6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Thus, passport holders facing preliminary investigation for the following crimes are subject to the DFA Secretary's power under Section 4: (1) Title One, (Crimes Against National Security and the Law of Nations), Title Three (Crimes Against Public Order), Title Eight (Crimes Against Persons), Title Nine (Crimes Against Liberty), Title Ten (Crimes Against Property) and Title Eleven (Crimes Against Chastity), Book II of the Revised Penal Code; (2) Section 261 (Prohibited Acts), paragraphs (e),[24] (f),[25] (p),[26] (q),[27] (s),[28] and (u)[29] of the Omnibus Election Code;[30] and (3) Other related election laws such as Section 27(b) of RA 7874, as amended by RA 9369.[31] Indeed, the phrases "national security" and "public safety," which recur in the text of the Constitution as grounds for the exercise of powers or curtailment of rights,[32] are intentionally broad to allow interpretative flexibility, but circumscribed at the same time to prevent limitless application. At their core, these concepts embrace acts undermining the State's existence or public security. At their fringes, they cover acts disrupting individual or communal tranquility. Either way, violence or potential of violence features prominently. Thus understood, the "public safety" ground under Section 4 of RA 8239 unquestionably includes violation of election-related offenses carrying the potential of disrupting the peace, such as electoral sabotage which involves massive tampering of votes (in excess of 10,000 votes). Not only does electoral sabotage desecrate electoral processes, but it also arouses heated passion among the citizenry, driving some to engage in mass actions and others to commit acts of violence. The cancellation of passports of individuals investigated for this crime undoubtedly serves the interest of public safety, much like individuals under investigation for robbery, kidnapping, and homicide, among others.[33] As to whether respondent must be cited in contempt for allegedly defying the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court, I agree that it cannot be resolved simultaneously with these consolidated petitions. Until the contempt charge is threshed out in a separate and proper proceeding, I defer expressing my view on this issue. Accordingly, I vote to GRANT the petitions and to declare DOJ Circular No. 041-10, and the assailed Watchlist Orders issued pursuant to the circular, UNCONSTITUTIONAL for being contrary to Section 6, Article III of the Constitution. As regards the contempt charge against respondent, I DEFER any opinion on this issue until it is raised in a separate and proper proceeding. [1] Osmeña III v. Social Security System of the Philippines, 559 Phil. 723, 735 (2007), citing Governor Mandanas v. Honorable Romulo, 473 Phil. 806, 827-828 (2004); Olanolan v. COMELEC, 494 Phil. 749, 759 (2005); Paloma v. Court of Appeals, 461 Phil. 269, 276-277 (2003). elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64165 54/70