Nuino Vs Delima Case Digest
Nuino Vs Delima Case Digest
Facts
The petitioners in these consolidated cases are former President Arroyo and her husband, and
Efraim and Erwin Genuino. Former DOJ Secretary De Lima issued HDO and WLO against
petitioners on the ground that criminal charges of plunder, qualified theft and violation of the
Omnibus Election Code were filed against them.
Petitioners filed temporary restraining order against the issued HDO and WLO of DOJ seeking
relief and grant from court to allow them to travel so that former president Arroyo may seek
medical treatment abroad.
The court granted relief sought on a condition that petitioner will file a bond of PhP2M, an
undertaking that petitioners shall report to Philippine consulate in the countries they are to visit
(Germany, Singapore, USA, Italy, Spain and Austria) and shall appoint a representative to
receive on their behalf subpoena, orders and other legal processes.
Petitioners complied with all the conditions. Instead of following the order of the court, DOJ
caused for the refusal to process the petitioners travel documents.
Issue
Whether or not DOJ Cir. No. 41 is against the right to travel
Ruling
Yes. The DOJ has no authority to issue DOJ Circular No. 41 which effectively restricts the
right to travel through the issuance of Watchlist Orders (WLOs) and Hold Departure
Orders(HDOs). There are only three considerations that may permit a restriction on the
right to travel: national security, public safety or public health. Further, there must be an
explicit provision of statutory law or Rules of Court providing for the impairment.
DOJ Circular No. 41 is not a law. It is not a legislative enactment, but a mere
administrative issuance designed to carry out the provisions of an enabling law. DOJ is not
authorized to issue WLOs and HDOs to restrict the constitutional right to travel. There is
no mention of the exigencies stated in the Constitution that will justify the impairment.
The provision simply grants the DOJ the power to investigate the commission of crimes and
prosecute offenders. It does not carry the power to indiscriminately devise all means it
deems proper in performing its functions without regard to constitutionally-protected
rights.