Advice on traveling abroad for a DEPED teacher

[Jordan & Jenet 48]

Hello All,

 

I'm wanting to meet my fiancé in Costa Rica during their school break in June maybe, But she is a teacher with DepED and they seem to have a thousand other rules about traveling or if she is even allowed.

 

Does anyone have experience in what our options might be for her to be able to travel outside of the normal Travel/health insurance, signing the document about dangers and risks of traveling etc....

Is a travel authority required? What is the risk of not telling anyone she is leaving for a vacation?

Thanks!
Jordan

[Adventine 3,187]

From my understanding, a travel authority is only required if she is travelling abroad on official business (as she is a government school teacher). I am not aware of any other restrictions.

 

However, as a private citizen going on a purely tourist trip, I think the normal tourist travel requirements will do (round trip ticket,  COVID test result, travel insurance with COVID coverage, proof of hotel bookings, approved leave from her employer, proof of financial capacity to travel, proof of sponsorship if you are paying for her, etc).

 

The risk of not telling anyone she is leaving for vacation, is that if they ask her about it, it can look bad if she says her employer doesn't know she's on holiday. 

 

She needs to answer truthfully, but also not volunteer anything that is not specifically asked. 

[Unoriginal 17]

Back in 2018, my then fiancé was denied exiting the country because she did not have a travel authority. At the time she was an employee of her LGU.  We were to take a short trip to Thailand but they would not let her through passport control without the travel authority.  She feels that if she had not stated that she was a gov't employee there would have been no problem.  After researching the issue afterwards, it seems that it was not required, but as with all things in the Philippines, the rules depend on the one applying them.  Just food for thought.

[seekingthetruth 1,218]

11 hours ago, Jordan & Jenet said:

Hello All,

 

I'm wanting to meet my fiancé in Costa Rica during their school break in June maybe, But she is a teacher with DepED and they seem to have a thousand other rules about traveling or if she is even allowed.

 

Does anyone have experience in what our options might be for her to be able to travel outside of the normal Travel/health insurance, signing the document about dangers and risks of traveling etc....

Is a travel authority required? What is the risk of not telling anyone she is leaving for a vacation?

Thanks!
Jordan

She needs to get the Travel Authority or whatever DepEd calls it.  My sister-in-law teaches at a public school in Manila and went with us to NZ a year ago.  She got the letter and was asked for it at immigration.  I'm not sure how they knew to ask but maybe they ask for your occupation.

[Adventine 3,187]

Thanks @Unoriginal and @seekingthetruth , I learned something new today too.

[notantifun 196]

Filipinos who work as civil servants (govt jobs) are required travel authority when leaving the country for both business and leasure. It's considered a grave misconduct and they could be dismissed from service if they leave the country without TA.  

[Chancy 6,233]

19 hours ago, Jordan & Jenet said:

Is a travel authority required? What is the risk of not telling anyone she is leaving for a vacation?

 

Yes, your fiancee will need travel authority even if her trip will be during the school break.  There is no way to bypass the exit interview at the airport so she will have to tell the immigration officer that she is traveling.  If she is not a frequent traveler, chances are high that she will be asked about her job and/or asked to present her work ID.  She will likely be denied boarding if she cannot show her travel authority to the BI officer.  I've personally witnessed this happening to a government employee ahead of me in line at NAIA.

 

[Jordan & Jenet 48]

1 hour ago, Chancy said:

 

Yes, your fiancee will need travel authority even if her trip will be during the school break.  There is no way to bypass the exit interview at the airport so she will have to tell the immigration officer that she is traveling.  If she is not a frequent traveler, chances are high that she will be asked about her job and/or asked to present her work ID.  She will likely be denied boarding if she cannot show her travel authority to the BI officer.  I've personally witnessed this happening to a government employee ahead of me in line at NAIA.

 

Geesh, It's starting to sound like being a government employee makes you a slave.

Thank you everyone for your answers, very helpful!

Jordan

[seekingthetruth 1,218]

16 minutes ago, Jordan & Jenet said:

Geesh, It's starting to sound like being a government employee makes you a slave.

Thank you everyone for your answers, very helpful!

Jordan

Make sure you request it early.  If I recall correctly, my SIL requested it well ahead of the trip and ended up having to pester them the week before the trip.

[Jordan & Jenet 48]

59 minutes ago, seekingthetruth said:

Make sure you request it early.  If I recall correctly, my SIL requested it well ahead of the trip and ended up having to pester them the week before the trip.

Thanks, I'm having her do it now. But her boss mentioned something about DepED having its own set of travel restrictions right now and to wait until march 1st. Sigh. I'm about to just have her quit and send the same salary monthly lol.....

Jordan

[seekingthetruth 1,218]

1 hour ago, Jordan & Jenet said:

Thanks, I'm having her do it now. But her boss mentioned something about DepED having its own set of travel restrictions right now and to wait until march 1st. Sigh. I'm about to just have her quit and send the same salary monthly lol.....

