Hold-Departure Orders and Naturalized Philippine Citizens
A comprehensive Philippine-law primer (as of 5 July 2025)
1. What is a Hold-Departure Order (HDO)?
| Key point | Authority | When issued |
|---|---|---|
| HDO – a court directive to the Bureau of Immigration (BI) commanding it not to clear a named person for outbound international travel | 1987 Constitution art. III § 6 (right to travel may be impaired “as may be provided by law”); Supreme Court Admin. Circular No. 39-97 (19 Jun 1997); the 2018 Rule on Precautionary Hold-Departure Orders (A.M. No. 18-04-05-SC; effective 15 Aug 2018) | ① After criminal information is filed (classic HDO) – usually by the trial court motu proprio or on motion of the prosecutor/complainant. ② Precautionary HDO (PHDO) – before information is filed, upon sworn application by a prosecutor who has found probable cause and a high risk of flight. |
Other travel-restriction instruments you may encounter:
- Watch-List Order (WLO) – once issuable by the DOJ under Dept. Circular No. 41-2010; struck down in Leonen v. Sec. of Justice (G.R. No. 225050, 25 Jan 2022) for lack of statutory basis.
- Immigration Look-Out Bulletin Order (ILBO) – now the DOJ’s principal administrative alert; it is not a travel ban but warns BI to coordinate with prosecutors before clearing departure.
- No-Fly List under anti-terror rules (RA 11479, 2020) – requires judicial authorization.
2. General requisites for an HDO / PHDO
Jurisdiction & probable cause
- Regular HDO: a criminal case cognizable by the issuing court must already exist.
- PHDO: a judge of any RTC, MTC, or MCTC in the city/municipality where the complaint is pending may issue the order on ex parte application by a prosecutor who personally examined the complainant and supporting evidence.
Personal particulars – full name, aliases, date & place of birth, nationality, passport number, last known address, and photograph (if available).
Forwarding – the clerk of court must transmit the order within 24 h to the BI, the DFA, and the DOJ for enforcement and inclusion in the border-control database.
Lifting/suspension – may be ordered by the same court only on motion of the accused (after arraignment, posting of bail, dismissal or acquittal, or other equitable grounds) and after notice/hearing.
3. Citizenship and the BI’s power to exclude
The Bureau of Immigration’s jurisdiction is limited to aliens. Once a person becomes a Philippine citizen—whether natural-born (Const. art. IV § 1) or naturalized (Commonwealth Act 473, RA 9139, RA 9225 dual-citizen reacquisition, special laws)—that person:
- Is not subject to exclusion or deportation under the Immigration Act (CA 613) unless citizenship is first validly revoked or nullified; and
- May leave and re-enter on a Philippine passport, subject only to valid court orders or statutory restrictions equally applicable to all citizens.
Practical consequence: The BI cannot on its own issue a “hold” against a naturalized Filipino merely because he once was a foreign national; it must rely on a valid HDO/PHDO, ILBO, anti-terror order, or an executive hold under martial law or suspension of habeas corpus.
4. Applicability of HDOs to Naturalized Citizens
| Scenario | Can an HDO issue? | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Pending criminal case (e.g., estafa) where the accused has been naturalized | Yes – identical rules apply to natural-born and naturalized citizens | Citizenship class does not affect the court’s power once jurisdiction over the person attaches. |
| Criminal complaint still with prosecutor; flight risk shown | Yes, via PHDO | Prosecutor applies; judge evaluates probable cause & necessity. |
| Administrative denaturalization case (under CA 473 § 18) | Mixed – courts sometimes issue a status quo or injunctive order; a formal HDO is rarer because the proceeding is civil-special in nature | If criminal falsification or perjury charges accompany the denaturalization petition, an HDO/PHDO may issue in that criminal case. |
| DOJ investigations with no criminal complaint yet (e.g., alleged cyber-libel) | No HDO until PHDO requisites met; DOJ may instead request an ILBO | ILBO merely triggers secondary inspection; it cannot by itself forbid departure. |
| Naturalized Filipino traveling on former foreign passport | BI will treat traveller as an alien unless Filipino passport or proof of citizenship is presented; if doubt exists, BI may defer departure pending evidence, but it still needs a formal order to hold | Dual citizenship under RA 9225 allows both passports; but renunciation during naturalization normally requires surrender of old passport. |
5. Interaction with the Right to Travel
The Bill of Rights protects liberty of abode and the right to travel. The Supreme Court’s controlling standards (key cases below) demand:
- Legal basis – a statute or rule promulgated by the Court (not mere executive circular) authorizing restriction;
- Substantive grounds – national security, public safety, public health or an existing criminal process;
- Procedural due process – notice, opportunity to be heard, and judicial determination of probable cause.
