Last August 24, the Secretary of Justice Leila De Lima issued an order which placed the husband of former president now Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the watchlist in connection with the ongoing investigation by the Senate over the anomalous sale of second-hand helicopters to the Philippine National Police (PNP) in 2009. In effect, the said order seeks to restrain or impair Mr. Arroyo’s right to travel.
Is this proper?
The hell No. The arrogance of the Secretary of Justice has become more and more obvious these past few days. I don’t know what she’s up to. But one thing is for sure – She has become a glutton for media attention. Is it because of the fact that the next Senatorial election is fast approaching? Is she really that desperate that she will stop at nothing just so she could publicly humiliate the Arroyo’s in hopes that she could gain the public’s trust and confidence? What a pity.
Being the Secretary of Justice, we look up to her with so much respect especially because she holds enormous power in ensuring that we will have a better, peaceful and just society. However, the way I see it, things have become worse. Her legal opinion on matters with great constitutional significance has become so short-sighted and patently illogical that one can’t help but wonder how on earth did she become the Chairman [before] of the Commission on HUMAN RIGHTS and now the Secretary of Justice. How could she say that her order of including Mr. Arroyo in the watchlist is proper and does not violate the constitutional right of the gentleman to travel? What happened? She should know better. Do we have to ask for clearances now before we can travel just like during Martial Law years? Last time I checked we are still under a democratic regime where freedom is valued and constitutional rights are respected.
Now on the merits.
Section 6 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution is very explicit in its provision. It says, “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.”
Our constitution is very clear. Even in the United States where there is no express provision that guarantees or protects one’s right to travel, their Supreme Court has ruled that "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125 In the case of Mr. Arroyo, was he given due process before the Secretary decided to include him in the watch list? I don’t think so. The Secretary has unilaterally, without regard to any constitutional right or whatsoever, hammered down into the abyss Mr. Arroyo’s right to travel which, unlike in the US, is expressly provided for in our constitution. If the US values such a right so dearly despite its absence in their constitution, don’t you think it’s the more reason that we have to fight for it since it’s clearly found in ours?
Note that the right to travel is not really absolute. However, please also note that [any of] the following conditions have to be present first before it can be impaired: it has to be in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. But is there already a law? There is none. It is for this reason that former Senator Loi Ejercito Estrada introduced Senate Bill No. 174 in 2004, otherwise known as The Right to Travel Act. In her introduction, the good Senator wrote, “that the right to travel may only be impaired pursuant to a law and that means a law passed by congress, not a law promulgated by the judicial or executive branch of government. Absent such law, any act purporting to curtail or restrict the right to travel is unconstitutional.” ‘Til today though, there is no news as to the status of the said bill. Now that she’s no longer in the Senate, it is safe to assume that it’s probably buried already together with the pieces of legislations that she authored.
Today, only the Courts can impair someone’s right to travel and usually the order is issued only when there is a case filed in court against such person. This has been upheld in the case of Manotoc v. Court of Appeals (142 SCRA 149). The Supreme Court likewise, in the case of Marcos vs. Manglapus, sustained the refusal of the government to allow the petitioner’s return, on the ground that it would endanger national security. Note though that the SC was squarely divided on this issue, voting 8-7 against the petitioner. The state likewise has the power to restrict someone’s right to travel if he is inflicted with a disease like leprosy [in order] to protect public health.
Fr. Bernas, former member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution and a well-respected authority in Constitutional law said, that 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), as cited in the case of Silverio vs. CA G.R. No. 94284 April 8, 1991.
Again, absent any of the compelling grounds of nationally security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law (not just by any administrative order), one’s right to travel cannot be impaired.
It is clear therefore, considering all the foregoing facts and jurisprudence, the order of the Secretary of Justice is patently unconstitutional. You can’t right a wrong by committing another wrong. It’s that’s simple. You may have the noblest of all [the] intentions but then again, the end does not justify the means. Secretary De Lima should not allow herself to be used by this administration as an instrument of and for political harassment and persecution; otherwise, she could well then be considered as Secretary of Injustice.
