LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL

1) VILLAVICENCIO VS LUKBAN

Issue:
The writ of Habeas Corpus was filed by the petitioner, with the prayer that the
respondent produce around 170 women whom Justo Lukban et, al deported to
Davao. Liberty of abode was also raised versus the power of the executive of the
Municipality in deporting the women without their knowledge in his capacity as
Mayor.
Facts:
Justo Lukban as Manila City's Mayor together with Anton Hohmann, the city's
Chief of Police, took custody of about 170 women at the night of October 25
beyond the latters consent and knowledge and thereafter were shipped to
Mindanao specifically in Davao where they were signed as laborers. Said women
are inmates of the houses of prostitution situated in Gardenia Street, in the
district of Sampaloc.
That when the petitioner filed for habeas corpus, the respondent moved to
dismiss the case saying that those women were already out of their jurisdiction
and that , it should be filed in the city of Davao instead.
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner with the instructions;
For the respondents to have fulfilled the court's order, three optional courses
were open: (1) They could have produced the bodies of the persons according to
the command of the writ; or (2) they could have shown by affidavit that on
account of sickness or infirmity those persons could not safely be brought before
the court; or (3) they could have presented affidavits to show that the parties in
question or their attorney waived the right to be present.
Held:
The court concluded the case by granting the parties aggrieved the sum of 400
pesos each, plus 100 pesos for nominal damage due to contempt of court.
Reasoning further that if the chief executive of any municipality in the
Philippines could forcibly and illegally take a private citizen and place him
beyond the boundaries of the municipality, and then, when called upon to
defend his official action, could calmly fold his hands and claim that the person
was under no restraint and that he, the official, had no jurisdiction over this
other municipality.
We believe the true principle should be that, if the respondent is within the
jurisdiction of the court and has it in his power to obey the order of the court

and thus to undo the wrong that he has inflicted, he should be compelled to do
so. Even if the party to whom the writ is addressed has illegally parted with the
custody of a person before the application for the writ is no reason why the writ
should not issue. If the mayor and the chief of police, acting under no authority
of law, could deport these women from the city of Manila to Davao, the same
officials must necessarily have the same means to return them from Davao to
Manila. The respondents, within the reach of process, may not be permitted to
restrain a fellow citizen of her liberty by forcing her to change her domicile and
to avow the act with impunity in the courts, while the person who has lost her
birthright of liberty has no effective recourse. The great writ of liberty may not
thus be easily evaded.
2) CAUNCA VS. SALAZAR
Facts: This is an action for habeas corpus brought by Bartolome Caunca in behalf
of his cousin Estelita Flores 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 theadvance 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.

3) RUBI VS. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO

Facts: The provincial board of Mindoro adopted resolution No. 25 wherein nonChristian inhabitants (uncivilized tribes) will be directed to take up their

habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands. It is resolved that under section

2077 of the Administrative Code, 800 hectares of public land in the sitio of
Tigbao on Naujan Lake be selected as a site for the permanent settlement of
Mangyanes in Mindoro. Further, Mangyans may only solicit homesteads on
thisreservation providing that said homestead applications are previously
recommended by the provincial governor.
In that case, pursuant to Section 2145 of the Revised Administrative Code, all
the Mangyans in the townships of Naujan and Pola and the Mangyans east of the
Baco River including those in the districts of Dulangan and Rubi's place in
Calapan, were ordered to take up their habitation on the site of Tigbao, Naujan
Lake. Also, that any Mangyan who shall refuse to comply with this order shall
upon conviction be imprisoned not exceed in sixty days, in accordance with
section 2759 of the revised Administrative Code.
Said resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro were claimed as necessary
measures for the protection of the Mangyanes of Mindoro as well as the
protection of public forests in which they roam, and to introduce civilized
customs among them.
It appeared that Rubi and those living in his rancheria have not fixed their
dwelling within the reservation of Tigbao and are liable to be punished.
It is alleged that the Manguianes 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 form the reservation.
Issue: Whether or Not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code deprive a person
of his liberty pf abode. Thus, WON Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of
1917 is constitutional.
Held: The Court held that section 2145 of the Administrative Code does not
deprive a person of his liberty of abode and does not deny to him the equal
protection of the laws, and that confinement inreservations in accordance with
said section does not constitute slavery and involuntary servitude. The Court is
further of the opinion that section 2145 of the Administrative Code is a
legitimate exertion of the police power. Section 2145 of the Administrative Code
of 1917 is constitutional.
Assigned as reasons for the action: (1) attempts for the advancement of the
non-Christian people of the province; and (2) the onlysuccessfully method for
educating the Manguianes was to oblige them to live in a permanent settlement.
The Solicitor-General adds the following; (3) The protection of the Manguianes;
(4) the protection of the public forests in which they roam; (5) the necessity of
introducing civilized customs among the Manguianes.

One cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered without when
the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is considered. They are restrained
for their own good and the general good of the Philippines.
Liberty regulated by law": Implied in the term is restraint by law for the good of
the individual and for the greater good of the peace and order of society and the
general well-being. No man can do exactly as he pleases.
None of the rights of the citizen can be taken away except by due process of
law.
Therefore, petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their
liberty. Habeas corpus can, therefore, not issue.

4) PHILIPPINES ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS

v. DRILON
FACTS: PASEI recruits male and female for work abroad. They challenge
the constitutionality of DO no. 1 of DOLE guidelines governing the
temporary suspension of deployment of Filipino domestic and
household workers for discrimination against males or females and for
not applying to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and
females with similar skills.
HELD: Order is valid. It applies only to female contract workers but it
does not import a perfect identity if rights among all men and women.
It is based on substantial distinctions. Female domestic servants
abroad are usually the victims of exploitive working conditions.
Distinctions are borne by evidence, there is no such evidence for male
workers. It does not narrowly apply to existing conditions; they apply
indefinitely so long as those conditions exist. That it does not apply to
all Filipina workers is not an argument of unconstitutionality. Not all of
them are similarly situated. What the constitution prohibits is the
singling out of a select person or group within an existing class to the
prejudice of such a person or group resulting in an unfair advantage to
another person or group.

5) KANT KWONG V PCGG

The right to travel, along with the right to freedom of movement, are
constitutionallyguaranteed rights. The petitioners had been barred by the
government from leaving thecountry. This was done through a Hold-Order. The
petitioners argued that this was violative of their right to travel. The Court held
that the Hold-Orders impaired the petitioners'constitutional right to travel. The
Hold-Orders had already expired and the grounds for theirissuance had become
moot. The Court said, "The right to travel and to freedom of movement isa
fundamental right guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights to which the Philippines is a signatory. That right
extends to all residentsregardless of nationality. And everyone has the right
to an effective remedy by the competentnational tribunals for acts violating the

fundamental rights granted him by the Constitution orby law. While such right is
not absolute but must yield to the State's inherent police powerupon which the
Hold-Orders were premised, no 'good reasons' have been advanced whichcould
justify the continued enforcement of the Hold-Orders." Thus, the Court held that
thegovernment had abused its discretion in maintaining the Hold-Orders for an
indefinite length of time, as to do so arbitrarily violated the petitioners'
fundamental right to freedom of movement. It cited the UDHR in so doing

6) Marcos vs. Manglapus,

Facts: Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency and was forced
into exile. Corazon Aquinos ascension into presidency was challenged by failed
coup attempts as well as by plots of Marcos loyalists and the Marcoses
themselves. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the
Philipppines to die. But President Aquino, considering the dire consequences
to the nation of his return has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of
Mr. Marcos and his family. Hence, this petition for mandamus and prohibition
asks the Courts to order the respondents to issue travel documents to Mr.
Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to enjoin the
implementation of the President's decision to bar their return to the Philippines.
Issues: Whether or not the President has the power to bar the return of Marcos
to the Philippines. Assuming that she has the power to bar, was there a finding
made that there is a clear and present danger to the public due to the return?
And have the requirements ofdue process been complied with in the making of
the finding?
HELD: Petition Dismissed.
The request of the Marcoses must not be treated only in the light of
constitutional provisions, it must be treated as a matter that is appropriately
addressed to those residual unstated powers of the President which are implicit
in to the paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard and protect general
welfare. Such request or demand should submit to the exercise of a broader
discretion on the part of the President to determine whether it must be granted
or denied.
It is found by the Court that from the pleadings filed by the parties, from their
oral arguments, and the facts revealed during the briefing in chambers by the
Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the National Security
Adviser, wherein petitioners and respondents were represented, that there exist
factual bases for the President's decision. Hence, this act cannot be said to have
been done arbitrarily or capriciously. Further, the ponencia (the coups, the
communist threat, peace and order issues especially in Mindanao, Marcos
loyalists plotting) bolsters the conclusion that the return of Marcos will only
exacerbate the situation in the country.
Another reason of the Court...We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the
country is only now beginning to recover from the hardships brought about by
the plunder of the economy attributed to the Marcoses and their close
associates and relatives, many of whom are still here in the Philippines in a

position to destabilize the country, while the Government has barely scratched
the surface, so to speak, in its efforts to recover the enormous wealth stashed
away by the Marcoses in foreign jurisdictions.

