The Elusive Flight

No less than the fundamental law of the land provides that a person shall have the free right to travel, unimpaired by any state regulation, save only in cases when the national security, public safety, or public health is imperilled. The state, then, has the exclusive authority to restrict one from the enjoyment of his free movement, particularly when his act of travel would lead to endanger the general interest of the public in matters of security and health. Thus, it can be gleaned that the right to travel is a superior right of an individual than that of the power of the state to prohibit such because it is subject to the conditions imposed by the Constitution.

The Former President’s issue of seeking medical attendance outside the Philippines has now become a classic clash between the obligation of the State to prosecute those who must face the portals of a courtroom and an individual’s right to travel for purposes of treatment. The denial of the President to grant the travel abroad is premised on the ground that FPGMA’s condition is non-life threatening. In addition, the government is apprehensive on the risk that the former president might take flight from the charges filed against her in the courts of law. It can be remembered that flight is an admission of guilt.

It is on this basis that the government impaired the right of President Arroyo to travel. One need not have the expertise of analysis and logic to understand that the impairment of the government of her right to travel was not anchored on national security, public safety, or public health. To grant her the opportunity of cure outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines will not mean the introduction of sedition, rebellion or insurrection, or the entrance of any contagious diseases into the land of the pearl of the orient.