6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In the same manner, it is apparent in Section 7 of the same circular that the subject of a HDO or WLO cannot leave the country unless he obtains an ADO. The said section reads as follows: Section 7. Allow Departure Order (ADO) - Any person subject of HDO/WLO issued pursuant to this Circular who intends, for some exceptional reasons, to leave the country may, upon application under oath with the Secretary of Justice, be issued an ADO. The ADO may be issued upon submission of the following requirements: (a) Affidavit stating clearly the purpose, inclusive period of the date of travel, and containing an undertaking to immediately report to the DOJ upon return; and (b) Authority to travel or travel clearance from the court or appropriate government office where the case upon which the issued HDO/WLO was based is pending, or from the investigating prosecutor in charge of the subject case. By requiring an ADO before the subject of a HDO or WLO is allowed to leave the country, the only plausible conclusion that can be made is that its mere issuance operates as a restraint on the right to travel. To make it even more difficult, the individual will need to cite an exceptional reason to justify the granting of an ADO. The WLO also does not bear a significant distinction from a HDO, thereby giving the impression that they are one and the same or, at the very least, complementary such that whatever is not covered in Section 1,[131] which pertains to the issuance of HDO, can conveniently fall under Section 2,[132] which calls for the issuance of WLO. In any case, there is an identical provision in DOJ Circular No. 41 which authorizes the Secretary of Justice to issue a HDO or WLO against anyone, motu proprio, in the interest of national security, public safety or public health. With this all-encompassing provision, there is nothing that can prevent the Secretary of Justice to prevent anyone from leaving the country under the guise of national security, public safety or public health. The exceptions to the right to travel are limited to those stated in Section 6, Article III of the Constitution The DOJ argues that Section 6, Article III of the Constitution is not an exclusive enumeration of the instances wherein the right to travel may be validly impaired.[133] It cites that this Court has its own administrative issuances restricting travel of its employees and that even lower courts may issue HDO even on grounds/outside of what is stated in the Constitution.[134] The argument fails to persuade. It bears reiterating that the power to issue HDO is inherent to the courts. The courts elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64165 33/70