Miriam wants DoJ's HDO power stripped

MANILA, Philippines — Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago Thursday filed a bill that practically removes from the Department of Justice (DoJ) the power to issue hold departure orders (HDOs) which, she said, can be used for political harassment and oppression.

Under Senate Bill No. 3069, the DoJ must apply with the Regional Trial Court for the issuance of an HDO against an accused person under preliminary investigation.

Santiago’s proposed bill came at a time when HDOs became a central issue in the case of former President and now Congresswoman Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who was barred from leaving for abroad on the strength of hold departure order issued by the DoJ.

If approved by Congress, the proposed measure will, in effect, nullify DoJ Circular No. 41, and remove from the Secretary of Justice the power to issue HDOs against persons under criminal investigation.

“DoJ Circular No. 41, which allows the Secretary of Justice to motu proprio restrict a person’s constitutional right to travel upon the filing of a criminal complaint, opens the doors for political harassment and oppression,” Santiago said. “At the same time, we cannot allow an accused to simply flout the rule of law and evade prosecution by the simple expedient of flying to another country once charges are brought against him or her.”

According to Santiago, courts already possess the inherent power to issue HDOs. “This power is indispensable in upholding the integrity of our institutions and ensuring that our people maintain faith and respect for the rule of law. Absent such power, our laws may be ignored with impunity and public safety compromised by an accused who can simply go to another country to evade prosecution and arrest.”

“By requiring the DoJ to apply to the courts for the issuance of an HDO, the bill reconciles the DoJ’s need to effectively carry out its prosecutorial functions with the constitutional guarantee of the right to travel,” Santiago said.

Under Santiago’s bill, no HDO shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the person subject of the HDO. The only exception is when the person is a flight risk and such flight may result either in a miscarriage of justice, or prejudice against national security, public safety, or public health.

In such cases, the court can issue a temporary HDO effective for 30 days after it is served on the person sought to be held. Within the 30-day period, the court shall require the person to explain why a permanent HDO should not be granted.

If the HDO is not resolved within the required period, it will be automatically lifted.

Rolly Carandang, Manila Bulletin