Between Liberty and the Legal Abyss: Reassessing Article 9 of the Federal Constitution

Article 9 of the Federal Constitution protects one of the core dimensions of constitutional liberty in Malaysia, namely the right of citizens to move freely throughout the Federation and to reside in any part thereof. It also expressly prohibits the banishment or exclusion of citizens from the Federation. However, the right to freedom of movement under Article 9(2) is not absolute. It is expressly made subject to laws relating to the security of the Federation, public order, public health, the punishment of offenders, and the special constitutional position of certain states. This article examines the scope and limitations of Article 9 by analysing five selected areas in which movement-related restrictions arise in Malaysia. These are the Movement Control Order during the COVID-19 pandemic, travel restrictions on PTPTN loan defaulters, travel restrictions on bankrupt individuals, movement restrictions imposed on prisoners and persons under supervision, and passport surrender as a condition of bail for accused persons. Using a qualitative doctrinal legal methodology, the article analyses the Federal Constitution, the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988, the Police Act 1967, the National Higher Education Fund Corporation Act 1997, the Insolvency Act 1967, the Prisons Act 1995, the Prevention of Crime Act 1959, the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, and the Criminal Procedure Code. The article argues that restrictions on movement may be constitutionally justified where they are clearly authorised by law, pursue a legitimate public objective, and operate in a proportionate, targeted, temporary, and reviewable manner. The article proposes a five-stage constitutional control framework for assessing movement restrictions under Article 9, focusing on legal basis, legitimate purpose, contextual assessment, proportional limits and procedural safeguards. Conversely, such restrictions become constitutionally problematic when they are imposed automatically, indefinitely, administratively, or punitively without sufficient procedural safeguards. The article concludes that Article 9 should not be understood merely as a formal right subject to legislative limitation, but as a constitutional guarantee that requires continuous scrutiny of legality, reasonableness, proportionality, and fairness.

Article 9, Federal Constitution, freedom of movement, constitutional liberty, legal restrictions, proportionality

1. Abu Hassan, R. (2018). The parole supervision duties and the impediments under the prison legislation in Malaysia and New South Wales, Australia (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Teknologi MARA). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ashworth, A., & Redmayne, M. (2010). The criminal process. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Azmi, R., Abd Razak, A., & Ahmad, S. N. S. (2017). Discharge in bankruptcy: a comparative analysis of law and practice between Malaysia, Singapore and the United Kingdom (UK)–what can we learn?. Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 43(2), 203-233. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Barak, A. (2012). Proportionality: Constitutional rights and their limitations. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Craig, P. (2015). Administrative law (8th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Criminal Procedure Code, Laws of Malaysia, Act 593. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, Laws of Malaysia, Act 316. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Dziyaudin, H., Hassan, C. A., Ahmad, N., & Hassan, C. A. (2018). Electronic tagging of offenders and human rights: A clash of primary interests. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 52, 330–337. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Federal Constitution of Malaysia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Government of Malaysia v. Loh Wai Kong, [1979] 2 MLJ 33. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Hamin, Z., & Abu Hassan, R. (2012). The roles and challenges of parole officers in reintegrating prisoners into the community under the parole system. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 324–332. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Hassan, C. A., Abd Rani, A. R., Omar, H., Idris, A. H., & Mohd Saufi, S. (2022). Theoretical perspectives on electronic monitoring and police supervision order as crime prevention modalities in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(11), 154–165. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Hucklesby, A. (2012). Bail support schemes for adults. Policy Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Insolvency Act 1967, Laws of Malaysia, Act 360. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Ismail, R. (2023). A comparative legal study on discharge of bankruptcy in Malaysia, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Jeffrey, T. J. B. (2012). Preventive detention in Malaysia: Constitutional and judicial obstacles to reform and suggestions for the future. Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L., 41, 535. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Lebret, A. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic and derogation to human rights. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 7(1), lsaa015. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Lee, J. (2021). A missed opportunity: Appraising “personal liberty” in Maria Chin Abdullah v. Ketua Pengarah Imigresen & Anor. Asian Journal of Law and Governance, 3(3), 9–17. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Maria Chin Abdullah v. Ketua Pengarah Imigresen & Anor, [2021] 1 LNS 3. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Möller, K. (2012). Proportionality: Challenging the critics. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 10(3), 709-731. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. National Higher Education Fund Corporation Act 1997, Laws of Malaysia, Act 566. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Naz, S., Sabaruddin, B., & Shamsuddin, J. (2016). Malaysian preventive detention laws: Old preventive detention provisions wrapped in new packages. JMCL, 43, 59. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Pang, N. T. P., Kamu, A., Hambali, N. L. B., Mun, H. C., Kassim, M. A., Mohamed, N. H., Ayu, F., Rahim, S. S. S. A., Omar, A., & Jeffree, M. S. (2021). Monitoring the impact of Movement Control Order on daily COVID-19 cases in Malaysia. Journal of Infection and Public Health, 14(4), 529–534. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Police Act 1967, Laws of Malaysia, Act 344. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988, Laws of Malaysia, Act 342. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Prevention of Crime Act 1959, Laws of Malaysia, Act 297. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Prisons Act 1995, Laws of Malaysia, Act 537. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Rajendran, K., Jayakumar, J., & Yusof, M. M. (2021). The effect of Movement Control Order for various phases of COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia. COVID, 1(3), 592–605. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Rautenbach, I. M. (2014). Proportionality and the limitation clauses of the South African Bill of Rights. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 17(6), 2228-2267. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Said, S. M., Manap, N. A. B. D., & Rahman, Z. A. B. (2021). Exploring the law on the movement control order in Malaysia to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Sustainability Science and Management, 16(8), 105-117. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Sivarasa Rasiah v. Badan Peguam Malaysia & Anor, [2010] 3 CLJ 507. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Solomon, A. L., Osborne, J. W. L., Winterfield, L., Elderbroom, B., Burke, P., Stroker, R. P., Rhine, E. E., & Burrell, W. D. (2008). Putting public safety first: 13 parole supervision strategies to enhance reentry outcomes. Urban Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Stevenson, M. T., & Mayson, S. G. (2017). Pretrial detention and bail. Academy for Justice, A Report on Scholarship and Criminal Justice Reform (Erik Luna ed., 2017, Forthcoming)., U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper, (17-18). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Stone Sweet, A., & Mathews, J. (2008). Proportionality balancing and global constitutionalism. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 47(1), 72–164. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Sun, N. (2020). Applying Siracusa: A call for a general comment on public health emergencies. Health and human rights, 22(1), 387. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Thambapillay, S. (2007). Recent developments in judicial review of administrative actions in Malaysia. Malayan Law Journal Articles, 1, xci–cviii. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Wiley, L. F., & Gostin, L. O. (2025). Public health law and ethics: Power, duty, restraint (4th ed.). University of California Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Conflict of Law in the Safeguarding of Malaysian Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Way Forward
• Alternative Dispute Resolution in India: A Brief Overview Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. - William E. Gladstone
• The Role of Museums in Safeguarding Cultural Heritage Rights: Balancing Access and Repatriation
• An Evaluation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Significance and Application in Nigeria
• The Role of International Law in Shaping National Immigration Policies.