G. Liberty of Abode and Right to Travel

Rights Guaranteed

• Freedom to choose and change one’s place of abode
• Freedom to travel within the country and outside

Updated: The right to travel is not absolute, and courts may impose lawful restrictions to ensure an accused’s appearance (Pichay v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 241742, 12 May 2021).

Liberty of Abode

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 their domicile from Manila to another locality. (Villavicencio v. Lukban, G.R. No. L-14639, March 25, 1919)

The order of the Court of Appeals releasing petitioner on bail constitutes such lawful order as contemplated by the above provision. The condition imposed by the Court of Appeals is simply consistent with the nature and function of a bail bond, which is to ensure that petitioner will make himself available at all times whenever the Court requires his presence. Besides, a closer look at the questioned condition will show that petitioner is not prevented from changing abode; he is merely required to inform the court in case he does so. (Yap Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141529, June 6, 2001)

Right to Travel

AO1 does not infringe upon petitioners’ right to travel but merely bars motorcycles, bicycles, tricycles, pedicabs, and any non- motorized vehicles as the mode of traveling along limited access highways. The right to travel does not mean the right to choose any vehicle in traversing a toll way. The right to travel refers to the right to move from one place to another. Petitioners can traverse the toll way any time they choose using private or public four-wheeled vehicles. Petitioners are not denied the right to move from Point A to Point B along the toll way. Petitioners are free to access the toll way, much as the rest of the public can. The mode by which petitioners wish to travel pertains to the manner of using the toll way, a subject that can be validly limited by regulation. (Mirasol v. DPWH, G.R. No. 158793, June 8, 2006)

City councils are authorized to enact curfew ordinances (as what respondents have done in this case) and enforce the same through their local officials. In other words, PD 603 provides sufficient statutory basis - as required by the Constitution - to restrict the minors' exercise of the right to travel. Considering that the right to travel is a fundamental right in our legal system guaranteed no less by our Constitution, the strict scrutiny test is the applicable test. (SPARK v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 225442, Aug. 8, 2017)

No Right of Return to One’s Country

Right of Return to One’s Country Is Distinct from the Right to Travel

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. Thus, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treat the right to freedom of movement and abode within the territory of a state, the right to leave a country, and the right to enter one's country as separate and distinct rights. The Declaration speaks of the "right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state" separately from the "right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." (Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, Sept. 15, 1989)

Limitations

• LIBERTY OF ABODE: Lawful order of the court and within the limits prescribed by law.
• RIGHT TO TRAVEL: May be curtailed even by administrative officers in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. (PHIL. CONST., art. III, § 6)

Updated: A court may restrict an accused’s travel to preserve its jurisdiction and ensure the accused’s appearance, including through a Hold Departure Order (Pichay v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 241742, 12 May 2021).