P.S
Has she already won a major case since she assumed office or it’s all blah blah blah blah?
Sunday, November 13, 2011
The Right to Travel, in the eyes of Sec. Leila De Lima, the Secretary of (In)justice?
Last August 24, the Secretary of Justice Leila De Lima issued an order which placed the husband of former president now Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the watchlist in connection with the ongoing investigation by the Senate over the anomalous sale of second-hand helicopters to the Philippine National Police (PNP) in 2009. In effect, the said order seeks to restrain or impair Mr. Arroyo’s right to travel.
Is this proper?
The hell No. The arrogance of the Secretary of Justice has become more and more obvious these past few days. I don’t know what she’s up to. But one thing is for sure – She has become a glutton for media attention. Is it because of the fact that the next Senatorial election is fast approaching? Is she really that desperate that she will stop at nothing just so she could publicly humiliate the Arroyo’s in hopes that she could gain the public’s trust and confidence? What a pity.
Being the Secretary of Justice, we look up to her with so much respect especially because she holds enormous power in ensuring that we will have a better, peaceful and just society. However, the way I see it, things have become worse. Her legal opinion on matters with great constitutional significance has become so short-sighted and patently illogical that one can’t help but wonder how on earth did she become the Chairman [before] of the Commission on HUMAN RIGHTS and now the Secretary of Justice. How could she say that her order of including Mr. Arroyo in the watchlist is proper and does not violate the constitutional right of the gentleman to travel? What happened? She should know better. Do we have to ask for clearances now before we can travel just like during Martial Law years? Last time I checked we are still under a democratic regime where freedom is valued and constitutional rights are respected.
Now on the merits.
Section 6 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution is very explicit in its provision. It says, “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.”
Our constitution is very clear. Even in the United States where there is no express provision that guarantees or protects one’s right to travel, their Supreme Court has ruled that "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125 In the case of Mr. Arroyo, was he given due process before the Secretary decided to include him in the watch list? I don’t think so. The Secretary has unilaterally, without regard to any constitutional right or whatsoever, hammered down into the abyss Mr. Arroyo’s right to travel which, unlike in the US, is expressly provided for in our constitution. If the US values such a right so dearly despite its absence in their constitution, don’t you think it’s the more reason that we have to fight for it since it’s clearly found in ours?
Note that the right to travel is not really absolute. However, please also note that [any of] the following conditions have to be present first before it can be impaired: it has to be in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. But is there already a law? There is none. It is for this reason that former Senator Loi Ejercito Estrada introduced Senate Bill No. 174 in 2004, otherwise known as The Right to Travel Act. In her introduction, the good Senator wrote, “that the right to travel may only be impaired pursuant to a law and that means a law passed by congress, not a law promulgated by the judicial or executive branch of government. Absent such law, any act purporting to curtail or restrict the right to travel is unconstitutional.” ‘Til today though, there is no news as to the status of the said bill. Now that she’s no longer in the Senate, it is safe to assume that it’s probably buried already together with the pieces of legislations that she authored.
Today, only the Courts can impair someone’s right to travel and usually the order is issued only when there is a case filed in court against such person. This has been upheld in the case of Manotoc v. Court of Appeals (142 SCRA 149). The Supreme Court likewise, in the case of Marcos vs. Manglapus, sustained the refusal of the government to allow the petitioner’s return, on the ground that it would endanger national security. Note though that the SC was squarely divided on this issue, voting 8-7 against the petitioner. The state likewise has the power to restrict someone’s right to travel if he is inflicted with a disease like leprosy [in order] to protect public health.
Fr. Bernas, former member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution and a well-respected authority in Constitutional law said, that 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), as cited in the case of Silverio vs. CA G.R. No. 94284 April 8, 1991.
Again, absent any of the compelling grounds of nationally security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law (not just by any administrative order), one’s right to travel cannot be impaired.
