Dear Atty. Nico,

My bestfriend was charged with a crime and is currently out on bail. Is it true that he cannot travel with us despite being out on bail?

Jenny

Dear Jenny,

While it is true that the constitutional right to travel is part of liberty, which a citizen cannot be deprived of without due process of law, this right however, is not absolute as it is subject to constitutional, statutory, and inherent limitations.

In the case of Manotoc Jr. v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court pronounced that the Court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond, which has remained unchanged whether under the 1935, 1973, or the 1987 Constitution. In that case, the Honorable Supreme Court ruled, to wit:

“A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond.

Rule 114, Section 1 of the Rules of Court defines bail as the security required and given for the release of a person who is in the custody of the law, that he will appear before any court in which his appearance may be required as stipulated in the bail bond or recognizance.

Its object is to relieve the accused of imprisonment and the state of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to put the accused as much under the power of the court as if he were in custody of the proper officer, and to secure the appearance of the accused so as to answer the call of the court and do what the law may require of him.

Thus, a person with a pending criminal case, who is provisionally released on bail, does not have an unrestricted right to travel. Verily, the purpose of the restriction on an accused’s right to travel is to ensure that courts can effectively exercise their jurisdiction over such person.

Atty. Nico Antonio