JohnnyAugustine

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!