6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. Section 5. Examination of complainant; record. — The judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the affidavits submitted. (4a) Section 6. Issuance and form of search warrant. — If the judge is satisfied of the existence of facts upon which the application is based or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, he shall issue the warrant, which must be substantially in the form prescribed by these Rules. (5a) SEPARATE OPINION LEONEN, J.: I concur that Department of Justice Circular No. 41, series of 2010, is unconstitutional. The Department of Justice is neither authorized by law nor does it possess the inlierent power to issue hold departure orders, watchlist orders, and allow departure orders against persons under preliminary investigation. However, I have reservations regarding the proposed doctrine that the right of persons to travel can only be impaired by a legislative enactment as it can likewise be burdened by other constitutional provisions. The pertinent Constitutional provision on the right to travel is Article III, Section 6, which states: Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safely, or public health, as may be provided by law. (Emphasis supplied) The right to travel, as a concept, was directly tackled in Marcos v. Manglapus,[1] an early case decided under the 1987 Constitution. It dealt specifically with the right of former President Marcos to return to the Philippines. In resolving the case, this Court distinguished between the right to return to one's country and the general right to travel. The right to return to one's country was treated separately and deemed excluded from the constitutionally protected right to travel.[2] In my view, the right to travel should not be given such a restrictive interpretation. In the broad sense, the right to travel refers to the "right to move from one place to another."[3] The delimitation set in Marcos effectively excludes instances that may elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64165 60/70