CONSTITUTIONAL LAW || | REYES VS. GONZALES 606 SCRA 580 (2009)
REYES VS. GONZALES
606 SCRA 580 (2009)
FACTS
Petitioner, together with 49 others, were arrested and charged of rebellion/inciting to rebellion in relation to the Manila Peninsula Hotel Seige after Respondent DOJ secretary finds probable cause. Respondent then, upon request of the DILG, issued hold departure order 45 which included petitioner in the hold departure list of the Bureau of Immigration and deportation in the interest of national security and safety. The case against petitioner was later dismissed by the lower court. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration pending before the RTC after the dismissal of the aforementioned criminal case.
On his flight back to the Philippines from Hong Kong, petitioner contends that he was interrogated and detained in NAIA because of his inclusion in the hold departure list. This happens every time he left abroad. Petitioner‟s counsel wrote to the DOJ Secretary to ask to lift the Hold Departure Order because the criminal case has been dismissed.
Writ of Amparo was filed on the grounds that the respondents violated petiitoner‟s constitutional right to travel.
ISSUE
Whether or not ordinance 7783 is null and void.
RULING
YES, ordinance 7783 is null and void.
Writ of Amparo is a remedy for any person whose right to life, liberty or property is violated or threatened with violation of an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private person or entity. It applies only to extralegal killings and enforced disappearance or threats. Liberty has been defined as the right to exist and to be free from arbitrary restraint or servitude. The term cannot be dwarfed from arbitrary into mere freedom from physical restraint of a person of the citizen, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy the facilities he has been endowed by his creator.
In the case at bar, the court held that restriction of the petitioner‟s right to travel as a consequence of the pendency of the criminal case filed against him is not unlawful. Petitioner failed to establish that his right to travel ah been impaired in a manner that it amounts to serious violation of his right to life, liberty and property and security.