Jordan

Actually, that is what I did, for different reasons.  My wife then fiancé had a B1/B2 visa, so when I quit my job on April 1, 2012, she resigned a week later from her job with an American company, and in May, she flew to the U.S. to help me get my house ready to sell.  I sometimes regret that she quit because it was a good job and she enjoyed it, but we didn't need the money.

[flicks1998 1,044]

14 hours ago, Jordan & Jenet said:

Geesh, It's starting to sound like being a government employee makes you a slave.

Thank you everyone for your answers, very helpful!

Jordan

Maybe not as a slave, but as a child.   Besides not wanting my son in school in the Philippines, the 2nd main reason we decided to relocate back to the US was the mommy/daddy treatment that you see at all facets of life.  The assumption that nobody is to be trusted at all cost and must be micro-managed to death. 

[JohnnyAugustine 0]

 

https://legacy.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/13221119!.pdf

 

"The right to travel is a constitutionally protected right. It is a fundamental right, which occupies a preferred position in the hierarchy of values.

The right to travel is part of the liberty of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law and only on clear and compelling grounds of national security, public health and public safety as mandated by the Constitution."

 

"In any case, when there is a dilemma between an individual claiming the exercise of a constitutional right vis-a-vis the state's assertion of authority to restrict the same, any doubt must, at all times, be resolved in favor of the free exercise of the right, absent any explicit provision of law to the contrary."

 

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/1987-constitution/

 

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines-article-iii/

 

Article III

"(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him."

"(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.""

SECTION 6. 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.

 

"SECTION 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty."

 

Where is it in the constitution of Philippines, that an ordinary, law-obiding public school teacher could be deprived from his/her right to travel by a BI officer,  "without due process of law and only on clear and compelling grounds of national security, public health and public safety"? (How many times BI provided written evidence to off-loaded  public employees, teachers, as required by the constitution?)

 

Where is it in the constitution of Philippines, that an ordinary, law-obiding public school teacher should apply for a "DepEd travel permit" before attempting to travel abroad, if the person is not a "public threat" to anyone?  

Where is it in the constitution of Philippines that "DepEd administrators can sit on an application for 4-5 months, or as long as they want, - for no legal reason -, if they claim, they were "busy", and so,  effectively taking away the "right to travel" from their employees, - , or request to re-submit the application after several months, because they lost it (yes: happened!), and so making it absolutely impossible within the provided time-frame of application -, giving no reason or no explanation to the person who followed the above "imposed rules" , called "procedures" (not law!), that already had taken away their constitutional rights? 

Is it fair if any Deped adminstrator is telling the applicant: "You might get approval by the time of your travel" - and will DepEd pay for the substantial difference of air fare, hotel reservation, etc. due to the delay they caused?

  

Are these government offices intentionally force employees (even tell!, directly, during BI interviews!)  to first resign from their job - if they wanted to excercise their right of travel?

(The person who experienced that - and it happened - may only know one such case, being told by BI: "The right way you should do: first, resign from your job, before you wanted to find a job abroad! -  with no other witness than the interviewing BI officer: Which makes it one citizen against his/her government, and filing a complaint will be highly unlikely, in the fear or further retaliation, e.g. losing the right to travel forever, just quoting a "national security reason". Is not it "unlawful intimidation",  specifically forbidden in Constitution?)

 

Had any government employee (BI, DepEd) ever been taken legally responsible for all the damage they caused to individuals - for taking away their civil rights? 

How can "compensation and rehabilitation be provided to victims" (tens of thousands!), legally, who suffer from such power-abuse, if the abuser is the government itself, whose job would be to protect the right of citizens? 

Is there any legal process - against government offices, whose  procedures and practices are clearly "unconstitutional", without any reasonable doubt in a "resonable mind"?: Or anyone has doubt about the  conspiracy between BI and DepEd, creating  "internal procedures" - covering up their own actions by pointing at another agency/department, and saying: "We just protect our fellow citizens - because that is our job!" ?!! (What a "hypocrisy"! Definition: "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform....")

 

Oh, yes! An employee (teacher) must obey the employer (DepEd), even if the employer is restricting the practice of "constitutional rights", and that restriction is "enforced by BI": that is the "rule of employment", correct?  Why all those "rules" are not found in most democratic countries: e.g. USA or EU countries?  (Yes, they have their immigration laws and visa requirements: but not against their own citizens...

 

Or, in Philippines: "If someone tells us, we just cannot travel - because we do not meet his ( BI's, such&such) imposed - and unconstitutional - requirements: We just accept it - and never argue with the "uniform", even if we knew our "rights ", because those rights are only words on paper not worth of the ink?? 

Because "They have the Power, the Kingdom and the Glory - forever. Amen!"

 

What is the difference in civil rights of citizens of the old communist "Soviet Union" vs. Philippines?  

