6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Pursuant to Section 1 of D.C. No. 41, this Order is valid for a period of five (5) years unless sooner terminated. SO ORDERED. (Emphasis ours) On its face, the language of the foregoing issuances does not contain an explicit restraint on the right to travel. The issuances seemed to be a mere directive from to the BI officials to include the named individuals in the watchlist of the agency. Noticeably, however, all of the WLOs contained a common reference to DOJ Circular No. 41, where the authority to issue the same apparently emanates, and from which the restriction on the right to travel can be traced. Section 5 thereof provides, thus: Section 5. HDO/WLO Lifting or Cancellation - In the lifting or cancellation of the HDO/WLO issued pursuant to this Circular, the following shall apply: (a) The HDO may be lifted or cancelled under any of the following grounds: 1. When the validity period of the HDO as provided for in the preceding section has already expired; 2. When the accused subject of the HDO has been allowed to leave the country during the pendency of the case, or has been acquitted of the charge, or the case in which the warrant/order of arrest was issued has been dismissed or the warrant/order of arrest has been recalled; 3. When the civil or labor case or case before an administrative agency of the government wherein the presence of the alien subject of the HDO/WLO has been dismissed by the court or by appropriate government agency, or the alien has been discharged as a witness therein, or the alien has been allowed to leave the country; (b) The WLO may be lifted or cancelled under any of the following grounds: 1. When the validity period of the WLO as provided for in the preceding section has already expired; 2. When the accused subject of the WLO has been allowed by the court to leave the country during the pendency of the case, or has been acquitted of the charge; and 3. When the preliminary investigation is terminated, or when the petition for review, or motion for reconsideration has been denied and/or dismissed. xxxx That the subject of a HDO or WLO suffers restriction in the right to travel is implied in the fact that under Sections 5(a) (2) and 5(b) (2), the concerned individual had to seek permission to leave the country from the court during the pendency of the case against him. Further, in 5 (b) (3), he may not leave unless the preliminary investigation of the case in which he is involved has been terminated. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64165 32/70