Scribd
Upload
581 views1 page

Yapvca G.R. No. 141529 June 6, 2001

The petitioner contested a condition imposed by the Court of Appeals that required him to secure certification from the mayor confirming his residence and requiring prior notice to the court if he changes residence. The petitioner argued this violated his rights to liberty of abode and travel. The Supreme Court held that while the rights to change residence and travel are protected, they can be regulated by lawful court orders. The Court of Appeals' order releasing the petitioner on bail with the contested residence certification condition was a lawful order consistent with ensuring the petitioner remains available whenever required by the Court.

Uploaded by

Kat Jolejole
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
581 views1 page

Yapvca G.R. No. 141529 June 6, 2001

The petitioner contested a condition imposed by the Court of Appeals that required him to secure certification from the mayor confirming his residence and requiring prior notice to the court if he changes residence. The petitioner argued this violated his rights to liberty of abode and travel. The Supreme Court held that while the rights to change residence and travel are protected, they can be regulated by lawful court orders. The Court of Appeals' order releasing the petitioner on bail with the contested residence certification condition was a lawful order consistent with ensuring the petitioner remains available whenever required by the Court.

Uploaded by

Kat Jolejole
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

YAP V CA G.R. No.

141529 June 6, 2001 Facts: Petitioner contests the condition imposed by the CA that he secure the certification/guaranty from the mayor of the place of his residence that he is a resident of the area and that he will remain to be a resident therein until final judgment is rendered or in case he transfers residence, it must be with prior notice to the court. Petitioner claims that it violates his liberty of abode and travel. Further he claims that the hold departure order on him is enough. Held: The right to change abode and travel within the Philippines, being invoked by petitioner, are not absolute rights. It can be regulated by lawful order. The order of the CA releasing petitioner on bail constitutes such lawful order contemplated by Section 6. The condition imposed by the CA is simply consistent with the nature and function of a bail bond, which is to ensure that petitioner will make himself available at all times whenever the Court requires his presence.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy