Manotoc v.

CA
G.R. No. L-62100. May 30, 1986. (BAIL)

FACTS: Petitioner Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr., is the President of Trans-Insular Management, Inc. and the Manotoc
Securities, Inc., a stock brokerage house. Petitioner then came home from the United States to file a petition with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the appointment of a management committee for the two companies which
was granted. The Securities and Exchange Commission then requested the Commissioner of Immigration not to
clear petitioner for departure while the SEC Case is pending; and a memorandum to this effect was issued by the
Commissioner to the Chief of the Immigration Regulation Division. Thereafter, the clients of Manotoc Securities,
Inc filed criminal complaints against Petitioner for committing estafa. Petitioner was admitted to bail in all cases.
Petitioner then filed for a motion for permission to leave the country, alleging that he desires to leave for the United
States in connection with the foreign investments in Manotoc Securities, which was denied by the RTC and the CA.
Hence, this petition. Petitioner contends that having been admitted to bail as a matter of right, neither the courts nor
the Securities and Exchange Commission could prevent him from exercising his constitutional right to travel.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners constitutional right to travel has been violated
HELD: The court held that petitioners constitutional right to travel was not violated. A court has the power to
prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines as a necessary consequence of the nature and function
of a bail bond. Bail is defined as the security required and given for the release of a person who is in the custody of
the law, that he will appear before any court in which his appearance may be required as stipulated in the bail bond
or recognizance. The imposes a condition upon the petitioner to make himself available at all times whenever the
court requires his presence, which operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel. Furthermore, petitioner has
not shown that there is an absolute necessity for him to travel abroad, the duration thereof, as well as the consent of
his surety to the proposed travel. The constitutional right to travel is not an absolute right; it may be restricted for the
interest of national security and public safety. Petition dismissed.