The Supreme Court building in Padre Faura, Manila on August 24, 2022. George Calvelo, ABS-CBN News/File
MANILA — The Supreme Court has clarified that a precautionary hold departure order (PHDO) may only be issued in cases involving crimes with the minimum penalty of six years and one day of imprisonment or if the respondent is a foreigner.
ALAMIN: Pagkakaiba ng ILBO, HDO at PHDO
In the decision of the 3rd Division promulgated on January 13, 2026, the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Faustine Feliz Abad against GHT Travel and Tours was granted.
The case stemmed from the purchase of airline tickets made by Abad for participants in the Maharlika Pilipinas Basketball League in Canada using postdated checks which were later dishonored due to insufficient funds.
GHT owner Johanna Moulic filed a complaint for estafa under the Revised Penal Code and for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law.
The prosecution also sought a PHDO against Abad before the Regional Trial Court because she was allegedly a flight risk.
The RTC granted the request and Abad later on sought the lifting of the PHDO but the court denied her appeal.
The SC however ruled that the PHDO should have been lifted because according to Section 1 of the Rule on PHDO, it may only be issued while a criminal complaint is undergoing preliminary investigation when the crime involved carries a minimum penalty of at least six years and one day imprisonment.
The Supreme Court added that the estafa charge, which has a penalty exceeding six years and one day, was dismissed for lack of probable cause.
The BP 22 violations meantime were only punishable by 30 days to one year imprisonment.
The court stressed that the right to travel is guaranteed by the Constitution.
“At stake here is an enshrined constitutional right of an individual. That alone should have given the RTC pause whether to uphold the PHDO it had earlier issued,” the SC said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh.
The SC also noted that the mere possibility that Abad might later be charged with estafa, depending on the outcome of the appeal pending before the Department of Justice, was not sufficient to restrict that right.
The high court said there was no indication that the petitioner would depart, was about to depart or would defy Philippine courts, even if she is a permanent resident of the US or a green card holder.
“It would be incongruous for a court to continue restricting the right of a person to travel abroad if the Information filed against him or her does not meet the criteria for the issuance of a PHDO,” the court said.
OTHER NEWS