6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly submits himself or herself, have been issued to guide the government officers and employees in the efficient performance of their obligations. When one becomes a public servant, he or she assumes certain duties with their concomitant responsibilities and gives up some rights like the absolute right to travel so that public service would not be prejudiced. As earlier stated, with respect to members and employees of the Judiciary, the Court issued OCA Circular No. 49-2003 to regulate their foreign travel in an unofficial capacity. Such regulation is necessary for the orderly administration of justice. If judges and court personnel can go on leave and travel abroad at will and without restrictions or regulations, there could be a disruption in the administration of justice. A situation where the employees go on mass leave and travel together, despite the fact that their invaluable services are urgently needed, could possibly arise. For said reason, members and employees of the Judiciary cannot just invoke and demand their right to travel. To permit such unrestricted freedom can result in disorder, if not chaos, in the Judiciary and the society as well. In a situation where there is a delay in the dispensation of justice, litigants can gel disappointed and disheartened. If their expectations are frustrated, they may take the law into their own hands which results in public disorder undermining public safety. In this limited sense, it can even be considered that the restriction or regulation of a court personnel's right to travel is a concern for public safety, one of the exceptions to the non-impairment of one's constitutional right to travel.[15] (Citations omitted, emphasis supplied) A person's right to bail before conviction is both guaranteed and limited under the Constitution. Article III, Section 13 states: Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required. Courts have the jurisdiction to determine whether a person should be admitted to bail. This jurisdiction springs from the Constitution itself, which imposes limitations on the right to bail. However, the discretion of courts is not restricted to the question of whether bail should be granted to an accused as Courts have the inherent power "to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines."[16] Regional Trial Courts, in particular, are empowered to issue hold departure orders in criminal cases falling within their exclusive jurisdiction.[17] Persons admitted to bail are required to seek permission before travelling abroad.[18] Similar to the power of this Court to control foreign travel of court personnel, the power to restrict the travel of persons admitted to bail is neither based on a legislative enactment nor founded upon national security, public safety, or public health elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64165 64/70