Santiago v.

Vazquez
January 27, 1993
Regalado
Alycat
SUMMARY: This petition is a Motion to Restrain the Sandiganbayan
from Enforcing its Hold Departure Order filed directly with the
Supreme Court. During the pendency of a criminal case against Miriam
Defensor-Santiago, the Sandiganbayan issued a Hold Departure Order
against her. The HDO ordered Santiago not to leave the country. The
HDO was issued in consideration of, among other things, information in
the media that Santiago intended to leave the country soon. The SC
ruled that the issuance of the HDO is a valid exercise of the
Sandiganbayans power
DOCTRINE: Courts possess certain inherent powers which may be said
to be implied from a general grant of jurisdiction, in addition to the
powers expressly conferred on them. Therefore, a grant of jurisdiction
implies the necessary and usual incidental powers essential to
effectuate such jurisdiction, in the absence of prohibitive
legislation. The HDO is but an exercise of the Sandiganbayans power to
preserve and maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction.
FACTS:
This petition is a Motion to Restrain the Sandiganbayan from
Enforcing its Hold Departure Order filed directly with the Supreme
Court.
During the pendency of a criminal case against Miriam DefensorSantiago for violation of Sec. 3(e), RA 3019, the Sandiganbayan issued a
Hold Departure Order against her. The HDO ordered Santiago not to
leave the country, and the Commission on Immigration and
Deportation not to allow her departure, unless authorized by the
Sandiganbayan. The HDO was issued in consideration of, among other
things, information in the media that Santiago intended to leave the
country soon. It appears that Santiago had publicly announced that she
was going to accept a fellowship at Harvard.

MAIN ISSUE: WON the issuance of the HDO is a valid exercise of the
Sandiganbayans power YES
RATIO:
Courts possess certain inherent powers which may be said to be
implied from a general grant of jurisdiction, in addition to the powers
expressly conferred on them. Therefore, a grant of jurisdiction implies
the necessary and usual incidental powers essential to effectuate such
jurisdiction, in the absence of prohibitive legislation. And every
regularly constituted court has the power to do all things that are
reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope
of its jurisdiction, subject to existing laws and constitutional provisions.
Furthermore, a court has the inherent power to make interlocutory
orders necessary to protect its jurisdiction.
In the case at bar, Santiago does not deny and, as a matter of fact, even
made a public statement that she had every intention of leaving the
country allegedly to pursue higher studies abroad. The Court upholds
the Sandiganbayans issuance of the HDO. The HDO is but an exercise of
the Sandiganbayans power to preserve and maintain the effectiveness
of its jurisdiction.
OTHER ISSUE: WON the HDO violates Santiagos right to travel NO
RATIO:
Santiago has posted bail which the Court has declared legally valid and
complete. Perforce, since under the obligations assumed by Santiago in
her bail bond, she holds herself amenable at all times to the orders and
processes of the court, she may legally be prohibited from leaving the
country during the pendency of the case.
Manotoc v. CA: 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 If the accused
were allowed to leave the Philippines without sufficient reason, he may
be placed beyond the reach of the courts.
Silverio v. CA: 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.
DISPOSITIVE: The Motion to Restrain the Sandiganbayan from
Enforcing its Hold Departure Order is DENIED.