6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly right to travel in anyway. It is limited to the powers expressly granted to it by law and may not extend the same on its own accord or by any skewed interpretation of its authority. The key is legislative enactment The Court recognizes the predicament which compelled the DOJ to issue the questioned circular but the solution does not lie in taking constitutional shortcuts. Remember that the Constitution "is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights are determined and all public authority administered."[142] Any law or issuance, therefore, must not contradict the language of the fundamental law of the land; otherwise, it shall be struck down for being unconstitutional. Consistent with the foregoing, the DOJ may not promulgate rules that have a negative impact on constitutionally-protected rights without the authority of a valid law. Even with the predicament of preventing the proliferation of crimes and evasion of criminal responsibility, it may not overstep constitutional boundaries and skirt the prescribed legal processes. That the subjects of DOJ Circular No. 41 are individuals who may have committed a wrong against the state does not warrant the intrusion in the enjoyment of their basic rights. They are nonetheless innocent individuals and suspicions on their guilt do not confer them lesser privileges to enjoy. As emphatically pronounced in Secretary of National Defense vs. Manalo, et al.,[143] the constitution is an overarching sky that covers all in its protection. It affords protection to citizens without distinction. Even the most despicable person deserves the same respect in the enjoyment of his rights as the upright and abiding. Let it also be emphasized that this Court fully realizes the dilemma of the DOJ. The resolution of the issues in the instant petitions was partly aimed at encouraging the legislature to do its part and enact the necessary law so that the DOJ may be able to pursue its prosecutorial duties without trampling on constitutionally-protected rights. Without a valid legislation, the DOJ's actions will perpetually be met with legal hurdles to the detriment of the due administration of justice. The challenge therefore is for the legislature to address this problem in the form of a legislation that will identify permissible intrusions in the right to travel. Unless this is done, the government will continuously be confronted with questions on the legality of their actions to the detriment of the implementation of government processes and realization of its objectives. In the meantime, the DOJ may remedy its quandary by exercising more vigilance and efficiency in the performance of its duties. This can be accomplished by expediency in the assessment of complaints filed before its office and in the prompt filing of information in court should there be an affirmative finding of probable cause so that it may legally request for the issuance of HDO and hold the accused for trial. Clearly, the solution lies not in resorting to constitutional shortcuts but in an efficient and effective performance of its prosecutorial duties. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64165 36/70