It is clear therefore, considering all the foregoing facts and jurisprudence, the order of the Secretary of Justice is patently unconstitutional. You can’t right a wrong by committing another wrong. It’s that’s simple. You may have the noblest of all [the] intentions but then again, the end does not justify the means. Secretary De Lima should not allow herself to be used by this administration as an instrument of and for political harassment and persecution; otherwise, she could well then be considered as Secretary of Injustice.
P.S
Has she already won a major case since she assumed office or it’s all blah blah blah blah?
Is this proper?
The hell No. The arrogance of the Secretary of Justice has become more and more obvious these past few days. I don’t know what she’s up to. But one thing is for sure – She has become a glutton for media attention. Is it because of the fact that the next Senatorial election is fast approaching? Is she really that desperate that she will stop at nothing just so she could publicly humiliate the Arroyo’s in hopes that she could gain the public’s trust and confidence? What a pity.
Being the Secretary of Justice, we look up to her with so much respect especially because she holds enormous power in ensuring that we will have a better, peaceful and just society. However, the way I see it, things have become worse. Her legal opinion on matters with great constitutional significance has become so short-sighted and patently illogical that one can’t help but wonder how on earth did she become the Chairman [before] of the Commission on HUMAN RIGHTS and now the Secretary of Justice. How could she say that her order of including Mr. Arroyo in the watchlist is proper and does not violate the constitutional right of the gentleman to travel? What happened? She should know better. Do we have to ask for clearances now before we can travel just like during Martial Law years? Last time I checked we are still under a democratic regime where freedom is valued and constitutional rights are respected.
Now on the merits.
Section 6 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution is very explicit in its provision. It says, “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.”
Our constitution is very clear. Even in the United States where there is no express provision that guarantees or protects one’s right to travel, their Supreme Court has ruled that "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125 In the case of Mr. Arroyo, was he given due process before the Secretary decided to include him in the watch list? I don’t think so. The Secretary has unilaterally, without regard to any constitutional right or whatsoever, hammered down into the abyss Mr. Arroyo’s right to travel which, unlike in the US, is expressly provided for in our constitution. If the US values such a right so dearly despite its absence in their constitution, don’t you think it’s the more reason that we have to fight for it since it’s clearly found in ours?
Note that the right to travel is not really absolute. However, please also note that [any of] the following conditions have to be present first before it can be impaired: it has to be in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. But is there already a law? There is none. It is for this reason that former Senator Loi Ejercito Estrada introduced Senate Bill No. 174 in 2004, otherwise known as The Right to Travel Act. In her introduction, the good Senator wrote, “that the right to travel may only be impaired pursuant to a law and that means a law passed by congress, not a law promulgated by the judicial or executive branch of government. Absent such law, any act purporting to curtail or restrict the right to travel is unconstitutional.” ‘Til today though, there is no news as to the status of the said bill. Now that she’s no longer in the Senate, it is safe to assume that it’s probably buried already together with the pieces of legislations that she authored.
Today, only the Courts can impair someone’s right to travel and usually the order is issued only when there is a case filed in court against such person. This has been upheld in the case of Manotoc v. Court of Appeals (142 SCRA 149). The Supreme Court likewise, in the case of Marcos vs. Manglapus, sustained the refusal of the government to allow the petitioner’s return, on the ground that it would endanger national security. Note though that the SC was squarely divided on this issue, voting 8-7 against the petitioner. The state likewise has the power to restrict someone’s right to travel if he is inflicted with a disease like leprosy [in order] to protect public health.
Fr. Bernas, former member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution and a well-respected authority in Constitutional law said, that 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), as cited in the case of Silverio vs. CA G.R. No. 94284 April 8, 1991.
Again, absent any of the compelling grounds of nationally security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law (not just by any administrative order), one’s right to travel cannot be impaired.
It is clear therefore, considering all the foregoing facts and jurisprudence, the order of the Secretary of Justice is patently unconstitutional. You can’t right a wrong by committing another wrong. It’s that’s simple. You may have the noblest of all [the] intentions but then again, the end does not justify the means. Secretary De Lima should not allow herself to be used by this administration as an instrument of and for political harassment and persecution; otherwise, she could well then be considered as Secretary of Injustice.
