During the height of the Covid-19 Pandemic, the right to travel of individuals including the right to change residence or remain were greatly interfered with. Quarantines were declared and people were ordered to stay at home to stop the spread of the virus. People however, became restless or unaccustomed to the restrictions that there have been numerous violations of the directives to stay at home or not to travel. It was one of the biggest issues during the pandemic. At least there was the Covid-19 as justification for the restrictions on travel and forced quarantine and most people obliged because of their fear of the dreaded virus. I was asked one question by some community members: Can the community banish or expel one of their members who is consistently obnoxious? Can they sign a petition ordering that person to leave the Barangay and live somewhere else? This is answered by Section 6 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution: “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.” Those mentioned by the constitution are the only instances when a person may be compelled to change residence or banned from establishing one. Of course an individual who prohibits a person from entering or residing within his private compound does not violate this provision of the Constitution.
Zacarias Case
A city mayor rounded up several women from “houses of ill repute” and in the cover of the night forced them to board a ship to Mindanao. There, they were received by some employers without knowing that they were deportees from Manila. The mayor justified his move as one which was undertaken to rid Manila of prostitutes to restore morality in the capital city. What a well intended move! Perhaps the only opposition would come from the clients who need the services of the expelled women and of course those whose livelihood will be jeopardized. The SC granted the habeas corpus petition because there was no law whatsoever that grants the mayor or the chief of police the power and authority to force the 170 women to change their domicile. No matter how good the intention of the mayor might be, no law or order was promulgated that would justify his move. There was also no order from any court to the effect that those women should be relocated somewhere else against their will or without their consent.
