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. 

The Protectionist State

          It is the policy of the State to develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos. The State has also put into recognition the goals of the national economy which would provide a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth. This policy has sealed the opportunity of an alien to acquire absolute ownership of alienable lands, save in cases of hereditary succession, and it, likewise, limits the capital share of foreign investments in public utilities to only 40 per centum.

             

        The ambition set forth by the Constitution in matters of national economy has long been dormant from the moment of its ratification. The people, with the hope of economic liberation and equal distribution in wealth, have found its resting place in perpetual slavery of poverty, social inequality and loss of opportunity. The economic gap between the capable few and unfortunate many has stretched its boundary with miles apart. While the State’s policy extends an arm of protection in our national economy, it failed to provide a progressive economy since public utility services are owned by a few elite.

             

           When the State’s primary public services are controlled by a limited number of capitalist, it will create a climate of an evil monopoly. The ceiling of foreign investments in public utility services to only 40 percent must be revisited. The increase of capital share would lead to a distributive share of economic chance and, eventually, the collapse of monopoly in the Philippines. Necessary change must be met in order to claim prosperity in the hands of the sovereign which the Constitution has in view to the Filipino people.