683 Phil. 1
BRION, J.:
Under Section 60 of Executive Order No. 292 (EO 292), officers and employees in the Civil Service are entitled to leave of absence, with or without pay, as may be provided by law and the rules and regulations of the Civil Service Commission.
xxx
[A] citizen's right to travel is guaranteed by Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution: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.
Although the constitutional right to travel is not absolute, it can only be restricted in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. As held in Silverio v. Court of Appeals:
Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the liberty of travel may be impaired even without court order, the appropriate executive officers or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. They can impose limits only on the basis of "national security, public safety, or public health" and "as may be provided by law," a limitive phrase which did not appear in the 1973 text (The Constitution, Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., Vol. I, First Edition, 1987, p. 263). Apparently, the phraseology in the 1987 Constitution was a reaction to the ban on international travel imposed under the previous regime when there was a Travel Processing Center, which issued certificates of eligibility to travel upon application of an interested party (See Salonga v. Hermoso & Travel Processing Center, No. L-53622, 25 April 1980, 97 SCRA 121).
The constitutional right to travel cannot be impaired without due process of law. Here, due process of law requires the existence of a law regulating travel abroad, in the interest of national security, public safety or public health. There is no such law applicable to the travel abroad of respondent. In the absence of such a law, the denial of respondent's right to travel abroad is a gross violation of a fundamental constitutional right. The only exception recognized so far is when a court orders the impairment of the right to travel abroad in connection with a pending criminal case. Another possible exception is if Congress, pursuant to its power of legislative inquiry, issues a subpoena or arrest order against a person. These exceptions, however, do not apply in the present case. Here, respondent was not even facing a preliminary investigation or an administrative complaint when she left the country.
xxx
During her approved leave of absence, respondent's time was her own personal time and she could be wherever she wanted to be. The Court cannot inquire what respondent does during her leave of absence since that would constitute unwarranted interference into her private affairs and would encroach on her right to privacy. The right to privacy is "the right of an individual to be let alone, or to be free from unwarranted publicity, or to live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters in which the public is not necessarily concerned." Under Article 26 of the Civil Code, the right to privacy is expressly protected:Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence;
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.
Furthermore, respondent's travel abroad, during her approved leave, did not require approval from anyone because respondent, like any other citizen, enjoys die constitutional right to travel within the Philippines or abroad. Respondent's right to travel abroad, during her approved leave, cannot be impaired "except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law." Not one of these grounds is present in this case.
There is no doubt that the use of leave of absence can be regulated without impairing Jhe employees' right to privacy and to travel. In fact, the Civil Service Commission has promulgated the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, of which Rule XVI is the Omnibus Rules on Leave. Such rules and regulations are adopted to balance the well-being and benefit of the government employees and the efficiency and productivity in the government service. Thus, the requirement of securing approval for any leave of absence is a reasonable and valid regulation to insure continuity of service in the government. However, once a leave of absence is approved, any restriction during the approved leave on the right to travel of the government employee violates his or her constitutional right to travel.
This Court should be the first to protect the right to travel of its employees, a right enshrined not only in the Bill of Rights but also in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Philippines is a signatory to the Declaration and a state party to the Covenant. In fact, the duty of this Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution is to "promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights," not to curtail such rights. Neither can this Court promulgate rules that "diminish" or even "modify" substantive rights like the constitutional right to travel. (Emphasis supplied)
B. VACATION LEAVE TO BE SPENT ABROAD[2] A.M. No. P-l 1-2927, 13 December 2011. Citations omitted.
Pursuant to the resolution in A.M. No. 99-12-08-SC dated 06 November 2000, all foreign travels of judges and court personnel, regardless of the number of days, must be with prior permission from the Supreme Court through the Chief Justice and the Chairmen of the Divisions.
1. Judges and court personnel who wish to travel abroad must secure a travel
authority from the Office of the Court Administrator. The judge or court personnel must submit the following:
(a) For Judges:
- application or letter-request addressed to the Court Administrator stating the purpose of the travel abroad
- application for leave covering the period of the travel abroad, favorably recommended by the Executive Judge
- certification from the Statistics Division, Court Management Office, OCA as to the condition of the docket
(b) For Court Personnel:
- application or letter-request addressed to ihe Court Administrator stating the purpose of the travel abroad
- application for leave covering the period of the trave abroad, favorably recommended by the Presiding Judge or Executive Judge
- clearance as to money and property accountability
- clearance as to pending criminal and administrative case filed against him/her, if any
- for court stenographer, clearance as to pending stenographic notes for transcription from his/her court and from the Court of Appeals
- Supreme Court clearance
2. Complete requirements should be submitted to and received by the Office of the Court Administrator at least two weeks before the intended period. No action shall be taken on requests for travel authority with incomplete requirements. Likewise, applications for travel abroad received less than two weeks of the intended travel shall not be favorably acted upon.
xxx
4. Judges and personnel who shall leave the country without travel authority issued by Office of the Court Administrator shall be subject to disciplinary action.