6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Service Exporters, Inc. vs. Drilon,[72] it was defined as the inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society. It is rooted in the conception that men in organizing the state and imposing upon its government limitations to safeguard constitutional rights did not intend thereby to enable an individual citizen or a group of citizens to obstruct unreasonably the enactment of such salutary measures calculated to ensure communal peace, safety, good order, and welfare.[73] Still, it must be underscored that in a constitutional government like ours, liberty is the rule and restraint the exception.[74] Thus, restrictions in the exercise of fundamental liberties are heavily guarded against so that they may not unreasonably interfere with the free exercise of constitutional guarantees. The right to travel and its limitations The right to travel is part of the "liberty" of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law.[75] It is part and parcel of the guarantee of freedom of movement that the Constitution affords its citizen. Pertinently, Section 6, Article III of the Constitution provides: Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety or public health, as maybe provided by law. Liberty under the foregoing clause includes the right to choose one's residence, to leave it whenever he pleases and to travel wherever he wills.[76] Thus, in Zacarias Villavicencio vs. Justo Lucban,[77] the Court held illegal the action of the Mayor of Manila in expelling women who were known prostitutes and sending them to Davao in order to eradicate vices and immoral activities proliferated by the said subjects. It was held that regardless of the mayor's laudable intentions, no person may compel another to change his residence without being expressly authorized by law or regulation. It is apparent, however, that the right to travel is not absolute. There are constitutional, statutory and inherent limitations regulating the right to travel. Section 6 itself provides that the right to travel may be impaired only in the interest of national security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law. In Silverio vs. Court of Appeals,[78] the Court elucidated, thus: Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the liberty of travel may be impaired even without Court Order, the appropriate executive officers or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. They can impose limits only on the basis of "national security, public safety, or public health" and "as may be provided by law," a limitive phrase which did not appear in the 1973 text (The Constitution, Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., Vol. I, First Edition, 1987, p. 263). Apparently, the phraseology in the 1987 Constitution was a reaction to the ban on international travel imposed under the previous elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64165 12/70