8/17/2019 Fr. Reyes vs. Sec. Gonzales Report http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fr-reyes-vs-sec-gonzales-report 1/1 * Petition for Certiorari of decision of CA Petitioner Fr. Robert Reyes Respondent CA, DOJ Sec. Raul Gonzales, Bureau of Immigration an De!ortation Commissioner "arcelino #ibanan • Petitioner led for petition for a writ of am!aro on the ground that respondents violated petitioner’s constitutional right to travel. Petitioner argues that the DOJ Secretary has no power to issue a old Departure Order !DO" and the su#$ect DO %o. &' has no legal #asis since Cri(inal Case %o. )+,-/ has already #een dis(issed. •0espondents argued that the issue of the constitutionality of the DOJ Secretary’s authority to issue hold departure orders under DOJ Circulars %os. - and -1 is not within the a(#it of a writ of am!aro. Whether or not petitioner’s right to liberty has been violated or threatened with violation by the issuance of the subject HDO, which would entitle him to the privilege of the writ of amparo ! "O 2he rig$t to tra%el refers to the right to (ove fro( one place to another. 3444 A person’s right to travel is su#$ect to the usual constraints i(posed #y the very necessity of safeguarding the syste( of $ustice. 5n such cases6 whether the accused should #e per(itted to leave the $urisdiction for hu(anitarian reasons is a (atter of the court’s sound discretion.7 ere6 the restriction on petitioner’s right to travel as a conse8uence of the pendency of the cri(inal case led against hi( was not unlawful. Petitioner has also failed to esta#lish that his right to travel was i(paired in the (anner and to the e4tent that it a(ounted to a serious violation of his right to life6 li#erty and security6 for which there e4ists no readily availa#le legal recourse or re(edy. DECISION. Petition dis(issed. CA decision a9r(ed. NOTES. 2he Am!aro 0ule in its present for( is conned to these two instances of 3e4tralegal :illings7 and 3enforced disappearances67 or to threats thereof. FR. REYES v. SEC. GONZALES ;.0. %o. -1-/- < D=C ,6 ))> < ?eonardo+De Castro6 J. < 0ight to 2ravel + ?i(itation

Fr. Reyes vs. Sec. Gonzales Report

Download PDF Report

Upload
shara-gaddi
View
214
Download
0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Fr. Reyes vs. Sec. Gonzales Report

8/17/2019 Fr. Reyes vs. Sec. Gonzales Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fr-reyes-vs-sec-gonzales-report 1/1

* Petition for Certiorari of decision of CA

Petitioner Fr. Robert Reyes Respondent CA, DOJ Sec. Raul Gonzales, Bureauof Immigration an De!ortation Commissioner"arcelino #ibanan

• Petitioner led for petition for a writ of am!aro

on the ground that respondents violated

petitioner’s constitutional right to travel.Petitioner argues that the DOJ Secretary hasno power to issue a old Departure Order!DO" and the su#$ect DO %o. &' has nolegal #asis since Cri(inal Case %o. )+,-/has already #een dis(issed.

•0espondents argued that the issue of the

constitutionality of the DOJ Secretary’s

authority to issue hold departure ordersunder DOJ Circulars %os. - and -1 is notwithin the a(#it of a writ of am!aro.

Whether or not petitioner’s right to liberty has been violated or threatened withviolation by the issuance of the subject HDO, which would entitle him to the privilege

of the writ of amparo ! "O

2he rig$t to tra%el refers to the right to (ove fro( one place to another. 3444 A person’s right to

travel is su#$ect to the usual constraints i(posed #y the very necessity of safeguarding thesyste( of $ustice. 5n such cases6 whether the accused should #e per(itted to leave the $urisdiction for hu(anitarian reasons is a (atter of the court’s sound discretion.7

ere6 the restriction on petitioner’s right to travel as a conse8uence of the pendency of thecri(inal case led against hi( was not unlawful. Petitioner has also failed to esta#lish that hisright to travel was i(paired in the (anner and to the e4tent that it a(ounted to a seriousviolation of his right to life6 li#erty and security6 for which there e4ists no readily availa#le legalrecourse or re(edy.

DECISION.Petition dis(issed. CA decision a9r(ed.

NOTES. 2he Am!aro 0ule in its present for( is conned to these two instances of 3e4tralegal :illings7 and3enforced disappearances67 or to threats thereof.

FR. REYES v. SEC. GONZALES;.0. %o. -1-/- < D=C ,6 ))> < ?eonardo+De Castro6 J. < 0ight to 2ravel + ?i(itation