Everyone subject to stricter BI rules, even Palace officials
Everyone is covered by the Bureau of Immigration's stricter implementation of travel guidelines and deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte can attest to that.
During a press conference at the Palace on Monday, presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda recalled an instance when Valte, before boarding her plane, was asked by an immigration official about the purpose of her travel.
"She said she wanted to go to Hong Kong to bring her son to Disneyland... [and] the immigration officer even asked the son if the son was truly the son of Usec. Valte," he said.
Valte, for her part, said the incident happened in July 2013, when she was asked about her place of employment and whether she had a travel authority.
"After responding to the first and producing the document, the immigration officer posed a few questions to my son. Didn't take longer than two minutes, if I remember correctly," she said in a text message.
New BI guidelines
But Lacierda said the BI's guidelines, which has received flak from netizens, are just meant to curb human trafficking and not make traveling more difficult for Filipinos.
"[This] is not to prevent... somebody who wants to travel with all the completed documents to be prevented from traveling. These guidelines were meant to protect our citizen’s from human trafficking and also to let the criminals and syndicates know 'we know what you’re doing'," he said.
He explained that syndicates hide undocumented Filipinos in plain sight by making them pose as tourists while they act as stewards.
"The guidelines were set up precisely to look into some benchmarks or some points where an immigration officer will be able to, at the very least, detect tell-tale signs of human trafficking," Lacierda said.
But Lacierda, quoting BI Commissioner Siegfred Mison, said authorities will not prevent travel solely on the basis of financial capacity but will also look into whether the purpose for staying in another country is "doubtful."
"You’ve seen the guidelines, you’ve seen the circumstances and I think if our citizens would go through the BI guidelines at least they will be guided as to where, what is the target or what is the focus of the… travel," he said.
Constitutional
He admitted, however, that there may be times when authorities may question persons who are not being trafficked.
"These may not be perfect. There might be instances where… somebody who is not undocumented Filipino may be asked questions and we ask for understanding and apology for them," he said.
But Lacierda clarified that "in terms of constitutionality, we know that the right to travel is not absolute."
He even cited a Supreme Court ruling which states “exercise of one’s right to travel or the freedom to move from one place to another as assured by the Constitution is not absolute. There are constitutional, statutory and adherent limitations regulating the right to travel.”
He also said Section 6 of Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution “provides that neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.”
And these limitations, Lacierda said, are the Human Security Act; the Philippine Passport Act; and the Anti-trafficking in Person Act of 2003. — KBK, GMA News
During a press conference at the Palace on Monday, presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda recalled an instance when Valte, before boarding her plane, was asked by an immigration official about the purpose of her travel.
"She said she wanted to go to Hong Kong to bring her son to Disneyland... [and] the immigration officer even asked the son if the son was truly the son of Usec. Valte," he said.
Valte, for her part, said the incident happened in July 2013, when she was asked about her place of employment and whether she had a travel authority.
"After responding to the first and producing the document, the immigration officer posed a few questions to my son. Didn't take longer than two minutes, if I remember correctly," she said in a text message.
New BI guidelines
But Lacierda said the BI's guidelines, which has received flak from netizens, are just meant to curb human trafficking and not make traveling more difficult for Filipinos.
"[This] is not to prevent... somebody who wants to travel with all the completed documents to be prevented from traveling. These guidelines were meant to protect our citizen’s from human trafficking and also to let the criminals and syndicates know 'we know what you’re doing'," he said.
He explained that syndicates hide undocumented Filipinos in plain sight by making them pose as tourists while they act as stewards.
"The guidelines were set up precisely to look into some benchmarks or some points where an immigration officer will be able to, at the very least, detect tell-tale signs of human trafficking," Lacierda said.
But Lacierda, quoting BI Commissioner Siegfred Mison, said authorities will not prevent travel solely on the basis of financial capacity but will also look into whether the purpose for staying in another country is "doubtful."
"You’ve seen the guidelines, you’ve seen the circumstances and I think if our citizens would go through the BI guidelines at least they will be guided as to where, what is the target or what is the focus of the… travel," he said.
Constitutional
He admitted, however, that there may be times when authorities may question persons who are not being trafficked.
"These may not be perfect. There might be instances where… somebody who is not undocumented Filipino may be asked questions and we ask for understanding and apology for them," he said.
But Lacierda clarified that "in terms of constitutionality, we know that the right to travel is not absolute."
He even cited a Supreme Court ruling which states “exercise of one’s right to travel or the freedom to move from one place to another as assured by the Constitution is not absolute. There are constitutional, statutory and adherent limitations regulating the right to travel.”
He also said Section 6 of Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution “provides that neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.”
And these limitations, Lacierda said, are the Human Security Act; the Philippine Passport Act; and the Anti-trafficking in Person Act of 2003. — KBK, GMA News
Comments