Why are the citizens of Philippines (the majority are very good people) so "obedient", that they voluntarily give up their civil rights against their own "elected government": including the "right to travel"? (Yes: the overwhelming majority of people would not have the money to travel: so even the "rights" are hypothetical  for the majority...)

 

Anyone is interested finding answers for these questions?

(Or some already found the answer: "That is why they do not want to live in that country - where this is everyday practice -, or work for such government - rather voluntarily resign from their job - than choose freedom, find a job elsewhere...!" 

 

No more questions....Just waiting for answers!  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[flicks1998 1,044]

7 hours ago, JohnnyAugustine said:

 

https://legacy.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/13221119!.pdf

 

"The right to travel is a constitutionally protected right. It is a fundamental right, which occupies a preferred position in the hierarchy of values.

The right to travel is part of the liberty of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law and only on clear and compelling grounds of national security, public health and public safety as mandated by the Constitution."

 

"In any case, when there is a dilemma between an individual claiming the exercise of a constitutional right vis-a-vis the state's assertion of authority to restrict the same, any doubt must, at all times, be resolved in favor of the free exercise of the right, absent any explicit provision of law to the contrary."

 

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/1987-constitution/

 

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines-article-iii/

 

Article III

"(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him."

"(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.""

SECTION 6. 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.

 

"SECTION 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty."

 

Where is it in the constitution of Philippines, that an ordinary, law-obiding public school teacher could be deprived from his/her right to travel by a BI officer,  "without due process of law and only on clear and compelling grounds of national security, public health and public safety"? (How many times BI provided written evidence to off-loaded  public employees, teachers, as required by the constitution?)

 

Where is it in the constitution of Philippines, that an ordinary, law-obiding public school teacher should apply for a "DepEd travel permit" before attempting to travel abroad, if the person is not a "public threat" to anyone?  

Where is it in the constitution of Philippines that "DepEd administrators can sit on an application for 4-5 months, or as long as they want, - for no legal reason -, if they claim, they were "busy", and so,  effectively taking away the "right to travel" from their employees, - , or request to re-submit the application after several months, because they lost it (yes: happened!), and so making it absolutely impossible within the provided time-frame of application -, giving no reason or no explanation to the person who followed the above "imposed rules" , called "procedures" (not law!), that already had taken away their constitutional rights? 

Is it fair if any Deped adminstrator is telling the applicant: "You might get approval by the time of your travel" - and will DepEd pay for the substantial difference of air fare, hotel reservation, etc. due to the delay they caused?

  

Are these government offices intentionally force employees (even tell!, directly, during BI interviews!)  to first resign from their job - if they wanted to excercise their right of travel?

(The person who experienced that - and it happened - may only know one such case, being told by BI: "The right way you should do: first, resign from your job, before you wanted to find a job abroad! -  with no other witness than the interviewing BI officer: Which makes it one citizen against his/her government, and filing a complaint will be highly unlikely, in the fear or further retaliation, e.g. losing the right to travel forever, just quoting a "national security reason". Is not it "unlawful intimidation",  specifically forbidden in Constitution?)

 

Had any government employee (BI, DepEd) ever been taken legally responsible for all the damage they caused to individuals - for taking away their civil rights? 

How can "compensation and rehabilitation be provided to victims" (tens of thousands!), legally, who suffer from such power-abuse, if the abuser is the government itself, whose job would be to protect the right of citizens? 

Is there any legal process - against government offices, whose  procedures and practices are clearly "unconstitutional", without any reasonable doubt in a "resonable mind"?: Or anyone has doubt about the  conspiracy between BI and DepEd, creating  "internal procedures" - covering up their own actions by pointing at another agency/department, and saying: "We just protect our fellow citizens - because that is our job!" ?!! (What a "hypocrisy"! Definition: "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform....")

 

Oh, yes! An employee (teacher) must obey the employer (DepEd), even if the employer is restricting the practice of "constitutional rights", and that restriction is "enforced by BI": that is the "rule of employment", correct?  Why all those "rules" are not found in most democratic countries: e.g. USA or EU countries?  (Yes, they have their immigration laws and visa requirements: but not against their own citizens...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People have presented this to PI Immigration throughout the years (many decades) and they do not care what that says.  In fact, if you speak to any attorneys in the PI, they will tell you ways on how PI Immigration gets around all of that, and legally.  You are not dealing with the West.  Rules and rights are loosely enforced in all aspects of society and can change by the day, hour or minute.

Edited May 31, 2022 by flicks1998

[top_secret 2,057]

The upside is that a government employee WITH travel authority is probably less likely to get offloaded than an ordinary tourist.

 

Also make sure you check the transit rules for Filipino passports traveling to Costa Rica.  She most likely has to connect through Europe which is a long way to get from the Philippines to Costa Rica.  Otherwise, it is indeed a great vacation destination for Filipinos and Americans.