QuestionsQuestions (LETTER OF INSTRUCTIONS NO. 1157)
It is an executive issuance issued by the President directing the Minister of Foreign Affairs to cancel passports in specified circumstances. In hierarchy, it is typically considered an executive issuance (not a statute enacted by Congress). Its force depends on the President’s constitutional and statutory authority; it generally implements existing law and cannot override rights or statutes without proper authority.
First, when the Filipino citizen is facing charges in a Philippine court and has absconded to evade criminal prosecution. Second, when, upon investigation/hearing by the DFA or proper consulate or upon classified information from the Ministry of National Defense, it appears the citizen is actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to seize political/state power by force or violence, or is violating Philippine laws.
It requires a showing that the person is a defendant in an ongoing Philippine criminal case and that they have left/failed to remain in the Philippines (or otherwise fled) in order to avoid prosecution. While the LOI itself does not define evidentiary standards, practical implementation would require records of the case and evidence of non-appearance or flight.
It expressly authorizes cancellation when the citizen is facing charges in a Philippine court and has absconded to evade prosecution. The passport cancellation is thus tied to ensuring the person returns to answer before Philippine courts.
It requires that, for the second ground, there be an investigation and hearing conducted by the DFA or a proper Philippine consulate. The process serves as a basis to determine whether the person is actively engaged in the specified conspiratorial or illegal activities.
Classified information may not be fully disclosed to the affected person, raising concerns about due process. Students should analyze how the LOI allows reliance on confidential intelligence while still stating that investigation and hearing occur through DFA/consulate or based on classified information.
As written, the hearing/investigation requirement is explicitly stated for the second ground. The first ground is based on existence of charges and absconding; the LOI does not expressly require a separate hearing for that scenario, though implementation may still require some factual verification.
The first ground concerns a person already facing charges in Philippine court and who has absconded to evade prosecution (flight to avoid judicial process). The second ground concerns alleged active participation in a criminal conspiracy to seize power by force/violence or violating Philippine laws, based on investigation/hearing or classified information.
The LOI states that it is in the public interest that such Filipinos be compelled to return to hold them answerable before Philippine courts. It justifies cancellation as a means to prevent evasion of criminal liability and, in the second ground, to address threats to state security and lawful order.
It authorizes and directs the Minister to issue whatever rules and regulations are necessary for proper and effective implementation by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
It means the DFA may directly cancel or instruct relevant offices/consular posts to cancel passports. Practically, this may involve nullifying the passport’s validity, notifying the holder, and coordinating with consular or immigration authorities to prevent use for exit/travel.
It states: “These instructions shall take effect immediately.” Legally, this means it applies without waiting for publication or later effective dates specified therein, though actual implementation may require implementing rules.
In practice, absconding often results in warrants of arrest, publication/efforts of service, or similar court processes. Students can analyze whether passport cancellation complements enforcement of court orders and ensures availability of the accused for trial.
Students may discuss potential administrative remedies with DFA/consular offices and judicial remedies such as petition for certiorari/prohibition or similar actions challenging grave abuse of discretion or due process violations, depending on the implementing rules and circumstances.