Key jurisprudence
- Salonga v. Paño (G.R. No. 59524, 18 Feb 1985) – blanket travel ban on Senator Salonga held unconstitutional for lack of pending information and for violating due process.
- Silverio v. RTC (G.R. No. 173118, 12 Apr 2007) – clarified that the right to travel may be impaired by a court in a pending criminal case.
- Leonen v. Sec. of Justice (G.R. No. 225050, 25 Jan 2022) – DOJ Watch-List Orders struck down; only courts may impose travel bans.
- A.M. No. 18-04-05-SC – codified PHDO procedure, balancing flight risk against the constitutional liberty to travel.
6. Lifting and Remedies
| Remedy | Who may file | Grounds / requirements |
|---|---|---|
| Motion to recall HDO/PHDO | Accused / respondent | Bail posted; arraignment & trial underway; case dismissed; acquittal; or proof of necessity to travel and willingness to post travel bond. |
| Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65) | Accused | To challenge HDO before the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court on jurisdictional / due-process grounds. |
| Motion for temporary travel allowance | Accused | Must show urgency, itinerary, dates, contact details, and sometimes post a cash travel bond (₱30 k–₱300 k at court’s discretion). |
7. Comparative Notes: Watch-List vs HDO vs PHDO
| Watch-List (defunct) | ILBO | HDO | PHDO | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Issuing authority | DOJ Secretary (executive) | DOJ Secretary | Trial court where case is filed | Any first- or second-level court where complaint is pending |
| Nature | Travel ban (struck down) | Alert only | Travel ban | Travel ban |
| Stage | Administrative investigation | Preliminary investigation | After information filed | Before filing but probable cause found |
| Duration | 60 days (renewable) | Indefinite until lifted by DOJ | Until lifted by court | Until lifted by court or filing/dismissal of case |
8. Special considerations for Naturalized Citizens
- No BI deportation power – They can be deported only after citizenship is cancelled by competent court proceedings.
- Revocation of naturalization (CA 473 § 18; RA 9139 § 10) may lead to reclassification as alien, after which BI can issue its own hold/deportation orders.
- Dual citizens under RA 9225 enjoy citizen status inside the Philippines; BI cannot treat them as aliens when they present a PH passport—even if they exit on a foreign passport.
- Foreign-passport travel can trigger secondary inspection or misidentification; prudent naturalized citizens should travel on their Philippine passports to avoid accidental enforcement of alien-targeted holds.
9. Practical guidance for lawyers & individuals
- Always verify: Ask BI-Legal and the court for certified copies of any HDO/PHDO to check scope, date, and correct personal details.
- Rectify errors promptly: Misspelled names and mistaken identity have led to wrongful off-loading; courts entertain urgent motions to amend or lift defective orders.
- Plan travel: If accused needs to travel (e.g., medical treatment abroad), prepare a detailed itinerary, documentary proof, and a proposed travel bond. File the motion well ahead of departure.
- Post-dismissal cleanup: After acquittal or case dismissal, move immediately for recall of the HDO and furnish BI with a certified court order. BI’s database updates are not automatic.
- Denaturalization exposure: For naturalized citizens facing cancellation of citizenship, remember that the proceeding itself does not yet empower BI to restrain departure. However, concurrent criminal charges (false statements, perjury, immigration fraud) will justify an HDO/PHDO.
10. Conclusion
A naturalized Filipino enjoys the same constitutional right to travel as one who is natural-born; but like any citizen, that right yields to lawful court-ordered Hold-Departure or Precautionary Hold-Departure Orders grounded on criminal process or pressing public interests. Immigration authorities cannot unilaterally bar departure of a citizen—naturalized or otherwise—without such judicial authority. Understanding the precise legal basis, stage of proceedings, and remedies ensures both enforcement agencies and affected individuals respect the delicate balance between state interests and individual liberties enshrined in Philippine law.
(This article is for educational purposes only and is not a substitute for tailored legal advice. Laws and jurisprudence cited are current up to 5 July 2025.)