7) SILVERIO VS. COURT OF APPEALS

Facts: Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 2 (4) of the
revised securities act. Respondent filed to cancel the passport of the petitioner
and to issue a hold departure order. The RTC ordered the DFA to cancel
petitioners passport, based on the finding that the petitioner has not been
arraigned and there was evidence to show thatthe accused has left the country
with out the knowledge and the permission of the court.
Issue: Whether or Not the right to travel may be impaired by order of the court.
Held: The bail bond posted by petitioner has been cancelled andwarrant of
arrest has been issued by reason that he failed to appear at his arraignments.
There is a valid restriction on the right to travel, it is imposed that the
accused must make himself available whenever the court requires his presence.
A person facing criminal charges may be restrained by the Court from leaving
the country or, if abroad, compelled to return (Constitutional Law, Cruz, Isagani
A., 1987 Edition, p. 138). So it is also that "An accused released on bail may be
re-arrested without the necessity of a warrant if he attempts to depart from the
Philippines without prior permission of the Court where the case is pending
(ibid., Sec. 20 [2nd
par. ]).
Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that
while the liberty of travel may be impaired even without Court Order, the
appropriate executive officers or administrative authorities are not armed with
arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. They can impose limits only on the
basis of "national security, public safety, or public health" and "as may be
provided by law," a limitive phrase which did not appear in the 1973 text (The
Constitution, Bernas, Joaquin G.,S.J., Vol. I, First Edition, 1987, p. 263).
Apparently, the phraseology in the 1987 Constitution was areaction to the ban
on international travel imposed under the previous regime when there was a
Travel Processing Center, which issued certificates of eligibility to travel upon
application of an interested party (See Salonga vs. Hermoso & Travel Processing
Center, No. 53622, 25 April 1980, 97 SCRA 121).
Holding an accused in a criminal case within the reach of the Courts by
preventing his departure from the Philippines must be considered as a valid
restriction on his right to travel so that he may be dealt with in accordance with
law. The offended party in any criminal proceeding is the People of the
Philippines. It is to their best interest that criminal prosecutions should run their

course and proceed to finality without undue delay, with an accused holding
himself amenable at all times to Court Orders and processes

8)

Salonga vs Hermoso

Political Law Right to Travel Even During Martial Law

Salonga filed a mandamus proceeding to compel Hermoso of the Travel
Processing Center to issue a certificate of eligibility to travel to Salonga. This is
not however the first time that Salonga filed such a complaint and this issue is
considered moot and academic. The Soc-Gen, in his reply, has already indicated
that the certificate was indeed issued and that there should be no cause of
action. The issuance of the certificate is 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.

9) Manotoc v CA 142 SCRA 149 (1986)

Facts: This is a consolidated case of members of the AFP who were charged with
violation of Articles of War (AW) 67 (Mutiny), AW 96 (Conduct Unbecoming an

Officer and a Gentleman) and AW 94 (Various Crimes) in relation to Article 248

of the Revised Penal Code (Murder). The petitioners were questioning the
conduct of the pre-trial investigation conducted where a motion to bail was filed
but was denied. Petitioner applied for provisional liberty and preliminary
injunction before the court which was granted. However De Villa refused to
release petitioner for provisional liberty pending the resolution of the appeal
they have taken before the court invoking that military officers are an exemption
from the right to bail guaranteed by the Constitution. Decision was rendered
reiterating the release for provisional liberty of petitioners with the court stating
that there is a mistake in the presumption of respondents that bail does not
apply among military men facing court martial proceeding. Respondents now
appeal before the higher court.
The 1987 Constitution of the PhilippinesThe Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines explained
Issue: Whether or not military men are exempted from the Constitutional
guarantee on the right to bail.
Cases on constitutional law (Philippine casebook series) A historical and juridical
study of the Philippine Bill of rights
Held: The SC ruled that the bail invoked by petitioners is not available in the
military as an exception to the general rule embodied in the Bill of Rights.
Thus the right to a speedy trial is given more emphasis in the military where the
right to bail does not exist. Justification to this rule involves the unique structure
of the military and national security considerations which may result to
damaging precedents that mutinous soldiers will be released on provisional
liberty giving them the chance to continue their plot in overthrowing the
government. Therefore the decision of the lower court granting bail to the
petitioners was reversed.