6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly OCA Circular No. 49-2003 is therefore not a restriction, but more properly, a regulation of the employee's leave for purpose of foreign travel which is necessary for the orderly administration ofjustice. To "restrict" is to restrain or prohibit a person from doing something; to "regulate" is to govern or direct according to rule.[140] This regulation comes as a necessary consequence of the individual's employment in the judiciary, as part and parcel of his contract in joining the institution. For, if the members of the judiciary are at liberty to go on leave any time, the dispensation ofjustice will be seriously hampered. Short of key personnel, the courts cannot properly function in the midst of the intricacies in the administration of justice. At any rate, the concerned employee is not prevented from pursuing his travel plans without complying with OCA Circular No. 49-2003 but he must be ready to suffer the consequences of his noncompliance. The same ratiocination can be said of the regulations of the Civil Service Commission with respect to the requirement for leave application of employees in the government service seeking to travel abroad. The Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. No. 292 states the leave privileges and availment guidelines for all government employees, except those who are covered by special laws. The filing of application for leave is required for purposes of orderly personnel administration. In pursuing foreign travel plans, a government employee must secure an approved leave of absence from the head of his agency before leaving for abroad. To be particular, E.O. No. 6 dated March 12, 1986, as amended by Memorandum Order (MO) No. 26 dated July 31, 1986, provided the procedure in the disposition of requests of government officials and employees for authority to travel abroad. The provisions of this issuance were later clarified in the Memorandum Circular No. 18 issued on October 27, 1992. Thereafter, on September 1, 2005, E.O. No. 459 was issued, streamlining the procedure in the disposition of requests of government officials and employees for authority to travel abroad. Section 2 thereof states: Section 2. Subject to Section 5 hereof, all other government officials and employees seeking authority to travel abroad shall henceforth seek approval from their respective heads of agencies, regardless of the length of their travel and the number of delegates concerned. For the purpose of this paragraph, heads of agencies refer to the Department Secretaries or their equivalents. (Emphasis ours) The regulation of the foreign travels of government employees was deemed necessary "to promote efficiency and economy in the government service."[141] The objective was clearly administrative efficiency so that government employees will continue to render public services unless they are given approval to take a leave of absence in which case they can freely exercise their right to travel. It should never be interpreted as an exception to the right to travel since the government employee during his approved leave of absence can travel wherever he wants, locally or abroad. This is no different from the leave application requirements for employees in private companies. The point is that the DOJ may not justify its imposition of restriction on the right to travel of the subjects of DOJ Circular No. 41 by resorting to an analogy. Contrary to its claim, it does not have inherent power to issue HDO, unlike the courts, or to restrict the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64165 35/70