The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a Precautionary Hold Departure Order (PHDO) may be issued only in cases involving crimes punishable by a minimum penalty of at least six years and one day of imprisonment, or when the respondent is a foreigner, regardless of the penalty.

In a decision dated 13 January 2026 and written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC's Third Division ruled that a PHDO cannot be maintained when the crime under investigation does not meet these requirements.

Court records showed that the case stemmed from a complaint filed against Faustine Feliz Abad involving the purchase of airline tickets from GHT Travel and Tours.

Abad allegedly purchased airline tickets for participants in the Maharlika Pilipinas Basketball League in Calgary, Canada, using several checks. Two postdated checks were later dishonored due to insufficient funds.

Johanna Moulic, owner of GHT Travel and Tours, filed complaints against Abad for estafa under the Revised Penal Code and for violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), or the Bouncing Checks Law.

The city prosecutor found probable cause to charge Abad with two counts of violating BP 22 but found insufficient evidence to charge her with estafa.

Two informations for BP 22 violations were subsequently filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila.

The prosecution also sought a PHDO against Abad before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing that she posed a flight risk. The RTC granted the request.

Abad later moved to lift the PHDO, but the RTC denied her motion, noting, among other things, that GHT had appealed the dismissal of the estafa complaint before the Secretary of Justice and that Abad was a permanent resident of the United States.

The Supreme Court ruled that the PHDO should have been lifted.

Under the Rule on Precautionary Hold Departure Orders, a PHDO may be issued while a criminal complaint is undergoing preliminary investigation if the offense carries a minimum penalty of at least six years and one day of imprisonment. It may also be issued against a foreign respondent regardless of the penalty.

The high court explained that the estafa complaint, which could have carried a penalty exceeding six years and one day, had already been dismissed for lack of probable cause.

The only charges filed against Abad were two counts of violating BP 22, each punishable by imprisonment ranging from 30 days to one year.

As such, the BP 22 charges did not satisfy the penalty requirement for the issuance of a PHDO.

The Court also clarified that PHDOs apply only while a preliminary investigation is pending. Once the preliminary investigation is completed and an information is filed in court, the rules governing regular Hold Departure Orders apply.

The SC further ruled that the pending appeal before the Secretary of Justice regarding the dismissed estafa complaint did not justify continuing to restrict Abad's right to travel.

The Court stressed that the right to travel is guaranteed by the Constitution and that the mere possibility Abad might later be charged with estafa, depending on the outcome of the appeal, was insufficient to justify restricting that constitutional right.

The SC ruled that the non-filing of an information for estafa constituted a valid ground for lifting the PHDO.