6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The Court understands the dilemma of the government on the effect of the declaration of unconstitutionality of DOJ Circular No. 41, considering the real possibility that it may be utilized by suspected criminals, especially the affluent ones, to take the opportunity to immediately leave the country. While this is a legitimate concern, it bears stressing that the government is not completely powerless or incapable of preventing their departure or having them answer charges that may be subsequently filed against them. In his Separate Concurring Opinion, Mr. Justice Carpio, pointed out that Republic Act No. (R.A.) 8239, otherwise known as the Philippine Passport Act of 1996, explicitly grants the Secretary of Foreign Affairs or any of the authorized consular officers the authority to issue verify, restrict, cancel or refuse the issuance of a passport to a citizen under the circumstances mentioned in Section 4[144] thereof. Mr. Justice Tijam, on the other hand, mentioned Memorandum Circular No. 036, which was issued pursuant to R.A. No. 9208 or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, as amended by R.A. No. 10364 or the Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Acts of 2012, which authorizes the BI to hold the departure of suspected traffickers or trafficked individuals. He also noted that the Commissioner of BI has the authority to issue a HDO against a foreigner subject of deportation proceedings in order to ensure his appearance therein. Similarly, the proposal of Mr. Justice Velasco for the adoption of new set of rules which will allow the issuance of a precautionary warrant of arrest offers a promising solution to this quandary. This, the Court can do in recognition of the fact that laws and rules of procedure should evolve as the present circumstances require. Contempt charge against respondent De Lima It is well to remember that on November 18, 2011, a Resolution[145] was issued requiring De Lima to show cause why she should not be disciplinarily dealt or be held in contempt for failure to comply with the TRO issued by this Court. In view, however, of the complexity of the facts and corresponding full discussion that it rightfully deserves, the Court finds it more fitting to address the same in a separate proceeding. It is in the interest of fairness that there be a complete and exhaustive discussion on the matter since it entails the imposition of penalty that bears upon the fitness of the respondent as a member of the legal profession. The Court, therefore, finds it proper to deliberate and resolve the charge of contempt against De Lima in a separate proceeding that could accommodate a full opportunity for her to present her case and provide a better occasion for the Court to deliberate on her alleged disobedience to a lawful order. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisition, Department of Justice Circular No. 41 is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. All issuances which were released pursuant thereto are hereby declared NULL and VOID. The Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to REDOCKET the Resolution of the Court dated November 28, 2011, which required respondent Leila De Lima to show cause why she should not be cited in contempt, as a separate petition. SO ORDERED. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64165 37/70