Ridon Says Court Order Needed to Cancel Passports

Ridon Says Court Order Needed to Cancel Passports | Daily Tribune

Bicol Saro Party-list Representative and lawyer Terry Ridon on Friday asserted that the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has no authority to unilaterally cancel Philippine passports, saying such actions require a court order under existing law.

In a statement, Ridon cited Sections 4 and 10 of Republic Act No. 8239, or the Philippine Passport Act of 1996, which provide the legal basis for passport cancellation in cases involving convicted criminals, fugitives, or suspected terrorists.

“Section 10 of the Philippine Passport Act is clear: a court order is required for the cancellation of passports belonging to convicted criminals, fugitives, or suspected terrorists,” said Ridon, who serves as chairman of the House Committee on Infrastructure and member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Ridon issued the statement after Navotas City Representative Toby Tiangco urged the DFA to cancel the passport of former Ako Bicol Party-list lawmaker Zaldy Co, who has been linked to the alleged multibillion-peso corruption scandal involving flood control projects.

Tiangco, speaking at a press conference of the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI), labeled the case a “national security matter,” urging immediate action from the DFA.

This is not the first time Representative Tiangco has urged the DFA to restrict Co’s passport.

Earlier this week, House Speaker Bojie Dy made a similar appeal to newly appointed Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla.

Ridon, without naming Tiangco or Co directly, said there is no legal provision in the Passport Act that authorizes the DFA to cancel passports “on the mere invocation of national security.”

“Section 4 of the Passport Act must be read in conjunction with Section 10 in all matters involving national security. It explicitly requires judicial authorization—a court order—before the passport of a suspected terrorist may be cancelled,” Ridon emphasized.

He warned that bypassing legal processes could set a dangerous precedent and undermine constitutional protections.