6/7/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
3. Watchlist Order No. 2011-573 dated October 27, 2011.[3]
In a Supplemental Petition, petitioner Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) further seeks the
invalidation of the Order[4] dated November 8, 2011, denying her application for an
Allow-Departure Order (ADO).
Similarly, in G.R. No. 197930, petitioners Efraim C. Genuino (Efraim), Erwin F. Genuino
(Erwin) and Sheryl Genuino-See (Genuinos) pray for the nullification of the HoldDeparture Order[5] (HDO) No. 2011-64 dated July 22, 2011 issued against them.
Antecedent Facts
On March 19, 1998, then DOJ Secretary Silvestre H. Bello III issued DOJ Circular No.
17, prescribing rules and regulations governing the issuance of HDOs. The said
issuance was intended to restrain the indiscriminate issuance of HDOs which impinge
on the people's right to travel.
On April 23, 2007, former DOJ Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez issued DOJ Circular No. 18,
prescribing rules and regulations governing the issuance and implementation of
watchlist orders. In particular, it provides for the power of the DOJ Secretary to issue a
Watchlist Order (WLO) against persons with criminal cases pending preliminary
investigation or petition for review before the DOJ. Further, it states that the DOJ
Secretary may issue an ADO to a person subject of a WLO who intends to leave the
country for some exceptional reasons.[6] Even with the promulgation of DOJ Circular
No. 18, however, DOJ Circular No. 17 remained the governing rule on the issuance of
HDOs by the DOJ.
On May 25, 2010, then Acting DOJ Secretary Alberto C. Agra issued the assailed DOJ
Circular No. 41, consolidating DOJ Circular Nos. 17 and 18, which will govern the
issuance and implementation of HDOs, WLOs, and ADOs. Section 10 of DOJ Circular No.
41 expressly repealed all rules and regulations contained in DOJ Circular Nos. 17 and
18, as well as all instructions, issuances or orders or parts thereof which are
inconsistent with its provisions.
After the expiration of GMA's term as President of the Republic of the Philippines and
her subsequent election as Pampanga representative, criminal complaints were filed
against her before the DOJ, particularly:
(a) XVI-INV-10H-00251, entitled Danilo A. Lihaylihay vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et
al., for plunder;[7]
(b) XVI-INV-11D-00170, entitled Francisco I. Chavez vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et
al., for plunder, malversation and/or illegal use of OWWA funds, graft and corruption,
violation of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), violation of the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials, and qualified theft;[8] and
(c) XVI-INV-11F-00238, entitled Francisco I. Chavez vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64165
2/70