suspended during martial law

A republican State under martial law must still abide by the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights
Basic constitutional rights are still protected during martial law

FACTS:During the time of Martial Law, Jovito Salonga filed a case for mandamus
against Rolando Hermoso of the Travel Processing Center to compel the latter to issue a
certificate of eligibility to travel in favor of Salonga.

ISSUE: Whether or not the right to travel may be prohibited during martial law.

HELD: No. This issue became moot and academic because it appears that Hermoso did issue
and did not deny Salongas request for a certificate of eligibility to travel.

The issuance of the certificate was in pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on
the Right to Travel. The Philippines, even though it is under martial law, shall in no instance
facilitate the erosion of human rights. The Travel Processing Center should exercise the utmost
care to avoid the impression that certain citizens desirous of exercising their constitutional right
to travel could be subjected to inconvenience or annoyance this is to avoid such similar cases
to face the Court which needlessly expire the Courts effort and time.

Manotoc v. CA

Petitioner was charged for estafa by six clients of his Manotor Securities, Inc. Wanting to go to
the US, petitioner applied for a motion for permission to leave the country. But, it was denied.

Facts:

1. Ricardo Manotoc Jr. appointed a management committee, not only for Manotoc Securities,
Inc. but also for Trans-Insular Management, Inc., after petitioner came home from the US
following the run on stock brokerages caused by stock broker Santamarias flight from this
jurisdiction. He filed this petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Pending
disposition, SEC requested the Commissioner of Immigration not to clear petitioner for
departure and a memorandum to this effect.
2. When a Torrens title submitted to and accepted by Manotoc Securities, Inc. was suspected to
be a fake, six of its clients filed six separate criminal complaints against petitioner (President)
and Raul Leveriza (vice-President) for estafa .Petitioner, wanting to go to the US, filed a motion
for permission to leave the country. It was denied.

3. Petitioner contends that having been admitted to bail as a matter of right, neither the courts
which granted him bail nor the SEC which has no jurisdiction over his liberty, could prevent him
from exercising his constitutional right to travel.

Ruling:

1. A court has power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. This is a
necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond for he needs to appear before
any court in which his appearance may be required as stipulated in the bail bond or
recognizance. The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all times
whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel

Marcos v Manglapus
GR No. 88211 September 15, 1989

FACTS:
(1) This is a petition for prohibition and mandamus to order respondents to issue travel
documents to Mr. Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to enjoin the
implementation of the Presidents decision to bar their return to the Philippines. This is in
response to Marcoss wish to return to the Philippines to die. The petitioners case is founded on
the following provisions in the Bill of Rights:

Section 1.No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor
shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law
shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be
provided by law.

And other contentions including:

President is without power to impair the liberty of abode of the Marcoses because only a
court may do so "within the limits prescribed by law." Nor may the President impair their right to
travel because no law has authorized her to do so.
the right to travel may be impaired by any authority or agency of the government, there must be
legislation to that effect.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides:

Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders
of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Likewise, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides:

Article 12
1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to
liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are
provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (order public), public
health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights
recognized in the present Covenant.
4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

(2) The respondents contend primacy of the right of the State to national security over individual
rights, citing Article II

Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The
Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all
citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military, or civil
service.
Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and
the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the
blessings of democracy and the decision of other countries to ban deposed dictators like Cuba
(Fulgencio Batista), etc.

ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the President may
prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines
(2) Whether or not the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction when she determined that the return of the Marcose's to the
Philippines poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and decided to bar their
return.

HELD:
Petition dismissed. President did not act with abuse of discretion in determining the return of
former President Marcos and his family at the present time since it poses a serious threat to
national interest and welfare.

RATIO:
(1) Even from afar, the Marcoses had the capacity to stir trouble to the fanaticism and blind
loyalty of their followers.
(2) Essentially, the right involved is the right to return to one's country, a totally distinct right
under international law, independent from although related to the right to travel.
(3) "what the presidency is at any particular moment depends in important measure on who is
President." (Corwin) Corollarily, the powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only to
the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, executive power is more
than the sum of specific powers so enumerated. It has been advanced that whatever power
inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive.
(4) The Constitution declares among the guiding principles that "[t]he prime duty of the
Government is to serve and protect the people" and that "[t]he maintenance of peace and order,
the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are
essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy." The power
involved is the President's residual power to protect the general welfare
of the people. It is founded on the duty of the President, as steward of the people.
(5) Protection of the people is the essence of the duty of government. The preservation of the
State the fruition of the people's sovereignty is an obligation in the highest order. The President,
sworn to preserve and defend the Constitution and to see the faithful execution the laws, cannot
shirk from that responsibility.

Leave Division of OCA vs HeusdensA.M. No. P-11-2927, December 13, 2011

Facts:

Respondent left for abroad without waiting for the result of her application. It turned out that no
travel authority wasissued in her favor because she was not cleared of all her accountabilities
as evidenced by the SC Certificate ofClearance. The OCA found respondent to have
violated the OCA Circular for failing to secure the approval of her application for travel authority.

Issue:

What are the inherent and statutory limitations on the constitutional right to travel?

Ruling

The exercise of ones right to travel is not absolute. There are constitutional, statutory and
inherent limitations regulating the right to travel. Section 6 provides that neither shall the right to
travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety or public health, as
may be provided by law. Inherent limitations on the right to travel are those that naturally
emanate from the source. An example of such inherent limitation is the power of the trial courts
top rohibit persons charged with a crime to leave the country. Some of these statutory
limitations are the following:
1.The Human Security Act of 2010 or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9372.

2.The Philippine Passport Act of 1996 or R.A. No. 8239.

3.The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 or R.A. No. 9208.

4. The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 or R. A. No. 8042, as amended by
R.A. No. 10022.

5. The Act on Violence against Women and Children or R.A. No. 9262.

6. Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995 or R.A. No. 8043.