Right to Travel in the Philippines: Constitutional Basis and Prevailing Jurisprudence (2025 Guide) - Blog

The right to travel in the Philippines protects every citizen’s freedom of movement, both within the country and abroad. However, this right is not absolute—it may be restricted under certain legal grounds. Understanding these limits helps law students, lawyers, and the public grasp how jurisprudence defines mobility under constitutional law.

Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution states that everyone has the right to travel and such cannot be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health.

Currently, the right to travel under the Constitution is being discussed in relation with the flood control projects such that one of the alleged contractors, Zaldy Co, was directed to come home to answer allegations linking him to the anomalies.

What exactly is the Constitutional right to travel? This article explores the basics and judicial interpretations surrounding such a fundamental right.

What Is the Right to Travel Under the Philippine Constitution?

Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution states that “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.”

This Constitutional provision is divided into 2 parts: the liberty of abode and the right to travel. These are two distinct concepts where the liberty of abode pertains to the right to choose one's place of residence and to change it freely whereas the right to travel allows individuals to move freely within a country, and to leave and return to their country.

Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) also contains a similar provision where “everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state and to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

While the UDHR contains the right to return to one's country, our Constitution does not include that same right. As discussed in the Marcos v. Manglapus case, the Executive Power of the President can properly limit this internationally affirmed right by balancing the general welfare and the common good against the exercise of rights of the Marcoses.

This right may be interpreted in a lot of ways as can be seen in landmark rulings. To get a headstart on learning more about it, check out the case summaries under Constitutional Law.

When Can the Right to Travel Be Restricted?

As mentioned in the Constitution, this right to travel can only be restricted on the following grounds:

1. In the interest of national security

In Marcos v. Manglapus, the right of the Marcoses was restricted due to the rise of well-organized communist insurgencies, separatist movements, rightist conspiracies, and most importantly, the efforts of the Marcoses and their followers to destabilize the country after the Martial Law. This was taken by the Court as a valid ground under national security.

2. Public Safety

The right to travel can also be restricted due to an individual’s criminal cases. In Imelda Marcos v. Sandiganbayan, the Court discussed that since there were criminal cases, 2 of which Mrs. Marcos had already been convicted, her right to travel for medical treatment was properly restricted for fear of not returning to the country.

3. Public Health

During the COVID-19 Pandemic, the government imposed travel restrictions on us due to the risk of spreading the virus further. Aside from Filipinos, the government also restricted the entry of other foreigners into our country.

Who Can Restrict the Right to Travel?

Three bodies can restrict the right to travel through different Orders:

1. The Court

Genuino v. De Lima (2018) clarifies that only the Court has the power to issue Hold Departure Orders (HDOs) in order for it to properly exercise its jurisdiction over accused individuals in pending cases.

2. Department of Justice (DOJ)

The DOJ, while not having the inherent power to issue HDOs and other orders restricting an individual’s right to travel, can implement any orders from either the Court or the President based on various grounds.

3. Congress

The Congress, by enacting laws that restrict the right to travel. For instance, RA 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, specifically Section 34 explicitly states that “the investigating prosecutor shall apply for the issuance of a precautionary hold departure order (PHDO) against the respondent upon a preliminary determination of probable cause in the proper Court”

The right to travel is often tested in real-life scenarios—from criminal cases to pandemic restrictions. Landmark rulings reveal how the Supreme Court balances individual freedom with national interests.

What are the Landmark Supreme Court Cases on the Right to Travel?

The right to travel, as stated, is a fundamental right and the Court has interpreted its aspects multiple times:

Case	Court Ruling	Takeaway for Law Students
Migrante International v. SSS (2024)	Requiring OFWs to pay their SSS contributions before obtaining an Overseas Employment Certificate (OEC) is unconstitutional.	This requirement effectively violated the OFWs right to travel since they cannot travel abroad without such an OEC.
Pichay v. Sandiganbayan (2021)	The condition on an accused to make himself available whenever the court requires is a valid restriction on his/her right to travel.	Criminal prosecutions would be rendered useless if the accused were allowed to leave the country outside the reach of the Courts.
Manotoc v. CA (2011)	The order of a court releasing an accused on bail is a lawful order contemplated under the Constitution.	Releasing an individual on bail necessitated a valid consequence of a restriction on one’s right to travel.

Migrante International v. SSS (2024)

The Court in this case ruled that requiring land-based OFWs to pay their SSS contributions first before acquiring a needed Overseas Employment Certificate is an invalid encroachment on their right to travel.

Pichay v. Sandiganbayan (2021)

The Court ruled that the right to travel of an accused is properly limited due to risks of flight or delays in the court proceedings.

Manotoc v. CA (2011)

The Court denied Manotoc’s motion to leave the country despite posting bail since he was not able to show the urgent necessity for the travel abroad, the duration thereof and the agreement of the sureties to the proposed travel to the satisfaction of the court that she would comply with the conditions of her bail bond.

Hold Departure Orders (HDOs) vs. Watchlist Orders (WLOs): What’s the Difference?

Both Hold Departure Orders (HDOs) and Watchlist Orders (WLOs) restrict individuals’ right to travel but how do we differentiate them?

Hold Departure Orders (HDOs)/Precautionary HDOs

Purpose: To prevent any attempt by a person suspected of a crime to depart from the Philippines in cases involving crimes where the minimum of the penalty is at least six (6) years and one (1) day or when the offender is a foreigner
Legal Basis: Genuino v. De Lima (2018) / Rule on Precautionary Hold Departure Order
Issuing Authority: Courts
Validity: Valid insofar as it is Court-issued

Watchlist Orders

Purpose: Issued by the Secretary of Justice in criminal cases which are pending preliminary investigation or petition for review before the Department of Justice (defunct DOJ Circular No. 18 & 41).
Issuing Authority: Department of Justice
Validity: Struck down as unconstitutional in Genuino v. De Lima (2018)

Why Law Students Should Understand the Right to Travel

The right to travel is one of the fundamental and Constitutional rights law students must understand. It is often discussed in our Political Law subjects because it traverses multiple subject boundaries such as international law and criminal law. Furthermore, the right to travel is often the subject of bar exam questions.

To learn more about how the right to travel affects our lives as law students, check out case summaries from Digest AI.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a right to travel in the Philippines?

Yes, this is only limited by grounds on national security, public safety, or public health.

What is a hold departure order?

A Hold Departure Order (HDO) is issued by the President or the proper Regional Trial Court commanding the Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration to prevent the departure abroad of Filipinos and/or aliens named by including them in a Hold Departure List.

In what instances can one's right to travel be validly impaired?

Instances of danger to national security, public safety, and public health can validly impair one’s right to travel.

Key Takeaways

Under Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution, every person has the right to travel which can only be restricted on the grounds of national security, public safety, or public health, and only as provided by law.
Only courts may issue Hold Departure Orders (HDOs) to ensure that accused persons remain under their jurisdiction.
Jurisprudence has oftentimes ruled that the right to travel must be balanced with the country’s national security and public safety.
The right to travel lies at the intersection of constitutional law, criminal procedure, and international human rights.

Final Thoughts

The right to travel is not an absolute Constitutional right. It is properly limited by circumstances listed down in the abovementioned Constitutional provision and cases.

As such, learn more about this right and how it can be legally restricted by checking out Constitutional cases here.