CHR: Right to travel not applicable in GMA case

MANILA, Philippines - The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) yesterday said that even though the right to travel is both a human and constitutional right, this can’t be applied in the case of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

She should first be made accountable given the serious criminal charges hurled against her and her family, CHR said.

“We recognize the right to travel but this is not an absolute right. The Arroyos should remain in the country for them to face the string of cases they are being accused of,” said Jefferson Lyndon Ragrario, policy group staff of the CHR.

“The right to travel is both a human right and a constitutional right. It is guaranteed in Article III Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution and Article 12(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). However, the right to travel is not absolute. Both the Constitution and the ICCPR provide for exceptions under which the right may be lawfully denied,” the CHR noted in a statement.

“The current situation makes it appear that the right to travel is diametrically opposed to the right of the state to investigate and prosecute high crimes. It is as if the people are forced to choose one over the other. From a human rights perspective, the conflict is but illusory: the right to travel cannot be used as a shield from criminal jurisdiction, in the same way that the prosecutorial power of the state cannot be whimsically exercised to deny one’s right to travel,” the statement reads.

The CHR pointed out that the issue is now with the Supreme Court of the Philippines and urged the public to allow the judicial process to take its due course.

“Accountability is a fundamental principle of human rights. Without accountability, there will always be impunity,” CHR chair Loretta Ann Rosales said.