P.S
Has she already won a major case since she assumed office or it’s all blah blah blah blah?
The Right to Travel, in the eyes of Sec. Leila De Lima, the Secretary of (In)justice?
Last August 24, the Secretary of Justice Leila De Lima issued an order which placed the husband of former president now Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the watchlist in connection with the ongoing investigation by the Senate over the anomalous sale of second-hand helicopters to the Philippine National Police (PNP) in 2009. In effect, the said order seeks to restrain or impair Mr. Arroyo’s right to travel.
Is this proper?
The hell No. The arrogance of the Secretary of Justice has become more and more obvious these past few days. I don’t know what she’s up to. But one thing is for sure – She has become a glutton for media attention. Is it because of the fact that the next Senatorial election is fast approaching? Is she really that desperate that she will stop at nothing just so she could publicly humiliate the Arroyo’s in hopes that she could gain the public’s trust and confidence? What a pity.
Being the Secretary of Justice, we look up to her with so much respect especially because she holds enormous power in ensuring that we will have a better, peaceful and just society. However, the way I see it, things have become worse. Her legal opinion on matters with great constitutional significance has become so short-sighted and patently illogical that one can’t help but wonder how on earth did she become the Chairman [before] of the Commission on HUMAN RIGHTS and now the Secretary of Justice. How could she say that her order of including Mr. Arroyo in the watchlist is proper and does not violate the constitutional right of the gentleman to travel? What happened? She should know better. Do we have to ask for clearances now before we can travel just like during Martial Law years? Last time I checked we are still under a democratic regime where freedom is valued and constitutional rights are respected.
Now on the merits.
Section 6 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution is very explicit in its provision. It says, “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.”
Our constitution is very clear. Even in the United States where there is no express provision that guarantees or protects one’s right to travel, their Supreme Court has ruled that "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125 In the case of Mr. Arroyo, was he given due process before the Secretary decided to include him in the watch list? I don’t think so. The Secretary has unilaterally, without regard to any constitutional right or whatsoever, hammered down into the abyss Mr. Arroyo’s right to travel which, unlike in the US, is expressly provided for in our constitution. If the US values such a right so dearly despite its absence in their constitution, don’t you think it’s the more reason that we have to fight for it since it’s clearly found in ours?
Note that the right to travel is not really absolute. However, please also note that [any of] the following conditions have to be present first before it can be impaired: it has to be in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. But is there already a law? There is none. It is for this reason that former Senator Loi Ejercito Estrada introduced Senate Bill No. 174 in 2004, otherwise known as The Right to Travel Act. In her introduction, the good Senator wrote, “that the right to travel may only be impaired pursuant to a law and that means a law passed by congress, not a law promulgated by the judicial or executive branch of government. Absent such law, any act purporting to curtail or restrict the right to travel is unconstitutional.” ‘Til today though, there is no news as to the status of the said bill. Now that she’s no longer in the Senate, it is safe to assume that it’s probably buried already together with the pieces of legislations that she authored.
Today, only the Courts can impair someone’s right to travel and usually the order is issued only when there is a case filed in court against such person. This has been upheld in the case of Manotoc v. Court of Appeals (142 SCRA 149). The Supreme Court likewise, in the case of Marcos vs. Manglapus, sustained the refusal of the government to allow the petitioner’s return, on the ground that it would endanger national security. Note though that the SC was squarely divided on this issue, voting 8-7 against the petitioner. The state likewise has the power to restrict someone’s right to travel if he is inflicted with a disease like leprosy [in order] to protect public health.
Fr. Bernas, former member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution and a well-respected authority in Constitutional law said, that 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), as cited in the case of Silverio vs. CA G.R. No. 94284 April 8, 1991.
Again, absent any of the compelling grounds of nationally security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law (not just by any administrative order), one’s right to travel cannot be impaired.
It is clear therefore, considering all the foregoing facts and jurisprudence, the order of the Secretary of Justice is patently unconstitutional. You can’t right a wrong by committing another wrong. It’s that’s simple. You may have the noblest of all [the] intentions but then again, the end does not justify the means. Secretary De Lima should not allow herself to be used by this administration as an instrument of and for political harassment and persecution; otherwise, she could well then be considered as Secretary of Injustice.
