Scribd
Upload
211 views1 page

Reyes vs. Gonzalez Digest

1) Fr. Reyes was arrested during the Manila Peninsula Hotel siege in 2007 and charged with rebellion. While the rebellion charge was dismissed, a Hold Departure Order remained in effect. 2) Fr. Reyes argued the Hold Departure Order violated his right to travel and requested a writ of amparo. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the writ of amparo is not available as a remedy to violations of the right to travel, but only for extralegal killings, enforced disappearances, or threats thereof. It found the travel restriction was not unlawful given the pending criminal case.

Uploaded by

May Anasco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
211 views1 page

Reyes vs. Gonzalez Digest

1) Fr. Reyes was arrested during the Manila Peninsula Hotel siege in 2007 and charged with rebellion. While the rebellion charge was dismissed, a Hold Departure Order remained in effect. 2) Fr. Reyes argued the Hold Departure Order violated his right to travel and requested a writ of amparo. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the writ of amparo is not available as a remedy to violations of the right to travel, but only for extralegal killings, enforced disappearances, or threats thereof. It found the travel restriction was not unlawful given the pending criminal case.

Uploaded by

May Anasco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

FR. REYES V.

GONZALES (2009)
G.R. No. 182161 December 3, 2009

FACTS:
Fr. Reyes was among of those who were arrested during the Manila Peninsula
Hotel siege, 30th of November, 2007 and they were temporarily held at Camp Crame. A
Hold Departure Order (HDO) for the petitioner and to the other accused was issued by
the DOJ upon the request of the Department of Interior and Local Government. Probable
cause was found during investigation and petitioner was charged with rebellion. The RTC
however dismissed the charge against him but the HDO was still in effect. Petitioner
requested that HDO should be lifted in view of the dismissal of the criminal case.
Petitioner argued that a writ of amparo should be issued against the respondents,
violating the whole breadth of rights enshrined in the Constitution, specifically, his right
to travel.
ISSUE: Whether the right to travel is covered by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
RULING:
No. The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose
right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful
act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. The
writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
The restriction on petitioners right to travel as a consequence of the pendency of
the criminal case filed against him was not unlawful. Petitioner has failed to establish
that his right to travel was impaired in the manner and to the extent that it amounted to
a serious violation of his right to life, liberty and security, for which there exists no
readily available legal recourse or remedy.
A persons right to travel is subject to the usual constraints imposed by the very
necessity of safeguarding the system of justice. In such cases, whether the accused
should be permitted to leave the jurisdiction for humanitarian reasons is a matter of the
courts sound discretion.

You might also like