DE GUZMAN SAN DIEGO MEJIA & HERNANDEZ

LAW OFFICES
The Penthouse, Paragon Tower Hotel
531 A. Flores Street, Ermita, Manila
September 8, 2011
Hon. Ricardo V. Paras III
Chief State Counsel
Department of Justice
Padre Faura, Manila
Re Reconsideration of D!J "etter dated #u$ust 22, 2011
Mr% Paras
&e refer to 'our letter dated #u$ust 22, 2011
1
den'in$ our #pplication to
lift (old Departure !rder
2
)o% 2* dated Ma' 20, 200+
,
issued a$ainst our client,
Mr% John Jacob Philip -an Der .a/,
0
on the follo1in$ $rounds
1% .he #llo1 Departure !rders issued b' the Re$ional .rial Court of Pasi$
Cit', 2ranch 1*3
4
and b' the Department of Justice
*
in fa5or of Mr% -an
Der .a/ cannot ser5e as basis for the liftin$ of the (D! issued a$ainst
him6
2% .he attachment of Mr% -an Der .a/7s properties in Ci5il Case )o% 31+00
is not a $round to lift the (D! pursuant to Department Circular no% 01,
series of 20106
3
,% .he fact that Mr% -an Der .a/ is not a fli$ht ris/ cannot be considered as a
$round to lift the (D!6 and
0% Mr% -an Der .a/7s constitutional ri$ht to tra5el is sub8ect to the usual
constraints imposed b' the 5er' necessit' of safe$uardin$ the 8ustice
s'stem%
9n this re$ard, 1e are respectfull' as/in$ for a reconsideration of 'our
#u$ust 22, 2011 letter considerin$ that
1% .he D!J is not in the best position to issue the (D! a$ainst Mr% -an Der
.a/%
2% :rantin$ Mr% -an Der .a/7s #pplication 1ill not result in an' miscarria$e
of 8ustice6
,% # strin$ent application of DC )o% 01 is not 1arranted under the
circumstances6
0% #bsent an' 5alid $round that 1ill 8ustif' the imposition of the (D! on
Mr% -an Der .a/, DC )o% 01 cannot pre5ail o5er Mr% -an Der .a/7s
Constitutional ri$ht to tra5el%
1
(ereafter, ;#u$ust 22, 2011 letter%<
2
(ereafter, ;(D!%<
,
(ereafter, ;#pplication%<
0
(ereafter, ;Mr% -an Der .a/%<
4
(ereafter, ;R.C%<
*
(ereafter, ;D!J%<
3
(ereafter, ;DC )o% 01%<
counsel=$smhla1%com
.elephone >*,2%000%03*0
Facsimile >*,2%000%1,03

The DOJ is not in the best
position to issue the HDO
against Mr. Van Der Tak.
#t the outset, it is 1orth notin$ that the ;&hereas< clauses of DC )o% 01
states that ;apart from the courts, the Secretar' of Justice, as head of the principal
la1 a$enc' of the $o5ernment mandated to, inter alia, in5esti$ate the commission
of crimes, prosecute offenders, and pro5ide immi$ration re$ulator' ser5ices, is in
the best position to institute measures to prevent any miscarriage of justice,
1ithout, ho1e5er, sacrificin$ the indi5idual7s ri$ht to tra5el%< 9t bears stressin$
that the D!J has no participation 1hatsoe5er in Ci5il Case )o% 31+00, hence, it
cannot be said that it is in the best position to institute measures to prevent any
miscarriage of justice.
