Miriam files bill to nullify DOJ power to issue HDO

MANILA, Philippines - With the Department of Justice (DOJ) insisting on the legality of its internal circular that allowed them to issue a watchlist order against an individual, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago has filed a bill yesterday that would nullify this.

Santiago filed Senate Bill 3069 that was intended to make it very clear to the DOJ that only a hold departure order (HDO) issued by the courts can legally prevent an individual from leaving the country.

The bill mandates the DOJ to apply with the regional trial courts for an HDO against a person who is under preliminary investigation.

Various legal arguments emerged about the legality of the DOJ Circular No. 41 authorizing the secretary of Justice to issue a watchlist order against a person and effectively restrict their movement to within the country only.

Such was the case of former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo who was prevented from traveling overseas while the DOJ was conducting a preliminary investigation on the complaint of electoral sabotage filed against her.

Arroyo, who wanted to seek medical treatment overseas, questioned the legality of DOJ Circular No. 41 before the Supreme Court, which her camp argued violated her constitutional right to travel.

Ironically, DOJ Circular No. 41 was issued during Arroyo’s administration by her then Justice secretary Alberto Agra.

The Arroyo camp argued that the watchlist order issued by the DOJ came while Arroyo had not yet been charged in court of any crime and as such violated her right to travel.

“DOJ Circular No. 41, which allows the secretary of Justice to motu propio restrict a person’s constitutional right to travel upon the filing of a criminal complaint, opens the doors for political harassment and oppression,” Santiago said.

“At the same time, we cannot allow an accused to simply flout the rule of law and evade prosecution by the simple expedient of flying to another country once charges are brought against him or her,” she added.

Which is why the courts are around to issue an HDO as provided by law in order to prevent an accused from evading the charges filed against him or her by fleeing the country.

Santiago stressed the courts possess the inherent power to issue HDOs and that this is “indispensable in upholding the integrity of our institutions and ensuring that our people maintain faith and respect for the rule of law.”

“By requiring the DOJ to apply to the courts for the issuance of an HDO, the bill reconciles the DOJ’s need to effectively carry out its prosecutorial functions with the constitutional guarantee of the right to travel,” Santiago said.

Santiago, in her proposal, also laid out the procedures involved in the application of an HDO, including the requirement of a hearing and prior notice to the person subject of the HDO.

The only exception is when the person is a flight risk and such flight may result either in a miscarriage of justice or prejudice against national security, public safety, or public health.

Based on the bill, in such cases, the court can issue a temporary HDO effective for 30 days from service on the person sought to be held.

Within the 30-day period, the court shall require the person to explain why a permanent HDO should not be granted.

However, if the HDO is not resolved within the period, the temporary HDO will be automatically lifted.

The bill also said the HDO may also be lifted or cancelled in cases when the accused has been allowed to leave the country while case is pending, has been acquitted of the charge or when the civil, labor, or administrative case against an alien subject of the HDO has been dismissed.

“A person subject of the HDO who, for some exceptional reason, needs to leave the country, may also apply for an allow departure order (ADO) with the court issuing the HDO,” Santiago said.