6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly finding and recommendations to the President, Congress and the Ombudsman. [Emphases supplied] In this regard, it must be borne in mind that the Arroyo administration is but just a member of a class, that is, a class of past administrations. It is not a class of its own. Not to include past administrations similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which the equal protection clause cannot sanction. Such discriminating differentiation clearly reverberates to label the commission as a vehicle for vindictiveness and selective retribution.[9] (Citations omitted) In this regard, it is inaccurate to say that the right of persons to travel to and from the Philippines can only be impaired by statutory law. It is also inaccurate to say that the impairment should only be limited to national security, public safety, or public health considerations for it to be valid. For instance, the assailed department order in Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Drilon[10] was not founded upon national security, public safety, or public health but on the state's policy of affording protection to labor.[11] The department order was deemed a valid restriction on the right to travel.[12] The term "law" in Article III, Section 6 can refer to the Constitution itself. This can be understood by examining this Court's power to regulate foreign travel of court personnel and the nature and functions of bail. The power of this Court to regulate the foreign travel of court personnel does not emanate from statutory law, nor is it based on national security, public safety, or public health considerations. Rather, it is an inherent power flowing from Article III, Section 5(6) of the Constitution, which grants this Court the power of administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel.[13] The nature and object of this Court's power to control the foreign travel of court personnel were further explained in Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services — Office of the Court Administrator v. Heusdens,[14] thus: With respect to the power of the Court, Section 5 (6), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that the "Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof." This provision empowers the Court to oversee all matters relating to the effective supervision and management of all courts and personnel under it. Recognizing this mandate, Memorandum Circular No. 26 of the Office of the President, dated July 31, 1986, considers the Supreme Court exempt and with authority to promulgate its own rules and regulations on foreign travels. Thus, the Court came out with OCA Circular No. 49-2003 (B). Where a person joins the Judiciary or the government in general, he or she swears to faithfully adhere to, and abide with, the law and the corresponding office rules and regulations. These rules and regulations, to which one elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64165 63/70