"What is it so hard to understand with the principle that the right to travel is not absolute?
This is not a new issue with the Supreme Court. Primary cases are PCGG and DOLE where the Court allowed these agencies to prevent travel of mere suspects in PCGG cases and OFWs going to banned countries.
What is so hard to spell out for you people that the right to travel abroad is the least of all rights, and is different from domestic travel which is more unrestrained. If the right to travel is so sacrosanct and absolute, let us not have passports, as passports are the single government instrument which regulate and more often than not restrain our international travel. Hindi ka lang bigyan ng passport ng DFA eh hindi ka na makakatravel. And under the passport law, DFA can cancel your passport under certain grounds, no different from grounds laid down under DOJ Circular 41 which simply states that once you are under the compulsory processes of a government agency and required to be present before it, such as in a preliminary investigation or legislative inquiry, whether as a witness or respondent, you have an obligation to appear, and when you use your right to travel abroad to escape this obligation, the State has a right to restrain that right until the fulfillment of your obligation to the State.
Hindi ka naman pinapakulong eh, pinapanagut ka lang sa obligasyon mo at habang hindi mo nagagampanan ang obligasyon mo, eh hindi ka muna pwedeng bumiyahe kung saan wala ng power of compulsion ang estado sa iyo. What is so hard to understand about that? Susunod nyan hindi na natin maiintindihan kung bakit kailangan natin magbayad ng tax."