P.S
Has she already won a major case since she assumed office or it’s all blah blah blah blah?
Is this proper?
The hell No. The arrogance of the Secretary of Justice has become more and more obvious these past few days. I don’t know what she’s up to. But one thing is for sure – She has become a glutton for media attention. Is it because of the fact that the next Senatorial election is fast approaching? Is she really that desperate that she will stop at nothing just so she could publicly humiliate the Arroyo’s in hopes that she could gain the public’s trust and confidence? What a pity.
Being the Secretary of Justice, we look up to her with so much respect especially because she holds enormous power in ensuring that we will have a better, peaceful and just society. However, the way I see it, things have become worse. Her legal opinion on matters with great constitutional significance has become so short-sighted and patently illogical that one can’t help but wonder how on earth did she become the Chairman [before] of the Commission on HUMAN RIGHTS and now the Secretary of Justice. How could she say that her order of including Mr. Arroyo in the watchlist is proper and does not violate the constitutional right of the gentleman to travel? What happened? She should know better. Do we have to ask for clearances now before we can travel just like during Martial Law years? Last time I checked we are still under a democratic regime where freedom is valued and constitutional rights are respected.
Now on the merits.
Section 6 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution is very explicit in its provision. It says, “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.”
Our constitution is very clear. Even in the United States where there is no express provision that guarantees or protects one’s right to travel, their Supreme Court has ruled that "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125 In the case of Mr. Arroyo, was he given due process before the Secretary decided to include him in the watch list? I don’t think so. The Secretary has unilaterally, without regard to any constitutional right or whatsoever, hammered down into the abyss Mr. Arroyo’s right to travel which, unlike in the US, is expressly provided for in our constitution. If the US values such a right so dearly despite its absence in their constitution, don’t you think it’s the more reason that we have to fight for it since it’s clearly found in ours?
Note that the right to travel is not really absolute. However, please also note that [any of] the following conditions have to be present first before it can be impaired: it has to be in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. But is there already a law? There is none. It is for this reason that former Senator Loi Ejercito Estrada introduced Senate Bill No. 174 in 2004, otherwise known as The Right to Travel Act. In her introduction, the good Senator wrote, “that the right to travel may only be impaired pursuant to a law and that means a law passed by congress, not a law promulgated by the judicial or executive branch of government. Absent such law, any act purporting to curtail or restrict the right to travel is unconstitutional.” ‘Til today though, there is no news as to the status of the said bill. Now that she’s no longer in the Senate, it is safe to assume that it’s probably buried already together with the pieces of legislations that she authored.
Today, only the Courts can impair someone’s right to travel and usually the order is issued only when there is a case filed in court against such person. This has been upheld in the case of Manotoc v. Court of Appeals (142 SCRA 149). The Supreme Court likewise, in the case of Marcos vs. Manglapus, sustained the refusal of the government to allow the petitioner’s return, on the ground that it would endanger national security. Note though that the SC was squarely divided on this issue, voting 8-7 against the petitioner. The state likewise has the power to restrict someone’s right to travel if he is inflicted with a disease like leprosy [in order] to protect public health.
Fr. Bernas, former member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution and a well-respected authority in Constitutional law said, that 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), as cited in the case of Silverio vs. CA G.R. No. 94284 April 8, 1991.
Again, absent any of the compelling grounds of nationally security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law (not just by any administrative order), one’s right to travel cannot be impaired.
It is clear therefore, considering all the foregoing facts and jurisprudence, the order of the Secretary of Justice is patently unconstitutional. You can’t right a wrong by committing another wrong. It’s that’s simple. You may have the noblest of all [the] intentions but then again, the end does not justify the means. Secretary De Lima should not allow herself to be used by this administration as an instrument of and for political harassment and persecution; otherwise, she could well then be considered as Secretary of Injustice.
P.S
Has she already won a major case since she assumed office or it’s all blah blah blah blah?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)