FULL TEXT: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.
ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64165
EFRAIM C. GENUINO v. LEILA M. DE LIMA,
GR No. 197930, APRIL 17, 2018
Topic: Constitution Defined
Facts:
These consolidated Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance
of Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO) and/or Writs of Preliminary Injunction Under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assail the constitutionality of Department of Justice (DOJ)
Circular No. 41, series of 2010, otherwise known as the "Consolidated Rules and
Regulations Governing Issuance and Implementation of Hold Departure Orders,
Watchlist Orders and Allow Departure Orders" on the ground that it infringes on the
constitutional right to travel.
In a Supplemental Petition, petitioner Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) further seeks the
invalidation of the Order[4] dated November 8, 2011, denying her application for an
Allow-Departure Order (ADO). Similarly, in G.R. No. 197930, petitioners Efraim C.
Genuino (Efraim), Erwin F. Genuino (Erwin) and Sheryl Genuino-See (Genuinos) pray
for the nullification of the Hold-Departure Order[5] (HDO) No. 2011-64 dated July 22,
2011 issued against them.
On November 8, 2011, De Lima issued an Order,denying GMA's application for an
ADO.
On the very day of the issuance of the TRO, the petitioners tendered their compliance
with the conditions set forth in the Resolution dated November 15, 2011 of the Court.
At around 8:00 p.m. on the same day, the petitioners proceeded to the Ninoy Aquino
International Airport (NAIA) to take their flights to Singapore. However, the BI officials at
NAIA refused to process their travel documents which ultimately resulted to them not
being able to join their flights.
On November 16, 2011, the respondents filed a Consolidated Urgent Motion for
Reconsideration and/or to Lift TRO, praying that the Court reconsider and set aside the
TRO issued in the consolidated petitions until they are duly heard on the merits.
Issue: Whether or not the orders issued by the former DOJ Secretary Leila De Lima
(De Lima) under (DOJ) Circular No. 41, series of 2010, is unconstitutional.
Ruling:
The orders issued by former DOJ Secretary Leila De Lima is unconstitutional.
Department of Justice Circular No. 41 is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. All
issuances which were released pursuant thereto are hereby declared NULL and VOID.
Consistent with the foregoing, there must be an enabling law from which DOJ
Circular No. 41 must derive its life. Unfortunately, all of the supposed statutory
authorities relied upon by the DOJ did not pass the completeness test and sufficient
standard test. The DOJ miserably failed to establish the existence of the enabling
law that will justify the issuance of the questioned circular.
PRINCIPLE:
The Court emphasizes that the right to travel is a fundamental right protected by
the Constitution and can only be restricted based on clear legal standards and
due process.
Constitutional Law: Bill of Rights:
The Court emphasizes that the right to travel is a fundamental right protected by
the Constitution and can only be restricted based on clear legal standards and
due process.
In any case, when there is a dilemma between an individual claiming the exercise of a
constitutional right vis-à-vis the state’s assertion of authority to restrict the same, any
doubt must, at all times, be resolved in favor of the free exercise of the right, absent any
explicit provision of law to the contrary.
Three restrictions on the right to travel:
There are only three (3) considerations that may permit a restriction on the right to
travel: national security, public safety or public health.—There are only three
considerations that may permit a restriction on the right to travel: national security,
public safety or public health. As a further requirement, there must be an explicit
provision of statutory law or the Rules of Court providing for the impairment.
There is no law particularly providing for the authority of the secretary of justice to
curtail the exercise of the right travel, in the interest of national security, public safety or
public health.
To be clear, DOJ Circular No. 41 is not a law. It is not a legislative enactment which
underwent the scrutiny and concurrence of lawmakers, and submitted to the President
for approval. It is a mere administrative issuance apparently designed to carry out the
provisions of an enabling law which the former DOJ Secretary believed to be Executive
Order (E.O.) No. 292, otherwise known as the “Administrative Code of 1987.”
It is, however, important to stress that before there can even be a valid administrative
issuance, there must first be a showing that the delegation of legislative power is itself
valid. It is valid only if there is a law that
(a) is complete in itself, setting forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or
implemented by the delegate; and
(b) fixes a standard — the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable
to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions.
Constitutional Law; Hierarchy of Rights; The Department of Justice (DOJ) must
constantly be reminded that in the hierarchy of rights, the Bill of Rights takes
precedence over the right of the State to prosecute, and when weighed against
each other, the scales of justice tilt towards the former
Thus, in Allado v. Diokno, 232 SCRA 192 (1994), the Court declared, viz.: The
sovereign power has the inherent right to protect itself and its people from vicious acts
which endanger the proper administration of justice; hence, the State has every right to
prosecute and punish violators of the law. This is essential for its self-preservation, nay,
its very existence. But this does not confer a license for pointless assaults on its
citizens. The right of the State to prosecute is not a carte blanche for government
agents to defy and disregard the rights of its citizens under the Constitution.
