Sec 6.

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.

Right to Abode:

Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

Everyone has the right to leave any country including his own, and to return to his country.

You can choose the residence you want, you cannot be compelled to choose your residence or to change
residence.

Purpose: further emphasize the individual’s liberty as safeguard in general terms by the due process
clause includes:

-right to choose one’s residence

-to leave it whenever he pleases

-to travel wherever he wills

Right to travel limitations:

Upon lawful order of the court,

Right to travel by the requirements of National security, public safety, public health

Example:

Person facing criminal charges maybe restrained by the court from leaving the country

Lessee may be ejected for violation of his contractual duties

Judge may prevent a person from entering certain premises under dispute or declared off-limits by the
proper authorities.

Villavicencio V Lukban

The Mayor of Manila was not sustained by the SC when he deported some 170 women of ill-repute to
Davao, for the admittedly commendable purpose of ridding the city of serious moral and health
problems. “these women despite their being in a sense lepers of society are nevertheless not chattels
but Philippine citizens protected by the same constitutional guarantees as are other citizens-to change
their domicile from Manila to another locality”

Arroyo V de Lima

Wanted to travel abroad for a medical appointment and treatment but was unable because of inclusion
of her name in various Watchlist Orders issued by the DOJ pursuant to Department Circular No. 41
Section 2 of which provides that “a Watchlist Order can be issued against any person when there is a
criminal case pending against him before any court within this jurisdiction; when there is a criminal case
against him pending preliminary investigation, petition for review or motion for reconsideration before
the DOJ or any of its prosecution offices; and when the Secretary of Justice deems it proper motu
proprio or upon the request submitted by any government agency, commission, task force or similar
offices created by the Office of the President under RA 9208 in connection with an investigation it is
conducting and/or interest of national security, public safety or public health.

Invoking her right to life, prayed for issued of temporary restraining order for purpose of enjoining the
enforcement of watchlist.

The court granted her prayer subject to certain conditions. (violation of right to travel)

Genuino V de Lima

Restraint on the right to travel, as unconstitutional, stressing that the liberty of abode may only be
impaired by a lawful order of the court, and on the one hand, the right to travel may only be impaired by
a law that concerns national security, public safety or public health.

There must be an enabling law from which the DOJ Circular no 41 must derive its life

The right to travel of persons subject of preliminary investigation or criminal case in court can not be
allowed to be indiscriminately subjected to the discretion of the DOJ secretary.

The court may issue Hold Departure Order against an accused in a criminal case so that he may be dealt
with in accordance with law. It does not require legislative conferment o constitutional recognition; it co-
exists with the grant of judicial power.

It places emphasis on criminal cases that warrant the issuance of HDO, specifically the graver or more
serious transgressions of the law that are punishable with imprisonment of more than six years.

SPARK Vs QC

Curfew ordinances challenged in the said petition, explaining that “the restriction on the minor’s
movement and activities within that confines of their residences and their immediate vicinity during the
curfew period” allowed to be done by the local governments under the law, is “to reduce the probability
of the minor becoming victims of or getting involved in crimes and criminal activities” , and therefore
“constitutionally permissible”

Sec 7. Right to Information

The right of the people to information on matters of public concerns shall be recognized. Access to
official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to Official acts, transactions, or decisions, as
well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

Public concerns: government contract, taxes, government projects

-can compel the government by petition for mandamus in exercise of right to information, “hold public
officials at all times xxxx accountable to people”

The right of access to public documents has been recognized as a self-executory constitutional right.

Guarantee:
The right to information (Section 7, Art III) guarantees the right of the people to demand information,
while Section 28, Art II, recognizes the duty of officialdom to give information even if nobody demands.
“splendid symmetry”

-seek to promote transparency in policy-making and in the operations of the government, as well as
provide the people sufficient information to exercise effectively other constitutional rights.

Limitations:

Privilege information, exercise of military power of the President, investigation of crimes, diplomatic
correspondence, executive privilege, appointing power, exercise of military power for national security
issues.

2 Requisites to compel the right to information:

1. The information sought must be in relation to matters of public concern or public interests.
2. It must not be exempt by law from the operation of the constitutional guarantee. (national
security matters, intelligence information, trade secrets, banking transactions, criminal matters,
diplomatic correspondence, closed-door Cabinet meetings and executive sessions of either
house of Congress, internal deliberation of the SC. Chavez v public estate authority)

Colmenares V Duterte

Foreign loan agreement case. Confidentiality clause unduly diminishes the State’s obligation to allow
public access to information on government-contracted foreign loans. The court made it clear that such
language cannot bar public availability of information on government-contracted foreign loans, as
amended by Section 21, Article XII of the Constitution.