G.R. No. 182161 - Reyes vs. Court of Appeals

On November 30, 2007, petitioner Fr. Robert P. Reyes and about 50 others were arrested during the Manila Peninsula Hotel siege and brought to Camp Crame for inquest.
That evening, the DOJ Panel of Prosecutors conducted inquest proceedings to determine probable cause for charges of Rebellion and/or Inciting to Rebellion.

On December 1, 2007, at the request of the DILG, DOJ Secretary Gonzales issued HDO No. 45 directing the Bureau of Immigration to include Reyes and 49 others in the Hold Departure List for reasons of national security and public safety.
On December 18, 2007, petitioner’s counsel wrote the DOJ requesting the lifting of the HDO following the dismissal of the rebellion case; the DOJ Secretary replied that he could not act until the petitioner’s counsel status was clarified.

On December 7, 2007, petitioner moved before the RTC-Makati for judicial determination of probable cause and release upon recognizance, arguing the DOJ panel failed to show his specific participation.
On December 13, 2007, the RTC dismissed the rebellion charge against Reyes and 17 others for lack of probable cause, holding mere presence and expression of political sentiments did not establish conspiracy or confederation.

On January 3, 2008, petitioner filed a petition for writ of amparo with the CA, claiming the continued inclusion of his name in the HDO List unlawfully restrained his right to travel.
On January 25, 2008, during the CA hearing, petitioner’s counsel argued the DOJ Secretary lacked legal basis to issue the HDO; the OSG defended the Secretary’s authority under DOJ Circulars No. 17 (1998) and No. 18 (2007).

On February 4, 2008, the CA dismissed the amparo petition and denied the privilege of the writ.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on March 25, 2008.
On December 3, 2009, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision by ruling that the writ of amparo was inapplicable and that the proper remedy was a motion in the pending criminal case.

Whether the writ of amparo covers a petition for protection of the right to travel.
Whether the DOJ Secretary has authority under law or DOJ Circulars to issue HDO No. 45.
Whether petitioner was required to exhaust administrative or judicial remedies (i.e., file a motion before the RTC) to lift the HDO.
Whether the constitutionality of DOJ Circulars No. 17 and 18 may be collaterally questioned in an amparo proceeding.