6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly cases within the jurisdiction of the MTC[121] and against defendants, respondents and witnesses in labor or administrative cases,[122] no matter how unwilling they may be. He may also issue WLO against accused in criminal cases pending before the RTC,[123] therefore making himself in equal footing with the RTC, which is authorized by law to issue HDO in the same instance. The DOJ Secretary may likewise issue WLO against respondents in criminal cases pending preliminary investigation, petition for review or motion for reconsideration before the DOJ.[124] More striking is the authority of the DOJ Secretary to issue a HDO or WLO motu proprio, even in the absence of the grounds stated in the issuance if he deems necessary in the interest of national security, public safety or public health.[125] It bears noting as well that the effect of the HDO and WLO in DOJ Circular No. 41 is too obtrusive as it remains effective even after the lapse of its validity period as long as the DOJ Secretary does not approve the lifting or cancellation of the same. Thus, the respondent continually suffers the restraint in his mobility as he awaits a favorable indorsement of the government agency that requested for the issuance of the HDO or WLO and the affirmation of the DOJ Secretary even as the HDO or WLO against him had become functus officio with its expiration. It did not also escape the attention of the Court that the DOJ Secretary has authorized himself to permit a person subject of HDO or WLO to travel through the issuance of an ADO upon showing of "exceptional reasons" to grant the same. The grant, however, is entirely dependent on the sole discretion of the DOJ Secretary based on his assessment of the grounds stated in the application. The constitutional violations of DOJ Circular No. 41 are too gross to brush aside particularly its assumption that the DOJ Secretary's determination of the necessity of the issuance of HDO or WLO can take the place of a law that authorizes the restraint in the right to travel only in the interest of national security, public safety or public health. The DOJ Secretary has recognized himself as the sole authority in the issuance and cancellation of HDO or WLO and in the determination of the sufficiency of the grounds for an ADO. The consequence is that the exercise of the right to travel of persons subject of preliminary investigation or criminal cases in court is indiscriminately subjected to the discretion of the DOJ Secretary. This is precisely the situation that the 1987 Constitution seeks to avoid—for an executive officer to impose restriction or exercise discretion that unreasonably impair an individual's right to travel- thus, the addition of the phrase, "as maybe provided by law" in Section 6, Article III thereof. In Silverio, the Court underscored that this phraseology in the 1987 Constitution was a reaction to the ban on international travel imposed under the previous regime when there was a Travel Processing Center, which issued certificates of eligibility to travel upon application of an interested party.[126] The qualifying phrase is not a mere innocuous appendage. It secures the individual the absolute and free exercise of his right to travel at all times unless the more paramount considerations of national security, public safety and public health call for a temporary interference, but always under the authority of a law. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64165 26/70