Jinggoy camp says De Lima’s move to cancel his passport is a violation of his constitutional rights

MANILA-In a letter addressed to Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario, Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada through his counsel Estelito Mendoza, says that the cancellation of his passport would “amount to a crippling impairment of [his] fundamental right to travel and egregious violation of fundamental right to liberty.”

 

The letter was in response to the request of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima to the Department of Foreign Affairs for the expeditious cancellation of his passport last October 23.

 

The letter was received by the Central Records Division of the DFA on the same date November 14.

 

Sen. Estrada, through his counsel, opposes the cancellation of his passport as it is violative of his rights under the Constitution and international covenants, particularly Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which state that everyone has the right to leave and to return to his country.

 

Mendoza also slammed the remarks made by Sec. de Lima suggesting that Sen. Estrada would leave the country in order to evade arrest, detention and prosecution, and branded it as “utterly without foundation and terribly unkind.”

 

Mendoza asks that the DOJ’s request for the cancellation of passport of Sen. Estrada be “peremptorily rejected.”

 

He cited pertinent provisions of the Republic Act 8239 or the Philippine Passport Act of 1996 which enumerates the grounds for passport cancellation. To wit, Section 8 (b) provides the following: 1) When the holder is a fugitive from justice; 2) When the holder has been convicted of a criminal offense; 3) When the passport was acquired fraudulently or tampered with.

 

Mendoza also argues that the same law does not confer on the Secretary of Foreign Affairs the authority to cancel the passport of Estrada.

 

Section 4 of the Passport Act, he says, is not the law and may not be regarded as the law required by Section 6, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution to limit the right to travel in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health.

 

Mendoza adds that “it would be undue delegation of legislative power” to the DFA Secretary, and the power vested to him to cancel passports is limited to specific grounds provided under Section 8 of RA 8239.

 

Further, the Passport Act does not provide that the cancellation of passports of those who are accused of plunder before the Office of the Ombudsman is in the interest of national security.

 

Mendoza underscores that Sen. Estrada is not a fugitive from justice nor has been convicted of a criminal offense.

 

“No law has also been enacted prohibiting any person accused on plunder before the Office of the Ombudsman from leaving the country and obtaining a passport for that purpose or if one has been issued, for its cancellation,” he asserts.

 

Mendoza explains that before final judgment of conviction, not until the issuance of warrant of arrest by the Sandiganbayan upon determination of a probable cause may the right to travel of the accused be limited if the Sandiganbayan issues a hold departure order.

 

Any restraint of liberty, including right to travel, at any stage of criminal proceedings, not imposed by the Sandiganbayan is implicitly prohibited.

 

In essence, if granted, the request of Sec. de Lima for the cancellation of the passport of Sen. Estrada would inflict upon him punishment even before the Office of the Ombudsman finds adequate basis to conduct a preliminary investigation of the complaint of the National Bureau of Investigation.