Executive summary

In the Philippines, there are two very different government tools people often lump together as a “watchlist”:

Court-issued restraints on travel – primarily Hold Departure Orders (HDOs) and warrants of arrest. These legally restrict departure and are enforceable at the border.
Administrative alerts – most commonly the Immigration/Lookout Bulletin Order (ILBO/LBO), which does not by itself prohibit travel. It alerts front-line officers to coordinate with prosecutors or courts and, in some cases, to briefly defer a passenger’s exit while verifying court process.

Understanding which tool applies—and when—is critical. A mere criminal complaint does not automatically stop a person at the airport. A court order (or an arrest warrant) is what legally restrains the right to travel; an ILBO merely assists authorities in monitoring potential flight risk.

Constitutional and statutory backdrop

Right to travel is guaranteed under the 1987 Constitution and may be impaired only as may be provided by law and in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, or by court order.
Bureau of Immigration (BI) operates under Commonwealth Act No. 613 (Philippine Immigration Act) and other issuances. BI controls ports of exit/entry and implements court orders, warrants, and lawful administrative directives.
Supreme Court doctrine has made clear that executive officials cannot, by themselves, issue binding travel bans absent statutory authority. After this clarification, the executive shifted from “watchlist orders” that purported to restrain travel to lookout bulletins that merely alert.

Practical takeaway: If you need to stop someone from leaving, you generally need a court order. If you need to monitor and receive alerts, you can ask for an ILBO/LBO from the Department of Justice (DOJ), which BI will implement administratively.

The main tools, compared

Tool	Who issues	Trigger stage	Legal effect at the airport	Typical purpose
Warrant of Arrest	Court	Usually upon finding probable cause after filing of Information	Passenger may be arrested; departure refused	Account for accused and place them before the court
Hold Departure Order (HDO)	Court (commonly RTC; some special laws/rules allow HDOs at earlier stages)	After a criminal case is filed in court (or as allowed by special rules)	Prohibits departure until lifted/expired	Prevent flight risk while case is pending
Immigration/Lookout Bulletin Order (ILBO/LBO)	DOJ (circulated to BI)	Upon request when a criminal complaint is pending before the prosecutor or when public interest so requires	Does not itself prohibit travel; alerts BI to coordinate/verify, and may trigger brief deferment for verification/notification	Track potential flight risks; ensure prosecutors/courts are alerted if subject attempts to depart
Blacklist (for aliens)	BI	Post-deportation order or finding of undesirability	Bars entry; can also affect departure/return	Immigration control for non-citizens

When (and why) to seek an ILBO/LBO

Seek an ILBO when:

A criminal complaint is pending before the prosecutor (no case in court yet) and there is a realistic flight risk.
An ongoing investigation or impending filing of an Information needs protection (e.g., complex fraud, public officer cases, high-value cybercrime).
There is overriding public interest (e.g., threats to national security or large-scale economic harm).

What an ILBO does:

Places the person on a lookout list circulated to immigration counters.
If the individual presents for departure, BI can flag and coordinate with the DOJ/prosecutor-of-record. In practice, this can lead to a short deferment while officers confirm whether an HDO, warrant, or other lawful basis exists (or is imminently issuable).
No ILBO alone may bar travel. If there is no warrant/HDO and no other legal basis, the person must be allowed to depart.

When (and why) to seek a Hold Departure Order

Seek an HDO when:

A criminal case is already filed in court, and the accused presents a flight risk.
The offense is non-bailable or punishable by significant imprisonment, or there are strong indicators of flight (past absconding, no fixed local residence, substantial foreign ties/resources).
The prosecution wants a clear, enforceable bar against exit while pre-trial, trial, or post-judgment remedies are ongoing.

What an HDO does:

Legally prohibits departure unless lifted by the issuing court.
Appears in BI systems so front-line officers can deny boarding without further coordination.

Standard workflows

A. From complaint (prosecutor) to ILBO

File the criminal complaint with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor (or appropriate special prosecutor).
Request an ILBO from the DOJ through the handling prosecutor or directly (practice varies). Include:
- Full name, known aliases, sex, nationality, birthdate, last known address
- Passport number (if known)
- Nature of offense, status of complaint, docket number, and brief statement of flight risk and public interest
- Your contact details for real-time coordination
Issuance & dissemination. DOJ circulates the ILBO to BI.
What happens at the airport. If the person attempts to depart, BI flags and coordinates with DOJ/prosecutor. Without a court order/warrant, the person cannot be held indefinitely; only reasonable verification may occur.
Next legal step. If probable cause is found and an Information is filed in court, the prosecution may move for an HDO (or rely on a warrant of arrest, if issued).

B. From court case to HDO (and/or warrant)

Information filed in court.
Motion for HDO (by the prosecution), citing flight risk and providing identifiers (same as above) plus case details (title, docket, stage).
Court action. If granted, the HDO is transmitted to BI for immediate enforcement.
Warrant of arrest. If issued, BI may arrest at the border and turn over the accused to proper authorities.

Evidentiary showing for flight risk (persuasive points)

Gravity of the offense and potential penalty
Past attempts to flee or record of non-appearance
Strong foreign ties (residency, assets, work) vs. weak local ties
Access to funds enabling abrupt relocation
Use of multiple identities/aliases
History of passport misuse or immigration violations

Courts weigh these factors alongside the constitutional right to travel. Narrow, well-documented requests fare best.