?5en the issuance of an (D! a$ainst Mr% -an Der .a/, 1ho is a
respondent in a civil case, remains suspect% 9t is important to note that Supreme
Court Circular )o% ,+@+3 12 eAplicitl' pro5ides that hold@departure orders ma' be
issued onl' in criminal cases, thus
B9n order to a5oid the indiscriminate issuance of (old@Departure
!rders resultin$ in incon5enience to the parties affected, the same bein$
tantamount to an infrin$ement on the ri$ht and libert' of an indi5idual to
tra5el and to ensure that the (old Departure !rders 1hich are issued
contain complete and accurate information, the follo1in$ $uidelines are
hereb' promul$ated
1% (old@Departure !rders shall be issued only in criminal
cases 1ithin the eAclusi5e 8urisdiction of the Re$ional .rial Courts%B
From the fore$oin$, 1hile the D!J7s authorit' to issue (D!s in criminal
cases could not be Cuestioned, $i5en the fact that it is the eAecuti5e department7s
prosecutorial arm, the same cannot be said in ci5il cases 1here it has no
participation at all%
ranting Mr. Van Der Tak!s
"pplication #ill not result in
miscarriage of justice
#s stated in the #pplication, the apparent purpose of the (D! issued
a$ainst Mr% -an Der .a/ has alread' been met% .o reiterate, Mr% -an Der .a/ has
submitted his person to the 8urisdiction of the R.C and a #rit of attachment 1as
issued a$ainst, amon$ others, his properties% 9t bears stressin$ that the 5alue of the
properties attached and $arnished b' 5irtue of the #rit is more than sufficient to
secure the claims of the plaintiff in the ci5il case a$ainst Mr% -an Der .a/% (ence,
in the remote e5ent that Mr% -an Der .a/ is declared ci5ill' liable, the 8ud$ment
2
a$ainst him can be full' satisfied e5en 1ithout the (D!% .he ad5erse 8ud$ment
a$ainst him can be eAecuted e5en 1ithout his presence here in the Philippines% 9n
fact, it is in Mr% -an Der .a/7s interest to see the resolution of the case a$ainst
him because he has lod$ed counterclaims a$ainst )CCR9% .his is one of the
reasons 1h' he has returned to the Philippines after bein$ allo1ed to $o to the
)etherlands at least fi5e times%
Moreo5er, the #pplication li/e1ise raised the fact that Mr% -an Der .a/ is
not a fli$ht ris/, hence, there is no point in maintainin$ the (D! a$ainst him% .o
reiterate, Mr% -an Der .a/ has substantial in5estment in this countr' and his
famil' li5es here% 9n the same breath, Mr% -an Der .a/ has been allo1ed to lea5e
the countr' se5eral times and he returned to the Philippines on all occasions in
conformit' 1ith the terms and conditions of the #llo1 Departure !rders
8
issued
in his fa5or% .hese onl' pro5e that maintainin$ the (D! a$ainst Mr% -an Der .a/
is pointless and an eAercise in futilit'%
.herefore, contrar' to the intent behind DC )o% 01 empo1erin$ this
(onorable !ffice to issue, amon$ others, (D!s, there can be no miscarria$e of
8ustice in this case if and 1hen this (onorable !ffice decides to lift the (D!
a$ainst Mr% -an Der .a/%
" stringent application of D$
%o. &' is un#arrante( un(er
the circumstances.
