ART. III, Section 6: LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL - 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 may be provided by law.

Liberty of Abode includes the right to choose ones residence, to leave whenever he pleases and to travel wherever he wills.

Right to Travel refers to the right to move from one place to another.

Limitations:1. Liberty of abode upon lawful order of the court2. Right to travela. In the interest of national security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law;b. Any person on bail

Liberty of Abode and Right to Travel may be impaired only upon lawful order of the court and within the limits prescribed by law.

Right to travel may be curtailed even by administrative authorities in the interest of national security, public safety or public health as may be proved by law.

RIGHT TO TRAVEL, SCOPE: The right to return to ones country is not included in the right to travel. The right to travel only includes:

a. The right to travel from the Philippines to another country; andb. The right to travel within the Philippines

CASES:

MANGLAPUS V. MARCOS the return of the Marcose's to the Philippines poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and the President decided to bar their return. The Marcoses had the capacity to stir trouble to the fanaticism and blind loyalty of their followers.

The Constitution declares among the guiding principles that "[t]he prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people" and that "[t]he maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy." The power involved is the President's residual power to protect the general welfareof the people. It is founded on the duty of the President, as steward of the people.

of an ordinary citizen.

ART. II, Section 28: Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.

LIMITATIONS ON THE RIGHT OF INFORMATION: The law may exempt certain types of information from public scrutiny, such as those affecting national security.

Availability of access to a particular public record must be circumscribed by the nature of the information sought, i.e.:

a. Being of public concern or one that involves public interest; andb. Not being exempted by law from the operation of the constitutional guarantee.

THRESHOLD QUESTION: Whether the information sought is of public interest or public concern.

CHAVEZ V. PCGG

ISSUE: Are the negotiations leading to a settlement on ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses within the scope of the constitutional guarantee of access to information?

HELD: It is incumbent upon the PCGG and its officers, as well as other government representatives, to disclose sufficient public information on any proposed settlement they have decided to take up with the ostensible owners and holders of ill-gotten wealth. Such information, though, must pertain to definite propositions of the government, not necessarily to intra-agency or inter-agency recommendations or communications during the stage when common assertions are still in the process of being formulated or are in the exploratory stage. There is a need, of course, to observe the same restrictions on disclosure of information in general -- such as on matters involving national security, diplomatic or foreign relations, intelligence and other classified information.

RESTRICTIONS ON THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION:

1. The exercise is subject to reasonable regulations to protect the integrity of public records and to minimize disruption of government operations;2. National Security matters. These include State secrets regarding military, diplomatic and other national security, and information on inter-government exchanges prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements.3. Trade secrets and banking transactions, pursuant to the Intellectual Property Law, and other related laws FACTS: This is a Petition for mandamus and prohibition requesting respondents to submit to them the full text of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA). Petitioner emphasize that the refusal of the government to disclose the said agreement violates there right to information on matters of public concern and of public interest. That the non-disclosure of the same documents undermines their right to effective and reasonable participation in all levels of social, political and economic decision making.

ISSUE: Are the JPEPA negotiations within the scope of the constitutional guarantee of access to information?

HELD: No. Secrecy of negotiations with foreign countries is not violative of the constitutional provisions of freedom of speech or of the press nor of the freedom of access to information.

The Court holds that, in determining whether information is covered by the right to information, a specific showing of need for such information is not a relevant consideration, but only whether the same is a matter of public concern. When, however, the government has claimed executive privilege, and it has established that the information is indeed covered by the same, then the party demanding it, if it is to overcome the privilege, must show that that the information is vital, not simply for the satisfaction of its curiosity, but for its ability to effectively and reasonably participate in social, political, and economic decision-making. The constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations before a final contract. The information, however, must constitute definite propositions by the government and should not cover recognized exceptions like privileged information, military and diplomatic secrets and similar matters affecting national security and public order.

ANTOLIN V. DOMONDON CPA examination

NERI V. SENATE

In Aid of legislation: Scope and limitations The power of Congress to conduct investigation in aid of legislation is broad. This is based on the proposition that a legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change. Inevitably, adjunct thereto is the compulsory process to enforce it. But the power has also its limitations. To be valid it is imperative that it is done in accordance with the Senate or House duly published rules of procedure and that the rights of the persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries be respected.

