Chapter 11: Liberty of Abode & Travel
Thus:
In the case of Caunca v. Salazar,
wherein the issue was WON a maid had
the right to transfer to another residence
even if she had not yet paid the amount
advanced by an employment agency,
which was then detaining her, it was ruled
that: the petitioner’s liberty of abode
was sustained and her detention was
declared unconstitutional.
Section 6, Art. 3:
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:
1) national security
2) public safety or
3) public health
as may be provided by law.
Sec. 10, Art. 13
“Urban or rural poor dwellers shall
not be evicted nor their dwellings
demolished, except:
1) in accordance with law
2) in a just & human
manner”
PURPOSE
The purpose of the guaranty is to:
- further emphasize the individual’s
liberty as safeguarded in general terms by
the due process clause:
1) Right to choose residence
2) Leave whenever he
pleases
3) Travel wherever he wills
In the past repressive regimes, one
may not change his residence at will, not
can move to other country. This is to keep
track of his movements or activities if ever
he is plotting against the State.
LIMITATIONS
Subject to specific restrictions:
Liberty of Abode – “upon lawful order of
the court”
Right to Travel – by requirements of
“national security, public safety, or public
health”
1) A person facing criminal charges
may be restricted from leaving the
county
2) Judge may prevent a person
from entering certain premises under
dispute or declared off-limits by
proper authorities
3) Health officers may restrict
access to contaminated areas and
quarantine those already exposed
to the disease
Cases
Rubi v Provincial Board of Mindoro
Facts: Respondents required the
members of Manguianes to reside in a
reservation for their better education,
advancement and protection.
Ruling: It was held to be a legitimate
exercise of Police Powers.
Villacencio v Lukban
Facts: The Mayor of Manila deported
170 prostitutes to Davao for the purpose
of eliminating serious moral and health
problems in the City.
Ruling: Despite their ill-reputation,
those women are Philippine Citizens who
are protected by the same Constitutional
Guarantees – to change their domicile
from Manila to another locality.
Manotoc v Court of Appeals
Facts: The petitioner was out on a
bail while facing several criminal charges
for estafa, filed motion for Permission to
Leave for US.
Ruling: Dismissed on the principal
ground that the condition of the bail bond
that he will be available at any time the
court should require his presence is a
valid restriction on his right to travel.
Service Exporters Case
Facts: Temporary suspension of the
deployment of Filipino domestics abroad
due to the reports of abuse and
exploitation by their foreign employers.
Ruling: The ban on their right to
travel was justified on the ground of
public safety.