G.R. Nos. 241742 and 241753-59 - PROSPERO A. PICHAY, JR., VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, accused Prospero A. Pichay, Jr.'s Motion to Lift Hold Departure Order dated 14 February 2018, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . [18] The Sandiganbayan ruled that the issuance of a HDO was considered as a valid restriction on Pichay's right to travel, as it was done in the exercise of the Court's inherent power to preserve and maintain its jurisdiction over the case and the person of the accused. It also stated that by posting bail for his provisional liberty, Pichay assumed the responsibility to appear in court whenever required by the Court or the Rules, which constituted a valid restriction on his right to travel. [19] Pichay filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution [20] dated June 19, 2018. Hence, this petition. The Issue Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the Motion to Lift HDO and in sustaining the HDO's validity. The Court's Ruling The petition lacks merit. Pichay insists that the general rule is that the right to travel shall not be impaired and may be restricted only in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. Pichay asserts that none of the allowable limitations on the right to travel are present in this case. [21] Moreover, he maintains that the mere posting of bail does not operate as a waiver of the requisites prescribed by the Constitution for the curtailment of the right to travel. [22] On the other hand, respondent People of the Philippines contends that the issuance of a HDO does not violate Pichay's constitutional right to travel but is an exercise of the Sandiganbayan's power to preserve and maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case and the person of Pichay. [23] The right to travel and to freedom of movement is a fundamental right guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to which the Philippines is a signatory. Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution states: Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by Jaw 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. Article 13 of the UDHR provides: Art. 13. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. Everyone has the right to leave any country including his own, and to return to his country. However, the exercise of one's right to travel or the freedom to move from one place to another is not absolute. "There are constitutional, statutory, and inherent limitations regulating the right to travel." [24] As stated under the 1987 Constitution, courts can impair the right to travel on the grounds of "national security, public safety, or public health" and "as may be provided by law." Apart from constitutional