Travel ban against ex-Capiz gov stays

FORMER Capiz governor Esteban Evan Contreras has failed to persuade the Sandiganbayan Fourth Divi-sion to lift the hold departure order (HDO) issued against him on March 15, 2024 in connection to a pending criminal charge.

In a resolution dated July 19, 2024 penned by Associate Justice Michael Frederick L. Musngi, the court held that the accused failed to offer any valid reason for the grant of the relief sought. Associate Justices Lorifel Lacap Pahimna and Juliet M. Manalo-San Gaspar concurred.

The Sandiganbayan said the restriction on the right to travel of a person charged with a crime is a neces-sary consequence of the need to maintain jurisdiction over him.

“Accused Contreras as one facing criminal charge, should always hold himself governable to court orders and processes. Otherwise, the said orders and processes would not serve its purpose if accused Contre-ras would be allowed to leave the country and outside the reach of the Court,” it pointed out.

Contreras was indicted on a charge of violation of Section 5 (a) (4) of the Government Procurement Re-form Law (RA 9184) concerning alleged irregularities in the provincial government’s procurement of medical supplies in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Named co-defendants were former provincial administrator Edwin Monares and Roxas Memorial Pro-vincial Hospital (RMPH) chief Edmarie Tormon.

The case stemmed from a criminal complaint filed on November 25, 2021 by incumbent Vice Governor Jaime Magbanua and members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (provincial board).

In his motion filed on June 20, 2024, Contreras argued that there was no basis for the court to issue the HDO since there was no demonstrable ground that allowing him to travel would endanger national secu-rity, public safety, or public health.

Prosecutors opposed the motion on the ground that the travel restriction is a valid exercise of the Court’s inherent power to maintain its jurisdiction over the person accused.

It added that when Contreras posted bail so he will not be detained during the pendency of the case, one of the conditions was for the defendant to comply at all times with the order of the court.

“It is a hornbook doctrine that the