2. Watchlist, Hold Departure Orders, and Precautionary Hold Departure Orders (See also AM 18-07-05-SC)

H. Liberty of Abode and Right to Travel

• Scope and Limitations
• Watch-List and Hold Departure Orders

1987 CONST., art. III, sec. 6

> art. III, sec. 6 SECTION 6. 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 national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

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 national security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law. (PHIL. CONST., art. III, § 6)

WATCH-LIST AND HOLD DEPARTURE ORDERS

Watch-list Orders vs. Hold Departure Orders

• Department of Justice Circular No. 41, which provided for watch-list and hold-departure orders issued by the Secretary of Justice, was declared unconstitutional; issuances under it are null and void. Court-issued hold-departure orders are distinct from precautionary hold-departure orders under A.M. No. 18-07-05-SC. (Genuino v. De Lima, G.R. No. 197930, April 17, 2018)

Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should by no means be construed as delimiting the inherent power of the Courts to use all means necessary to carry their orders into effect in criminal cases pending before them. When by law jurisdiction is conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, process and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such Court or officer. 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. (Silverio v. CA, G.R. No. 94284, April 8, 1991)

[The DOJ] does not have inherent power to issue a hold-departure order, unlike the courts, or to restrict the right to travel in [any way]. It is limited to the powers expressly granted to it by law and may not extend the same on its own accord or by any skewed interpretation of its authority. Without a valid legislation, the DOJ's actions will perpetually be met with legal hurdles to the detriment of the due administration of justice. (Genuino v. De Lima, G.R. No. 197930, April 17, 2018)

The Liberty of Abode and the Right to Travel in the Philippines are fundamental rights protected by the 1987 Constitution. The liberty of abode allows individuals to choose their residence within the limits set by law, and this right cannot be impaired except by a lawful court order. Similarly, the right to travel permits individuals to move freely, subject to limitations in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health as provided by law.

Liberty of Abode:

The liberty of abode ensures that individuals have the freedom to choose their place of residence within legal boundaries. This right can only be restricted by a lawful court order and should not be impaired without due process.

Right to Travel:

The right to travel grants individuals the freedom to move within and outside the country. However, this right is not absolute and can be limited in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health as specified by law.

Limitations:

• Statutory Limitations: Various laws impose restrictions on the right to travel, such as the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (Republic Act No. 11479, sec. 34), the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, and the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.
• Court orders in pending criminal cases: Separately from restrictions in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health as provided by law, a court may prevent an accused in a criminal case pending before it from departing the Philippines to keep the accused within its reach. (Silverio v. CA, G.R. No. 94284, April 8, 1991)

Updated: Precautionary Hold Departure Orders apply primarily during preliminary investigation; after an Information is filed, regular Hold Departure Order guidelines apply (Abad v. People, G.R. No. 256320, 13 January 2026).