Special notes by case posture

Before a case is filed in court:
- An ILBO is the usual route.
- No categorical travel ban yet, but the alert preserves visibility and buys time for lawful process.
After filing in court but before arraignment:
- HDO and/or warrant are possible depending on the judge’s findings and motions filed.
- If bail is granted, the court may still maintain an HDO in appropriate cases, but it will be scrutinized for necessity and proportionality.
When the accused is abroad:
- HDO affects exit from the Philippines; it does not force return.
- For entry control (especially non-citizens), BI may rely on blacklisting and watchlists, subject to due process and international obligations.
- For citizens abroad, remedies typically involve extradition/MLA (if applicable), not immigration lists.

Duration, lifting, and data accuracy

ILBO/LBO:
- Typically time-bound and case-linked. If the complaint is dismissed or the public-interest rationale lapses, request cancellation or non-renewal.
- Update identifiers (correct spellings, new passport numbers) to avoid false positives or mistaken identity.
HDO:
- Remains until lifted by the issuing court, the case is terminated, or the order expires per its own terms.
- To travel for urgent reasons (medical treatment, critical work, family emergency), file a motion to travel explaining itinerary, guarantees, and return undertakings (e.g., waivers, additional bond).
Common pitfalls:
- Misspelled names or incomplete biographical data causing “no hit” at the border.
- Assuming an ILBO equals a travel ban; it doesn’t.
- Not informing BI/DOJ of case dismissals, leading to unnecessary alerts.

Roles and responsibilities

Complainant/Private counsel: Prepare a thorough ILBO request and, once in court, a well-grounded HDO motion (through the public/private prosecutor, as applicable).
Prosecutor: Screens flight-risk claims, endorses ILBO, and later moves for HDO with the court.
Court: Balances right to travel with risk of flight and interest of justice; issues HDOs and warrants when warranted.
Bureau of Immigration: Implements court orders and DOJ bulletins, conducts reasonable border control checks, and coordinates promptly.

Practical templates (checklist-style)

ILBO request (high-level contents):

Parties and docket: People v. [Name] (or I.S. No. for inquest/prelim investigation)
Offense(s) alleged and synopsis
Flight-risk narrative and public-interest justification
Complete identifiers (names/aliases, birthdate, nationality, passport no., photos if available)
Contact persons (24/7 numbers) for on-the-spot airport verification
Attachments: complaint, affidavits, evidence extracts showing risk

HDO motion (high-level contents):

Case title, docket, stage (e.g., pre-arraignment)
Penalty exposure and factors indicating risk of flight
Prior conduct (missed subpoenas, travel history, resources)
Specific prayer: issuance of an HDO and service on BI; in the alternative, narrowly tailored conditions (e.g., travel restricted to certain dates with undertakings)

Remedies and risk management

If stopped at the airport under an ILBO (and there’s no warrant/HDO):
- Cooperate with verification; present proof (dismissal order, bail order, court clearance).
- Unreasonable restraint can be challenged via urgent motion in the pending case, or extraordinary remedies if there’s clear abuse.
If subject to an HDO but needing urgent travel:
- File motion to travel with complete itinerary, purpose, medical proofs (if any), and return guarantees (contactable address, counsel’s undertaking, increased bond, consent to service by email/messaging).
If wrongly listed/mistaken identity:
- Write the DOJ (for ILBO) or move in court (for HDO) for correction or lifting; submit government-issued ID, passport, and certified court/Prosecution records.
- Ask BI to annotate records to prevent repeated misflags.

Ethical and privacy considerations

Use the least restrictive means consistent with the risk. An ILBO is appropriate for early-stage monitoring; seek an HDO only when justified.
Data minimization & accuracy: collect only what’s necessary; double-check spellings, numbers, and photographs.
Proportionality: Any restraint on movement must be necessary, time-bound when possible, and subject to review.

Frequently asked questions

1) Does filing a criminal complaint automatically keep the respondent from leaving? No. Filing a complaint does not by itself prevent departure. Without a court order or warrant, the person maintains the right to travel. An ILBO can be issued to monitor, but it is not a travel ban.

2) Can the DOJ/BI block travel without a court order? Only within the narrow bounds of immigration control and reasonable verification. A binding travel prohibition requires a court order (e.g., HDO) or warrant of arrest.

3) How fast can an ILBO be issued? It can be relatively quick in urgent cases, but it remains an alert, not a ban. For actual restraint, move the court for an HDO.

4) What if the accused already left the country? Consider extradition/MLA where treaties and statutes allow. An HDO affects departures from the Philippines, not foreign stays.

5) Are foreigners treated differently? BI has broader entry/exit controls over aliens (blacklists, visas, deportation). But citizens’ right to travel is specially protected and can be curtailed only under law or court order.

Bottom line

Use ILBO/LBO to monitor during the prosecutor stage or while building a case.
Seek HDO (and rely on warrants) to lawfully restrain travel once in court.
Draft requests narrowly, document flight risk, and keep data accurate and updated.
Always align with the constitutional right to travel and the principles of necessity and proportionality.