V.  RIGHT TO TRAVEL

 

Section 6, Art. III. 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.

 

Liberty Guaranteed by Sec. 6 Art. III

 

1.     freedom to choose and change one's place of abode; and

2.     freedom to travel both within the country and outside

 

Limitations

·         Liberty of Abode – “upon lawful order of the court”

·         Right to Travel – “national security, public safety or public health as may be provided by law”

 

Caunca vs Salazar 82 Phil 851	Whether a maid had the right to transfer to another residence even if she had not paid yet the amount advances by an employment agency: Yes. The fortunes of business cannot be controlled by controlling a fundamental human freedom. Human dignity and freedom are essentially spiritual – inseparable from the idea of eternal. Money, power, etc. belong to the ephemeral and perishable.
Rubi vs Provincial Board of Mindoro 1919	The respondents were justified in requiring the members of certain non-Christian tribes to reside in a reservation, for their better education, advancement and protection. The measure was a legitimate exercise of police power.
Villavicencio vs Lukban 1919	Prostitutes, despite being in a sense lepers, are not chattels but Philippine citizens, protected by the same constitutional guarantee of freedom of abode. They may not be compelled to change their domicile in the absence of a law allowing such.
Salonga vs Hermoso 97 SCRA 121	the case became moot and academic when the permit to travel abroad was issued before the case could be heard.
Lorenzo vs Dir. of Health 1927	Laws for the segregation of lepers have been provided the world over and is supported by high scientific authority. Such segregation is premised on the duty to protect public health.
Manotok vs CA 1986	Bail posted in a criminal case, is a valid restriction on the right to travel. By its nature, it may serve as a prohibition on an accused from leaving the jurisdiction of the Philippines where orders of Philippine courts would have no binding force.
Marcos vs Manglapus 1989	The liberty of abode and the right to travel includes the right to leave, reside and travel within one’s country but it does not include the right to return to one’s country. NOTE: Court warned that this case should not create a precedent because Marcos was a class in himself.
Philippine Association of Service Exporters vs Drilon 1988	Right to travel may be impaired in the interest of national security, public health or public order, as may be provided by law. An order temporarily suspending the deployment of overseas workers is constitutional for having been issued in the interest of the safety of OFWs, as provided by the Labor Code.