6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly by the issuance of a TRO. While the petitioners anchor their right in esse on the right to travel under Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, the said right is not absolute. One of the limitations on the right to travel is DOJ Circular No. 41, which was issued pursuant to the rule-making powers of the DOJ in order to keep individuals under preliminary investigation within the jurisdiction of the Philippine criminal justice system. With the presumptive constitutionality of DOJ Circular No. 41, the petitioners cannot claim that they have a clear and unmistakable right to leave the country as they are the very subject of the mentioned issuance.[45] Moreover, the issuance of a TRO will effectively render any judgment on the consolidated petitions moot and academic. No amount of judgment can recompense the irreparable injury that the state is bound to suffer if the petitioners are permitted to leave the Philippine jurisdiction.[46] On November 18, 2011, the Court issued a Resolution,[47] requiring De Lima to show cause why she should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt of court for failure to comply with the TRO. She was likewise ordered to immediately comply with the TRO by allowing the petitioners to leave the country. At the same time, the Court denied the Consolidated Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Lift TRO dated November 16, 2011 filed by the Office of the Solicitor General.[48] On even date, the COMELEC, upon the recommendation of the Joint DOJ-COMELEC Preliminary Investigation Committee, filed an information for the crime of electoral sabotage under Section 43(b) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9369 against GMA, among others, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, which was docketed as RPSY-11-04432-CR[49] and raffled to Branch 112. A warrant of arrest for GMA was forthwith issued. Following the formal filing of an Information in court against GMA, the respondents filed an Urgent Manifestation with Motion to Lift TRO.[50] They argue that the filing of the information for electoral sabotage against GMA is a supervening event which warrants the lifting of the TRO issued by this Court. They asseverate that the filing of the case vests the trial court the jurisdiction to rule on the disposition of the case. The issue therefore on the validity of the assailed WLOs should properly be raised and threshed out before the RTC of Pasay City where the criminal case against GMA is pending, to the exclusion of all other courts.[51] Also, on November 18, 2011, the COMELEC issued a Resolution, dismissing the complaint for violation of OEC and electoral sabotage against Miguel Arroyo, among others, which stood as the basis for the issuance of WLO No. 2011-573. Conformably, the DOJ issued an Order dated November 21, 2011,[52] lifting WLO No. 2011-573 against Miguel Arroyo and ordering for the removal of his name in the BI watchlist. Thereafter, the oral arguments on the consolidated petitions proceeded as scheduled on November 22, 2011, despite requests from the petitioners' counsels for an earlier date. Upon the conclusion of the oral arguments on December 1, 2011, the parties were required to submit their respective memoranda.[53] Meanwhile, in G.R. No. 197930, HDO No. 2011-64 dated July 22, 2011[54] was issued elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64165 7/70