Protection of the people is the essence of the duty of government. The preservation of the State the fruition of the people's sovereignty is an obligation in the highest order. The President, sworn to preserve and defend the Constitution and to see the faithful execution the laws, cannot shirk from that responsibility.

VILLAVICENCIO V. LUKBAN, 39 SCRA 778 In 1918, the Mayor of Manila, wanting to exterminate vice, had "houses of ill repute" closed. He then had 170 prostitutes forcibly rounded up, put on a ship, and sent toDavaoas laborers. A writ of habeas corpuswas filed against the mayor on behalf of those women. The court granted the writ, but the mayor was not able to bring any of the women before the court on the stipulated date.

The Supreme Court said that the mayor's acts were not legal. His intent of "exterminating vice" was commendable, but there was no law saying that he could force Filipino citizens to change their domicile fromManilato another place. The women, said the Court, although in a sense "lepers of society" were still Filipino citizens and as such they were entitled to the constitutional guarantees enjoyed by all other Filipino citizens. The right to freedom of domicile was such a fundamental right that its suppression could be considered tantamount to slavery.

A COURT has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond.

ART. III, Section 7: RIGHT TO INFORMATION

SCOPE: 1. Right to information on matters of public concern, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development; and2. Corollary right of access to official records and documents.

AVAILABILITY: These are political rights that are available to citizens only.

This is without prejudice to the rights of aliens to have access to records of cases where they are involved. In any case, said right is subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

TEST: Whether the information sought is of public interest.

PUBLIC INTEREST Those which the public may want to know, either because these directly affect their lives, or simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest.and to the secrecy of the Bank Deposit Acts.4. Criminal matters or classified law enforcement matters, such as those relating to the apprehension, prosecution and detention of criminals, which court may not inquire into prior such arrest, detention and prosecution; and5. Other confidential matters

CONCEPTS RELATING TO THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION:

1. AS TO PUBLIC DOCUMENTS: The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizens, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. (Sec. 7, Art. III, Constitution)

Except perhaps when it is clear that the purpose of the examination is unlawful or sheer, idle curiosity.

2. ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS: Court orders and decisions, pleadings and other documents filed by parties to the case need not be matter of public concern or interest, and that access to public records may be restricted on showing of good cause.

3. RIGHT TO INFORMATION RELATIVE TO GOVERNMENT CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS: Parties to a government contract cannot stipulate that the terms thereof should be considered confidential and should be, open for examination by the public.

The right to information does not extend to matters recognized as privileged information under the separation of powers, by which the Court meant Presidential conversations, correspondences, and discussions in closed-door Cabinet meetings. (Neri v. Senate)

4. RIGHT TO INFORMATION RELATIVE TO DIPLOMATIC NEGOTIATIONS: The privileged character of diplomatic negotiations has been recognized in this jurisdiction. In discussing valid limitations on the right to information, the Court in Chavez v. PCGG held that information on inter-government exchanges prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements maybe subject to reasonable safeguards for the sake of national interest.

What is executive privilege?

It is the right of the President and high-level executive branch officials to withhold information from Congress, the courts and the public. It is a privilege of confidentiality which applies to certain types of information of a sensitive character that would be against the public interest to disclose. Executive privilege is based on the constitution because it relates to the Presidents effective discharge of executive powers. Its ultimate end is to promote public interest and no other.

POWERS OF SENATE IN INVITING PEOPLE FOR INQUIRY:

1. In aid of legislation2. In aid of its oversight function whether laws passed is properly implemented by the Executive.

ART. III, Section 8: RIGHT TO FORM ASSOCIATIONS

The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

Right to form associations shall not be impaired except through a valid exercise of police power.

This general provision is fortified in Art. IX-B, Section 2(5) which affirms that the right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees.

ALLIANCE OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS V. MOLE The Supreme Court held that members of the civil service may not declare a strike to enforce their economic demands.

PEOPLE V. FERRER One of the arguments raised against the Anti-Subversion Act was that it impaired the right of association. The SC did not agree, holding that the purpose of the Statute was to outlaw only those organizations aimed at the violent overthrow of the government. That the government has a right to protect itself against subversion in a proposition too plain to require elaboration. Self-preservation is the ultimate value of society. It surpasse4s and transcends every other value for if a society cannot protect its very structure from armed internal attackno subordinate value can be protected.

5