Former president questions travel ban before SC

FORMER president and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal–Arroyo yesterday questioned before the Supreme Court the legality of a Department of Justice circular preventing her from seeking medical treatment abroad.

Her husband Mike Arroyo filed a separate petition also questioning the watchlist order against him.

In a 41-page petition, Arroyo invoked her constitutional right to travel as she asked the SC to stop the DoJ from implementing Department Circular No. 41 placing her under Immigration watch.

She asked the high tribunal to declare as unconstitutional the controversial circular which allowed the DoJ the power to issue watchlist orders (WLOs) and hold departure orders (HDOs).

She alleged that the DoJ order violated Sections 1 and 6, Article III of the Constitution which explicitly provide that the right to travel of a person shall not be impaired except “in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may provided by law.”

“No law has been enacted to implement the aforementioned constitutional provision. Department Circular No. 41 issued by the Department of Justice, which is not a ‘law’ enacted by Congress, restricts the right to travel, is, on its face, void for being in violation of Sections 1 and 6, Article III of the Constitution,” Arroyo argued.

The former leader stressed the WLOs issued by De Lima “were not in the interest of ‘national security, public safety, or public health’ but in aid of her prosecutorial authority,” which does not include the impairment of her right to travel because the criminal complaints against her are pending preliminary investigation.

“The respondent DoJ Secretary, not only has violated the right of petitioner GMA to travel, she has further ignored that in all criminal prosecutions ‘the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.’ She has disregarded that even after an information is filed, the right to travel of the accused may be impaired or limited only by the court having jurisdiction over the person of the accused — not by the Secretary of Justice or any of her prosecutorial surrogates,” she averred.

Arroyo said De Lima’s refusal to immediately allow her to leave the country despite submission of all requirements, if not restrained by the court, could “aggravate her hypoparathyroidism and metabolic bone disorder and give rise to the danger that the said conditions afflicting petitioner may become permanent and incurable.”

She told the SC that her ailment is rare and becomes permanent unless cured in about three months’ time.

“The matter is of extreme urgency and petitioner (Arroyo) will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury if the enforcement and implementation of DoJ Department Circular No. 41 and the three assailed Orders issued by the respondent DoJ Secretary against her pursuant to the said Department Circular are not restrained,” she stressed.

To demonstrate her medical condition, she submitted to the high court copies of the photographs showing the halo vest placed on her to stabilize her cervical spine.                  

In a separate petition before the SC, Mrs. Arroyo’s husband through counsel Ferdinand Topacio also questioned the legality of DoJ Watchlist Order No. 2011-573 placing him, former Comelec chairman Benjamin Abalos and several others linked to the alleged 2007 electoral fraud.

Mr. Arroyo stressed the travel restraint "collides with Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution guaranteeing the liberty of travel."

Furthermore, he stressed the watchlist order is violative of the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution in view of the various public announcements of De Lima portraying him as guilty of committing electoral sabotage.

Also, he said DoJ Circular No, 41 violates his right to due process having been issued without authority.