The Supreme Court has clarified the extent to which courts can restrict the constitutional right to travel of individuals facing criminal charges. While courts can issue hold departure orders to ensure jurisdiction over the accused, these restrictions must be reasonable and based on concrete facts, not mere speculation. This ruling emphasizes that an accused person, presumed innocent, retains fundamental rights, subject only to necessary limitations that guarantee their availability for legal proceedings.

Liberty on a Leash: How Far Can Travel Be Limited During Trial?

Joseph C. Sy, facing charges for violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, sought permission from the Sandiganbayan (SB) to travel abroad for business and personal reasons. The SB denied his requests, citing concerns about his potential flight risk and questioning his citizenship. Sy challenged these denials, arguing that they infringed on his right to travel and were based on insufficient evidence. This case highlights the delicate balance between an accused’s constitutional rights and the court’s need to maintain jurisdiction.

The constitutional right to travel, a component of personal liberty, cannot be curtailed without due process. However, this right is not absolute; it is subject to constitutional, statutory, and inherent limitations. One such inherent limitation is the court’s authority to prevent individuals charged with crimes from leaving the country. This power ensures that court orders and processes remain effective, as explained in People v. Uy Tuising:

An accused is prohibited from leaving the Philippine jurisdiction “because, otherwise, [the court’s] orders and processes would be nugatory; and inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the court from which they issued does not extend beyond that of the Philippines, they would have no binding force outside of said jurisdiction.”

This restriction, as highlighted in Silverio v. Court of Appeals, serves to keep the accused within reach of the courts, allowing the legal proceedings to progress without undue delay. The court in Silverio emphasized that preventing departure from the Philippines is a valid restriction to ensure the accused can be dealt with according to the law. The balance lies in protecting the public interest while upholding individual rights.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the Sandiganbayan (SB) committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Sy’s travel request. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious exercise of judgment, tantamount to a lack of jurisdiction or a refusal to perform a legal duty. While the accused bears the onus of justifying their travel, this should not be unduly denied if it does not impede the court’s jurisdiction. The court outlined several factors to consider when assessing travel requests, including:

• Purpose of the travel
• History of similar travels before the case
• Ties to the Philippines and destination country
• Availability of extradition treaties
• Reputation of the accused
• Travel itinerary with confirmed return tickets
• Possibility of reporting to the Philippine embassy

These variables ensure a balanced assessment, respecting the accused’s presumption of innocence while addressing legitimate concerns. The court found the SB’s reliance on Sy’s Chinese lineage and unresolved citizenship claims to be insufficient justification for restricting his travel. Sy’s birth certificate indicated Filipino citizenship, and his frequent travels before the case suggested his intentions were not to flee prosecution. This approach contrasts with merely speculative reasons, which do not justify limiting constitutional rights.

Furthermore, Sy’s role as Chairman of Global Ferronickel Holdings, Inc. (FNI) and his involvement in various trade organizations highlighted the necessity of his foreign travels for business purposes. Similar to Cojuangco v. Sandiganbayan, where the court allowed travel due to the petitioner’s role in San Miguel Corporation, Sy’s responsibilities required him to oversee international operations. The Supreme Court emphasized that restricting Sy’s business travels could economically threaten the companies he represents, thus underscoring the importance of balancing legal restrictions with economic realities.

While granting the petition in part, the Supreme Court clarified that future travel requests should be filed with the Sandiganbayan first, as it holds primary jurisdiction over the case. The Supreme Court acts as a reviewing tribunal, focusing on whether the SB abused its discretion. In subsequent requests, the SB should consider the guidelines provided in this decision. The court also suggested measures to mitigate concerns about Sy absconding, such as:

• Requiring a travel bond
• Submission of detailed travel itineraries
• Limiting the duration and scope of travel
• Requiring appearance before a Philippine consul
• Designating a personal agent
• Mandating a report upon return to the Philippines

These measures offer a flexible approach, allowing the court to manage risks while respecting the accused’s rights. Ultimately, the decision reinforces the principle that the right to travel, though fundamental, can be reasonably restricted to serve the State’s interest in criminal prosecution. However, such restrictions must be grounded in concrete evidence and judiciously applied, balancing individual liberties with the need for effective legal proceedings.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the Sandiganbayan (SB) gravely abused its discretion by denying Joseph C. Sy’s motions to travel abroad, infringing upon his constitutional right to travel. The Supreme Court assessed the balance between an accused’s rights and the court’s need to maintain jurisdiction.
What is a Hold Departure Order (HDO)?	A Hold Departure Order (HDO) is a legal order issued by a court, preventing a person, typically an accused in a criminal case, from leaving the country. Its purpose is to ensure the court maintains jurisdiction over the individual.
Can a person released on bail travel abroad?	While being released on bail grants provisional liberty, it does not guarantee an unrestricted right to travel abroad. The court’s permission is required, and travel can be restricted to ensure the accused remains accessible for legal proceedings.
What factors do courts consider when deciding on travel requests?	Courts evaluate factors such as the purpose of travel, travel history, ties to the Philippines and the destination country, availability of extradition, reputation, and travel itinerary. These factors help determine the likelihood of the accused returning.
What does “grave abuse of discretion” mean?	Grave abuse of discretion refers to a judgment so capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary that it is equivalent to lacking jurisdiction or failing to perform a legal duty. It implies an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to act according to the law.
What is the role of a birth certificate in determining citizenship?	A birth certificate is considered prima facie evidence of the facts contained within it, including citizenship. Unless contradicted by other evidence, it is generally accepted as proof of a person’s citizenship.
What kind of travel restrictions can a court impose?	Courts can impose travel bonds, require detailed itineraries, limit the travel area and duration, mandate reporting to a Philippine consul, designate a personal agent, and require a report upon return. These measures aim to ensure the accused’s return.
What was the effect of the court’s decision?	The Supreme Court nullified the Sandiganbayan’s denial of Sy’s third travel request, underscoring the need for a balanced assessment of travel requests. The decision provided guidelines for future requests, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for concrete evidence to restrict travel.

This case reaffirms the importance of balancing individual rights with the State’s interest in ensuring justice. Courts must carefully consider all relevant factors before restricting an accused’s right to travel, ensuring that such restrictions are reasonable and based on concrete evidence.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: JOSEPH C. SY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 237703, October 03, 2018