THE Supreme Court (SC) has denied the plea of Surigao del Sur 1st District Rep. Prospero Pichay Jr. to lift the hold departure order (HDO) issued by the Sandiganbayan in connection with the criminal charges filed against him related to the purchase of shares of stock of Express Savings Bank Inc. (ESBI) amounting to P780 million during his term as chair of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA).
In a decision released by the SC-Public Information Office on November 24, 2021, the SC held that Pichay failed to prove that there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan in issuing the HDO in 2016, denying the lawmaker’s motion to lift the HDO in a resolution issued last March 16, 2018 and June 19, 2018.
“Criminal prosecutions should be allowed to run their course without undue delay. Pichay, as one facing criminal charges with the People of the Philippines as the offended party, should hold himself amenable to court orders and processes at all times. Otherwise, such orders and processes would serve no purpose if he would be allowed to leave the country outside the reach of the courts,” the SC said.
“An accused in a criminal case may be issued an HDO, as a valid restriction on their right to travel, so that they may be dealt with in accordance with law,” it added.
In his petition before the SC, Pichay insisted that the general rule is that the right to travel shall not be impaired and may be restricted only in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
Pichay asserted that none of the allowable limitations on the right to travel are present in his case.
Furthermore, the lawmaker maintained that the mere posting of bail does not operate as a waiver of the requisites prescribed by the Constitution for the curtailment of the right to travel.
The SC explained, however, that while the right to travel and to freedom of movement is a fundamental right guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the exercise of such right “is not absolute.”
As stated under the 1987 Constitution, the SC pointed out that courts can impair the right to travel on the grounds of “national security, public safety, or public health” and “as may be provided by law.”
The SC stressed that the HDO issued by the Sandiganbayan “is but an exercise of its inherent power to preserve and maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction” over the respondent.
Likewise, the Court noted that Pichay posted bail under the obligation that he will hold himself amenable at all times to the orders and processes of the court.
“The condition imposed upon Pichay to make himself available at all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel,” the SC added.
Pichay has been indicted before the Sandiganbayan for alleged violation of Section Xl 26.2(c)(l)(2) of the Manual of Regulation for Banks (MORB); three counts of violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for fund releases for the purchase of 445,377 ESBI shares at P80,003,070.51, deposit and/or capital infusion of P400 million and deposit of P300 million.
Pichay allegedly failed to comply as then chairman of the LWUA with the requirement of prior approval of the President, under Administrative Order No. 59 and Monetary Board, under Section X126.2, Part I of the MORB, before purchasing the shares of stock of ESBI.
Image credits: Aerous