GENUINO VS.

DE LIMA
COMPREHENSIVE CASE DIGEST
GR # 197930 APRIL 17, 2018

I. Caption
a. Case title: GENUINO VS. DE LIMA
b. Date of Publication APRIL 17, 2018
c. Particulars
i. Petitioners GENUINO, EFRAIM C. et.al.
ii. Respondents DE LIMA, LEILA M. et.al.
iii. Ponente REYES, JR.; CARPIO (CO); VELASCO JR. (CO); LEONEN JR. (CO)

II. Facts
a. General Facts
i. March 19, 1998 DOJ Secretary Silvestre H. Bello III issued DOJ Circular No. 17 prescribing IRR
governing the issuance of HDOs.
1. Purpose: to restrain the indiscriminate issuance of HDOs which impinge on the people’s
right to travel.
ii. April 23, 2007 DOJ Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez issued DOJ Circular No. 18, prescribing IRR
governing the issuance of WLOs.
1. Purpose: issuance of WLO against persons with criminal cases pending preliminary
investigation.
2. Purpose: power of DOJ secretary to issue ADOs to persons subject with WLO to leave the
country given “exceptional reasons”.
iii. May 25, 2010 Acting DOJ Secretary Alberto C. Agra issued DOJ Circular No. 41, prescribing
general IRR for HDOs, WLOs, and ADOs, repealed DOJ Circulars 17& 18’s inconsistent provisions.
b. Particular facts
i. GR 197930 GENUINO VS. DE LIMA
1. Criminal cases (malversation, violations of sec. 3 e,g,h,i of RA 3019 diversion of funds)
were filed against the petitioner.
2. Chief State Counsel Ricardo Paras, on behalf of the petitioner, requested the HDOs issued
to be lifted, to no avail.
ii. GR 199034 MA. GLORIA ARROYO VS. DE LIMA
1. Criminal cases (plunder, malversation of funds, graft and corruption, violation of the
Omnibus Election Code, violation of the code of conduct and ethical standards for public
officials, and qualified theft) were filed against petitioner.
2. Respondent filed WLO against petitioner.
3. Petitioner requested ADO to seek medical attention abroad for Hypoparathyroidism and
Metabolic Bone Mineral Disorder in 6 different countries (US, Germany, Singapore, Italy,
Spain, and Austria)
4. ADO was denied by respondent due to cited reasons.
5. Petitioner filed Petition of Certiorari and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, to annul and set
aside DOJ Circular No. 41 for allegedly being unconstitutional.
6. Court issued TRO in favor of the petitioner. Petitioner attempted to leave the country, to
no avail. Court issued show cause order against the respondent for non-compliance.
7. Warrant of arrest re: electoral sabotage was issued against the petitioner. Respondent
argued such supervening event render the entire issue MOOT AND ACADEMIC.
iii. GR 199046 JOSE MIGUEL ARROYO VS. DE LIMA
1. Criminal cases (Violation of the Omnibus Election Code, Electoral sabotage) were filed
against petitioner.
2. Respondent filed WLO against petitioner.
3. ADO was denied by respondent due to cited reasons.
4. Petitioner filed Petition of Certiorari and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, to annul and set
aside DOJ Circular No. 41 for allegedly being unconstitutional.
5. Court issued TRO in favor of the petitioner. Petitioner attempted to leave the country, to
no avail. Court issued show cause order against the respondent for non-compliance.

Page | 1
III. Issues
a. W/N the court may exercise its power for judicial review.
b. W/N the Department of Justice has the authority to issue DOJ Circular No. 41
c. W/N DOJ Circular No. 41 is constitutional pursuant to Article III Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution

Article III Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution

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.

IV. Rulings
a. YES. The court may exercise its power to judicial review despite the filing of information for electoral
sabotage against GMA, as enshrined in Article VIII Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution.
i. Judicial Review is defined as the power of the courts to test the validity of executive and legislative
acts in light of their conformity with the constitution. This is not an assertion of superiority by the
courts of the other departments but merely an expression of the SUPREMACY of the constitution.
ii. The questions or controversies regarding GMA and Miguel Arroyo does not justify the constitutional
questions of DOJ Circular No. 41.
iii. The court believes that the supervening events following the filing of the instant petitions, while
may have seemed to moot, will not preclude it from ruling on the constitutional issues rai sed by
the petitioners.

Moot and Academic

One that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so

that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. In the case at bar, De
Lima justified that there is no need to discuss such petitions and such petitions must be
dismissed because WLO for Miguel Arroyo was removed, and Allegations against GMA now
have probable cause. However, the rule of mootness prescribes certain exemptions: (1) if
there is grave violation to the constitution, (2) there is exceptional character of the situation
and paramount public interest is involved, (3) constitutional issues raised require
formulation of principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public, and (4) the case is
capable of repetition yet evasive of review.

b. NO. A painstaking examination of the provision of EO 292, which DOJ believes that its power to restrain
the right to travel emanates, will disclose that it does not particularly vest the DOJ the authority to issue
DOJ Circular No. 41. In the same way, Section 3 of EO 292 does not authorize DOJ to issue WLOs and
HDOs to restrict the constitutional right to travel.
i. Administrative Issuance: Provided, if DOJ Circular No. 41 is an administrative issuance, it still
must confer to the conditions set for administrative issuances to be valid. First (1), there is a law
that is complete in itself, setting forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented
by the delegate, and second, it fixes a standard the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and
determinable to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions.
ii. Police Power: The DOJ cannot rely on Police Power as police power may only be validly exercised
if first (1), the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class,
require the interference of the state, and second (2), the means employed is necessary to the
attainment of the object ought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

Page | 2
 iii. Issuance of HDOs: The issuance of HDOs lies solely on the inherent judicial powers of the court,
and not on the DOJ. The court considers the gravity of offense. More serious crimes curtail the
right to travel, while less serious crimes do not.
iv. Court and Government Employees’ regulated right to travel: To maintain efficient
government services and unobstructed justice system, offices regulate its employees’ right to
travel. However, it is important to note that the restraint is not necessarily on the right to travel
but on the issuance of leave of absence.
c. NO. There are constitutional, statutory, and inherent limitations regulating the right to travel. Section 6
itself provides that the right to travel may only be impaired on the interest of National Security, Public
Safety, and Public Health, as may be provided by law.
i. DOJ Circular No. 41 is not a law, nor it has any enacted legislation that would serve as its basis
and support. Furthermore, there is no law particularly providing for the authority of the secretary
of justice to curtail the exercise of the right to travel, in the interest of national security, public
safety, or public health.
ii. Legislative Remedies:
1. RA 8239 (Philippine Passport Act of 1996)
a. Explicitly grants the secretary of foreign affairs or any of the authorized consular
officers the authority to verify, restrict, cancel, or refuse the issuance of a passport
to a citizen.
2. Memorandum Circular No. 036 pursuant to RA 9209 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act 2003)
a. Amended by RA 10364 (Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012)
b. Authorizes the BI to hold the departure of suspected traffickers or trafficked
individuals
c. BI commissioner has the authority to issue HDO against a foreigner subject to
deportation proceedings in order to ensure his appearance herein.
3. Precautionary Warrant of Arrest
a. As present circumstances require, courts may issue PWA.

DOJ Circular No. 41 is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

All issuances which were released pursuant thereto are hereby declared NULL AND VOID.

Page | 3