EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-53622. April 25, 1980.]

JOVITO R. SALONGA , petitioner, vs. CAPTAIN ROLANDO HERMOSO,

DECISION

FERNANDO , C.J : p

This is not the rst time petitioner Jovito R. Salonga came to this Tribunal by way
of a mandamus proceeding to compel the issuance to him of a certi cate of eligibility
to travel. In the first case, Salonga v. Madella, 1 the case became moot and academic as
the O ce of the Solicitor General, in its answer to the petition, stated that the travel
eligibility certi cate was not denied and, as a matter of fact, had been granted.
Nonetheless, a brief separate opinion was led, concurring in the resolution, and
worded thus: "Clearly this petition had assumed a moot and academic character. Its
dismissal is thus indicated. May I just add these few words as my response to the plea
of petitioner in his Manifestation and Reply dated October 28, 1978. This is how I would
view the matter not only where petitioner is concerned but in all other similar cases.
Respondent Travel Processing Center should discharge its function conformably to the
mandate of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the right to travel. One of the
highlights of the keynote address of President Marcos in the Manila World Law
Conference in celebration of the World Peace Through Law Day on August 21, 1977
was the lifting of 'the ban on international travel.' There should be delity to such a
pronouncement. It is the experience of the undersigned in his lectures abroad the last
few years, in the United States as well as in Malaysia, Singapore and Australia, that
respect accorded constitutional rights under the present emergency regime had
elicited the commendation of members of the bench, the bar, and the academe in
foreign lands. It is likewise worthy of notice that in his keynote address to the
International Law Association, President Marcos made reference to martial law being
instituted in accordance with law and that the Constitution had been applied in
appropriate cases. As an agency of the executive branch, therefore, the Travel
Processing Center should ever be on its guard, lest the impression be created that such
declarations amount, to paraphrase Justice Jackson, to no more than muni cent
bequests in a pauper's will. Petitioner, to my mind, is justi ed, the more so in the light of
the Answer of Acting Solicitor General Vicente Mendoza, to an a rmative response to
his prayer in his Manifestation and Reply 'that under the circumstances mentioned in
the Petition, Petitioner is entitled to travel abroad, and that it is in recognition of this
right that Respondents have issued his Certi cate of Eligibility to Travel, as mentioned
in the Answer.'" 2
The present petition is likewise impressed with a moot and academic aspect. In
the motion to dismiss of the Solicitor General dated April 21, 1980, it was stated that
the certi cate of eligibility to travel had been granted petitioner. A xeroxed copy was
enclosed. A resolution for dismissal is, therefore, in order. Cdpr

From the docket of this Court, it appears that other petitions of this character
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 had been led in the past, namely, Santos v. The Special Committee on Travel Abroad, 3
Pimentel v. Travel Processing Center, 4 and Gonzales v. Special Committee on Travel. 5
In the aforesaid cases, as in this and the earlier Salonga petition, there was no occasion
to pass on the merits of the controversy as the certi cates of eligibility to travel were
granted. The necessity for any ruling was thus obviated. Nonetheless, in view of the
likelihood that in the future this Court may be faced again with a situation like the
present which takes up its time and energy needlessly, it is desirable that respondent
Travel Processing Center should exercise the utmost care to avoid the impression that
certain citizens desirous of exercising their constitutional right to travel could be
subjected to inconvenience or annoyance. In the address of President and Prime
Minister Ferdinand E. Marcos before the American Newspaper Publishers Association
last Tuesday April 22, 1980, he emphasized anew the respect accorded constitutional
rights. The freedom to travel is certainly one of the most cherished. He cited with
approval the ringing a rmation of Willoughby, who, as he noted was "partial to the
claims of liberty." 6 Burdick 7 and Willis, 8 both of whom were equally convinced that
there be no erosion to human rights even in times of martial law, likewise received from
President Marcos the accolade of his approval. It would appear, therefore, that in case
of doubt of the O cer-in-Charge of the Travel Processing Center, the view of General
Fabian Ver should immediately be sought. It goes without saying that the petition for
such certi cate of eligibility to travel be led at the earliest opportunity to facilitate the
granting thereof and preclude any disclaimer as to the person desiring to travel being in
any way responsible for any delay.
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for being moot and academic.
Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De
Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Antonio, J., is on leave.

Separate Opinions
TEEHANKEE, J., concurring:

I n Salonga vs. Medalla * after the therein public respondents in charge of the
Travel Processing Center had issued in 1978 to herein petitioner the corresponding
travel permit or certi cate, I remarked "that the issuance of the travel certi cate
necessarily is a recognition of petitioner's right to travel under the present
circumstances."
The circumstances have not changed in any manner. Petitioner is the holder of a
Philippine passport issued on March 3, 1980 and valid up to March 1982 and has
urgent medical appointments and o cial engagements as the only Filipino member of
the Board of Trustees of the United Board for Higher Christian Education in Asia based
in New York. His last trip abroad was from February 21, 1980 — March 15, 1980
without any complaint from any government agency. There seems no valid basis for the
the delay in the issuance of petitioner's travel permit (which he had long applied for on
April 1, 1980) and for his representative to have had to follow up in vain daily from the
scheduled release date of April 11, 1980 until he was constrained to le the present
petition on April 18th as his scheduled trip on April 23rd was in jeopardy (while all other
applications had already been long acted upon favorably). LexLib

As the Chief Justice stresses in the Court's resolution "it is desirable that
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 respondent Travel Processing Center should exercise the utmost care to avoid the
impression that certain citizens desirous of exercising their constitutional right to travel
could be subjected to inconvenience or annoyance." Under the antecedents, with
petitioner having previously established his right to travel as sanctioned by the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs which duly issued him his passport, petitioner has cause to complain
that he should not be placed by respondents on their "watch list", without bene t of
previous notice and hearing so as to be afforded the opportunity to rebut whatever
adverse information might have been compiled or given in secret against him.
Finally, it is not amiss to call the attention of the public o cials concerned to the
provisions of Article 27 of the Civil Code that "Any person suffering material or moral
loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to
perform his o cial duty may le an action for damages and other relief against the
latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken."

Footnotes

1. L-49130.

2. Resolution of November 2, 1978. The writer of this brief resolution is the author of the
opinion. The then Justices Muñoz Palma and Santos, now both retired, as well as
Justice Fernandez, concurred.
3. L-45748.

4. L-49637.

5. L-46466.

6. 3 Willoughby on the Constitution of the United States, 2nd ed., 1591 (1929).

7. Burdick, The Law of the American Constitution, 261 (1922).

8. Willis on Constitutional Law, 449 (1936).

TEEHANKEE, J., concurring:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com