– are both wrong and dangerous from the constitutional and legal point of view. They unduly restrict the right to travel by all Filipinos. Contained in the Bill of Rights alongside the freedoms of speech, press, expression, association, and religion among others, Article 3 Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution unequivocally guarantees that the right to travel cannot be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
Third. To intrude into the protected rights of a Filipino citizen, there must be a showing of clear and present danger to the state, and there should be no other least intrusive means other than such infringement or restriction to travel in order to address the problem of trafficking. In other words, deprivation of a constitutional right should not be the means to protect a citizen, even from a serious problem like trafficking.
“if the parents are not married and the minor is traveling with the biological father who has sole parental authority or legal custody of the minor.” Indeed “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” No matter how noble the idea of protecting children from trafficking, if the regulation is in itself defective, the children’s road to hell may even be hastened. Fundamentally, the Constitution clearly announces that Filipinos shall have – not a privilege, but – the right to travel. We need not ask permission to exercise a right, we can just responsibly do it. It must be honored and implemented as such.
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: MlaStandard - 🏆 20. / 55 Read more »
Source: MlaStandard - 🏆 20. / 55 Read more »
Source: manilabulletin - 🏆 25. / 51 Read more »
Source: BusinessMirror - 🏆 19. / 59 Read more »
Source: manilabulletin - 🏆 25. / 51 Read more »