GENUINO VS. DE LIMA G.R. NO.

197930, APRIL 17, 2018

FACTS: Several criminal complaints were filed against former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA) before the
DOJ. In view thereof, DOJ Sec. De Lima issued Watchlist Orders (WLO) pursuant to her authority under DOJ Circular
No. 41 which was issued pursuant to the rule-making powers of the DOJ in order to keep individuals under
preliminary investigation within the jurisdiction of the Philippines. Subsequently, GMA requested for the issuance of
Allow Departure Orders (ADO) so that she may be able to seek medical attention abroad. Before the resolution of her
application for ADO, GMA filed a petition with prayer for the issuance of a TRO seeking to annul and set aside DOJ
Circular No. 41 and WLOs issued against her for being unconstitutional. A TRO was issued but GMA was prevented
from leaving the country.

The DOJ insist that the resulting infringement of liberty is merely incidental, together with the consequent
inconvenience, hardship or loss to the person being subjected to the restriction and that the ultimate objective is to
preserve the investigative powers of the DOJ and public order. It posits that the issuance ensures the presence within
the country of the respondents during the preliminary investigation.

The DOJ stresses the necessity of the restraint imposed in DOJ Circular No. 41 in that to allow the petitioners, who
are under preliminary investigation, to exercise an untrammelled right to travel, especially when the risk of flight is
distinctly high will surely impede the efficient and effective operation of the justice system. The absence of the
petitioners, it asseverates, would mean that the farthest criminal proceeding they could go would be the filing of the
criminal information since they cannot be arraigned in absentia.

ISSUE: W/N DOJ Circular No. 41 unconstitutional for being a violation of the right to travel.

HELD: YES. The DOJ has no authority to issue DOJ Circular No. 41 which restricts the right to travel through the
issuance of WLO and HDO. 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, but a mere administrative issuance designed to carry out the provisions of an
enabling law. The provision simply grants the DOJ the power to investigate the commission of crimes and
prosecute offenders. There is no mention of the exigencies stated in the Constitution that will justify the impairment.
DOJ does not have inherent power to issue WLO and HDO, unlike the courts. Neither there is a law authorizing
the DOJ to issue WLO and HDO to restrict the right to travel . Thus, there must be an enabling law from which
DOJ Circular No. 41 must derive its life.

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. No objective will ever suffice
to legitimize desecration of a fundamental right. While a preliminary investigation is an implement of due process,
the presence of the accused is not necessary for the prosecutor to discharge his investigatory duties. Its investigatory
power is simply inquisitorial and not broad enough to embrace the imposition of restraint on the liberty of movement.

That the subjects of DOJ Circular No. 41 are individuals who may have committed a wrong against the state does not
warrant the intrusion in the enjoyment of their basic rights. They are nonetheless innocent individuals and
suspicions on their guilt do not confer them lesser privileges to enjoy.