Dour #u$ust 22, 2011 letter stated that ;AAA assumin$ that the attached
properties are more than sufficient to ans1er the claims of the plaintiff andEor Mr%
-an Der .a/ is not a fli$ht ris/, the same are immaterial to the instant case<
because ;there is nothin$ in D%C% )o% 01, 1hich 'ou in5o/e in support of 'our
reCuest, 1hich states that attachment of sufficient properties of the alien in the
ci5il case 1here his presence is reCuired, either as a respondent or as a 1itness,
andEor the fact that he is not a fli$ht ris/ 1ould 1arrant the liftin$ or cancellation
of the (D! issued a$ainst him%<
&ith due respect to this (onorable !ffice, the strin$ent application of DC
)o% 01 a$ainst Mr% -an Der .a/ is un1arranted, $i5en the fact that the case filed
a$ainst him is onl' ci5il in nature, his properties ha5e been attached and
$arnished, and he has pro5ed that he is not a fli$ht ris/%
First, there is nothin$ in DC )o% 01 1hich states that the $rounds for
liftin$ an (D! are eAclusi5e% )either is DC )o% 01 a la1 1hich should be strictl'
construed a$ainst Mr% -an Der .a/% Since DC )o% 01 is a mere issuance b' the
D!J, 1e belie5e that the $ood Justice Secretar' can eAercise her discretion in
meritorious cases li/e Mr% -an Der .a/7s and lift the (D! a$ainst him 1hich, for
all intents and purposes, has become moot and academic under the circumstances%
8
(ereafter, ;#D!%<
,
Second, 1ith due respect to this (onorable !ffice, the abo5e@Cuoted
interpretation constitute a 5er' strin$ent application of DC )o% 01% Surel', the
;&hereas< clauses of DC )o% 01 re5eal the intent behind the issuance of the same,
that is, to institute measures to prevent any miscarriage of justice. #s ar$ued
abo5e, no miscarria$e of 8ustice 1ill ta/e place if and 1hen this (onorable !ffice
decides to lift the (D! a$ainst Mr% -an Der .a/% !n the contrar', liftin$ the
(D! 1ill ser5e the interests of 8ustice, as it restores Mr% -an Der .a/7s freedom
of mo5ement and constitutional ri$ht to tra5el, 1hich are $uaranteed b' the 1+83
Constitution, as 1ell as b' the Fni5ersal Declaration of (uman Ri$hts and the
Con5ention on Ci5il and Political Ri$hts%
Department circulars li/e DC )o% 01 1hich affect a person7s constitutional
ri$hts, 8ust li/e la1s, are dedicated to miti$ate the inhumaties of humanit' a$ainst
humanit'% &hile the' are concei5ed b' human in$enuit', the human intellect and
the human mind, the' are tempered b' the human conscience and $uarded b' the
'earnin$s of the human heart% .herefore, strict le$alism has no place in their
interpretation6 on the contrar', their strictest theor' of re$imentation must be
founded on the dictates of the $uidin$ soul, compassion, and most of all, 8ustice%
From all the fore$oin$, undersi$ned counsel respectfull' submits that the
strin$ent application of DC )o% 01 in Mr% -an Der .a/7s case, ci5il in nature, is
un1arranted, unnecessar' and contradictor' to the 5a$rant demands of 1hat is
ri$ht and 1hat is 8ust%
"bsent any vali( groun( that
#ill justify the imposition of
the HDO on Mr. Van Der
Tak, D$ %o. &' cannot
prevail over Mr. Van Der
Tak!s $onstitutional right to
travel
Dour #u$ust 22, 2011 letter Cuoted a portion of Section *, #rticle 999 of
the 1+83 Constitution, to #it)
AAA )either shall the ri$ht to tra5el be impaired eAcept in the
interest of national securit', public safet', or public health, as ma'
be pro5ided by la#.
*

9nterestin$l', it 1ould appear that there is no la1 $rantin$ this (onorable
!ffice po1er to impair Mr% -an Der .a/7s ri$ht to tra5el% &hile undersi$ned
counsel reser5es the ri$ht to Cuestion the constitutionalit' of DC )o% 01, 1e 1ill
limit the discussion to 1hat 1as stated in 'our #u$ust 22, 2011 letter%
+
?mphasis supplied%
0
2ased on the considerations stated abo5e, there are no 5alid $rounds that
1ill 8ustif' the retention of the (D! a$ainst Mr% -an Der .aG% ?5en 'our #u$ust
22, 2011 letter failed to alle$e an' reason that 1ill 5alidate the continued
impairment of Mr% -an Der .a/7s constitutional ri$ht to tra5el%
Dour #u$ust 22, 2011 letter then Cuoted the case of Marcos vs.
