I. Nature of Cyber Libel Under Philippine Law

Cyber libel is governed primarily by Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012), particularly Section 4(c)(4), which expressly makes the commission of libel through a computer system or any other similar means a cybercrime offense. The provision incorporates by reference the definition of libel under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), but Section 6 of RA 10175 imposes a penalty that is one degree higher than ordinary libel.

The imposable penalty for cyber libel is therefore prisión mayor in its minimum and medium periods (6 years and 1 day to 10 years), or in some interpretations and applications, up to prisión mayor maximum (up to 12 years) depending on the presence of aggravating circumstances or the manner of publication. Because the penalty exceeds six (6) years of imprisonment, cyber libel cases fall squarely within the category of offenses where the Department of Justice (DOJ) and courts routinely consider the issuance of restrictive orders to prevent the accused from absconding.

The crime is public in nature (despite being initiated by private complaint) once the information is filed in court, and it is non-bailable when evidence of guilt is strong in cases where the penalty exceeds reclusion perpetua threshold (though in practice, bail is almost always granted in cyber libel cases with recommended amounts ranging from ₱24,000 to ₱200,000 depending on the court and circumstances).

II. Legal Bases for Travel Restrictions in Criminal Cases

The right to travel under Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution is not absolute. It may be impaired upon lawful order of the court or when necessary in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health.

The specific mechanisms for restricting travel in criminal cases are:

Hold Departure Order (HDO) – issued by the Secretary of Justice or by Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) in cases pending before them (Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 38-2003, as amended).
Watchlist Order (WLO) / Immigration Lookout Bulletin Order (ILBO) – precautionary measures issued by the DOJ that do not outright prevent departure but trigger secondary inspection and possible offloading by Bureau of Immigration (BI) officers.
Allow Departure Order (ADO) – required in some courts as a condition of bail when the accused wishes to travel abroad while the case is pending.
Blacklist Order – the most severe, used sparingly and usually only for convicted persons with final judgments or fugitives.

DOJ Department Circular No. 17 (s. 2018), as amended by Department Circular No. 006 (s. 2023), provides the current guidelines:

HDOs are issued only when there is a pending criminal case in court and there is risk of flight (penalty of more than 6 years and 1 day is a strong factor).
WLOs/ILBOs are issued even during preliminary investigation or when the case is on appeal.
All such orders are uploaded to the Bureau of Immigration’s database.

Because cyber libel carries a penalty exceeding six years, HDOs and WLOs are issued almost as a matter of course upon motion of the private complainant or the prosecutor, especially in politically charged or high-profile cases.

III. Effect of Dismissal or Acquittal on Travel Restrictions

A. Types of Dismissal and Their Finality

Dismissal during preliminary investigation (by Prosecutor) – No information is filed; technically no criminal case exists. Any precautionary WLO/ILBO should be lifted immediately upon issuance of the resolution. In practice, however, the name often remains in the BI system until a formal motion to lift is filed.
Provisional dismissal in court (Rule 117, Section 8, Rules of Court) – Requires consent of the accused and becomes permanent after:
- 1 year for cases with penalty ≤ 6 years
- 2 years for cases with penalty > 6 years (cyber libel falls here) Once the period lapses without revival, the dismissal becomes permanent with the same effect as an acquittal.
Dismissal on merits / Acquittal – Absolute. The accused is immediately entitled to all civil and political rights.
Dismissal via Demurrer to Evidence (after prosecution rests) or Motion to Quash – If granted with finality, equivalent to acquittal.

B. Legal Effect on Restrictive Orders

The rule is clear: upon finality of dismissal or acquittal, all hold departure orders, watchlist orders, and lookout bulletins grounded on that case must be lifted.

Supreme Court jurisprudence (G.R. No. 225640, Genuino v. De Lima, 2017; G.R. No. 247780, Delgado v. Court of Appeals, 2021) consistently holds that continued enforcement of an HDO/WLO after acquittal or permanent dismissal violates the constitutional right to travel.
DOJ Circular No. 006 (2023) explicitly requires the automatic cancellation of WLOs/ILBOs upon receipt of court certification that the case has been dismissed with finality or the accused acquitted.

IV. Procedure to Lift Travel Restrictions After Dismissal

Despite the clear legal rule, bureaucratic reality often intervenes. The following steps are required in practice:

Obtain a certified true copy of the Order/Resolution of Dismissal or Acquittal from the court or prosecutor’s office, with Certificate of Finality (if applicable).
Secure a Certification from the court/prosecutor that:
- There is no pending motion for reconsideration or appeal, or
- The reglementary period for appeal has lapsed.
File a Verified Motion to Lift HDO/WLO/ILBO with the Department of Justice – Office of the Secretary (or with the issuing RTC if the HDO was court-issued).
Attach:
- Court order of dismissal/acquittal with certificate of finality
- Clearance from the trial court (if applicable)
- NBI Clearance (sometimes required by BI)
- Proof that no other related cases are pending
Upon approval, the DOJ issues a Lift Order, which is transmitted to the Bureau of Immigration for delisting (usually within 3–10 working days).
For immediate travel needs, file an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Allow Departure Order or for Immediate Lifting, with proof of urgency (e.g., plane ticket, medical emergency, conference invitation).

In cases where multiple cyber libel complaints have been filed (a common harassment tactic), the accused must secure certifications that ALL related cases have been terminated; otherwise, the restriction remains.

V. Practical Realities and Persistent Problems (2020–2025)

Despite the legal framework, numerous documented instances show that persons with dismissed or even acquitted cyber libel cases continue to face offloading at Philippine airports. Reasons include:

Lag in database updating – BI systems sometimes retain names for months after DOJ lift orders.
Multiple docket numbers – complainants file identical complaints in different cities; dismissal in one court does not automatically affect others.
Pending appeals or motions for reconsideration – private complainants routinely file MRs or petitions for review to keep the accused grounded.
ILBOs issued during preliminary investigation that are never formally lifted because no information was ever filed.
Human error or malice – BI officers sometimes demand court clearances even when none are legally required.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished the DOJ and BI for these practices (see Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan [SPARK] v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 225442, and subsequent resolutions).

As of 2025, the DOJ’s online verification portal (introduced in 2023) allows individuals to check their derogatory status, but it is not always accurate or real-time.

VI. Recommendations for Accused Persons Facing Dismissed Cyber Libel Cases

Immediately move for the lifting of any HDO/WLO upon receipt of the dismissal order.
Secure court certification of no pending case before purchasing international tickets.
Retain counsel familiar with DOJ-BI processes.
If offloaded despite dismissal, file an administrative complaint against the BI officer and a petition for mandamus/certiorari with the Court of Appeals to compel lifting of the derogatory record.

Conclusion

While Philippine law is unequivocal that dismissal or acquittal of a cyber libel case — whether provisional (with lapse) or on the merits — extinguishes any lawful basis for travel restrictions, the practical reality is far less accommodating. The combination of high penalty, ease of multiple filings, and bureaucratic inertia means that even completely exonerated individuals frequently remain effectively grounded until they actively pursue administrative and judicial remedies.

In an environment where cyber libel complaints have been weaponized against journalists, critics, and ordinary citizens, the persistence of travel restrictions long after case termination represents one of the most tangible continuing punishments of an already constitutionally questionable law. Until systemic reforms are implemented — including mandatory 48-hour delisting upon finality and severe sanctions for wrongful offloading — dismissed cyber libel cases will continue to cast a long shadow over the constitutional right to travel.