Case Digests And Political Law Essay

Facts Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 2 (4) of the revised securities act. responsive filed to cancel the passport of the petitioner and to issue a hold passage recount. The RTC ordered the DFA to cancel petitioners passport, based on the conclusion that the petitioner has non been arraigned and there was evidence to show that the impeach has left over(p) the country with out the knowledge and the permission of the court.Issue Whether or non the right to prompt may be impaired by order of the court.Held The pledge bond posted by petitioner has been cancelled and indorsement of arrest has been issued by reason that he failed to appear at his arraignments. there is a valid restriction on the right to travel, it is impose that the accused must make himself available whenever the court requires his presence. A person liner unlawful charges may be restrained by the approach from release the country or, if abroad, compelled to return ( makeupal Law, Cruz, Isagani A., 1987 Edition, p. 138). So it is also that An accused released on bail may be re-arrested without the necessity of a warrant if he attempts to exposit from the Philippines without prior permission of the court where the case is pending (ibid., Sec. 20 2nd par. ). word III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that age 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 whole 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). Apparently, the phraseology in the 1987 Constitution was a reaction to the ban on international travel imposed under the previous regime when there was a Travel process Center, which issued certificates of eligibility to travel upon application of an interested party (See Salonga vs. Hermoso & Travel Processing Center, no(prenominal) 53622, 25 April 1980, 97 SCRA 121).Holding an accused in a criminal case within the reach of the Courts by preventing his departure from the Philippines must be considered as a valid restriction on his right to travel so that he may be dealt with in accordance with law. The pique party in any criminal proceeding is the People of the Philippines. It is to their scoop interest that criminal prosecutions should run their course and proceed to finality without baseless delay, with an accused holding himself amenable at all times to Court Orders and processes