+an(iganbayan,
',
to #it) -a person7s ri$ht to tra5el is sub8ect to the usual
constraints imposed b' the 5er' necessit' of safe$uardin$ the 8ustice s'stem%<
.he Cuestion that be$s to be ans1ered is ho1 can the liftin$ of the (D!
a$ainst Mr% -an Der .a/ militate a$ainst ;the 5er' necessit' of safe$uardin$ the
8ustice s'stem%<H #t the ris/ of bein$ repetiti5e, undersi$ned counsel 1ishes to
stress that there 1ill be no miscarria$e of 8ustice if and 1hen the (D! a$ainst
Mr% -an Der .a/ is lifted% .he case can proceed 1ithout Mr% -an Der .a/7s
ph'sical presence% 9n fact, e5en if Mr% -an Der .a/ loses in this case, the claims
of )CCR9 are sufficientl' safe$uarded 1ith Mr% -an Der .a/7s attached and
$arnished properties% (ence, 8ustice can still be ser5ed e5en 1ithout the sub8ect
(D!%
.o repeat, Mr% -an Der .a/ should be allo1ed to tra5el 1ithout an'
constraint to the )etherlands because to depri5e him of this ri$ht 1ould un8ustl'
result in undue economic hardship on his part% Mr% -an Der .a/ maintains se5eral
business en$a$ements in the )etherlands 1hich reCuire his constant super5ision
and attention% Social 8ustice therefore dictates that Mr% -an Der .a/ should be
allo1ed to attend to his business 5entures in the )etherlands%
Finall', 'our #u$ust 22, 2011 letter su$$ests that Mr% -an Der .a/ has ;a
speed' remed' if he intends to tra5el abroad for some 5alid reasons% Section 3 of
D%C% )o% 01 pro5ides for the procedure for securin$ an #D! if he intends to lea5e
the countr'%; &ith due respect, describin$ the process of securin$ an #D! as
;speed'< is a $reat understatement% .he process of securin$ a tra5el clearance
from the R.C alone can ta/e da's, e5en 1ee/s% .hen Mr% -an Der .a/ 1ill ha5e
to for1ard the tra5el clearance to the D!J for the processin$ of the #D!% .hat
1ill ta/e se5eral more da's, e5en 1ee/s% .hen the D!J 1ill for1ard the #D! to
the 2ureau of 9mmi$ration and Deportation,
11
1hich 1ill also issue an #D! of its
o1n% .hat 1ill entail another 1ee/ or so% (ence, it 1ill ta/e Mr% -an Der .a/ at
least a month to secure #D!s from both the D!J and the 29D% .his process is
hardl' speed', considerin$ that Mr% -an Der .a/7s presence in the )etherlands is
usuall' necessitated b' ur$ent matters and business concerns that reCuire his
prompt attention and presence% .o be blunt, Mr% -an Der .a/ had to cancel his
fli$ht to the )etherlands the last time around because the #D! he reCuested has
not 'et been processed%
Further, the processin$ of the #D!s has also pro5ed to be costl' on the
part of Mr% -an Der .a/% 9t bears stressin$ that Mr% -an Der .a/ has to pa'
10
:%R% )o% 1141,2, #u$ust +, 1++4%
11
(ereafter, ;29D%<
4
certain fees for the issuance of the #D!s% :i5en the freCuenc' of Mr% -an Der
.a/7s recent tra5els, these eApenses ha5e also become a burden for him%
.hus, the (D! issued a$ainst Mr% -an Der .a/ has been causin$ him and
his business 5entures in the )etherlands undue hardship% &ith due respect,
undersi$ned counsel submits that the (D! issued a$ainst Mr% -an Der .a/ has
alread' become moot and academic, $i5en the fact that the claims of )CCR9 ha5e
been ampl' secured b' Mr% -an Der .a/7s properties% (ence, maintainin$ the
(D! a$ainst Mr% -an Der .a/ is senseless, unnecessar', and un8ust%
From all the fore$oin$, undersi$ned counsel respectfull' reCuests that this
!ffice reconsider its letter dated #u$ust 22, 2011 and lift the (D! dated Ma' 2+,
200+ a$ainst Mr% -an Der .a/%
.his (onorable !ffice7s prompt and fa5orable action on this reCuest 1ill
be $reatl' appreciated%
-er' trul' 'ours,
De :uIman San Die$o Me8ia J (ernandeI
"a1 !ffices
K:SM( "a1L

Michael P% Me8ia
Ralph Da5id D% So
*