Back

Zabal vs. Duterte [SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.]

MARK ANTHONY V. ZABAL, THITING ESTOSO JACOSALEM, AND ODON S. BANDIOLA, PETITIONERS, V. RODRIGO R. DUTERTE, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES; SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; AND EDUARDO M. AÑO, [SECRETARY] OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 238467 | 2019-02-12

SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION
 
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
 
I concur.
 
Among other points, I agree with the ponencia that "this case does not actually involve the right to travel in its essential sense contrary to what petitioners want to portray."[1] In my view, there can be no violation of the right to travel because, in the first place, Proclamation No. 475[2] is not an issuance that substantively regulates such right.
 
To expound, the right to travel has been regarded as integral to personal liberty,[3] which Blackstone defines as "freedom from restraint of the person."[4]...