Facts: Former President Ferdinand E.

Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non -violent people power revolution and was forced into exile. Marcos, in his deathbe d, has signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die. But President Cor azon Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of government is threatened from various directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move forward, has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Marcos and his family. Aquino barred Marcos from returning due to possible threats & following superven ing events: failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by Marcos leaders channel 7 taken over by rebels & loyalists plan of Marcoses to return w/ mercenaries aboard a chartered plane of a Lebanese arms dealer. This is to prove that they can stir trouble from afar Honasan s failed coup Communist insurgency movements secessionist movements in Mindanao devastated economy because of accumulated foreign debt plunder of nation by Marcos & cronies Marcos filed for a petition of mandamus and prohibition to order the respondents to issue them their travel documents and prevent the implementation of Presiden t Aquino s decision to bar Marcos from returning in the Philippines. Petitioner qu estions Aquino s power to bar his return in the country. He also questioned the cl aim of the President that the decision was made in the interest of national secu rity, public safety and health. Petitioner also claimed that the President acted outside her jurisdiction. According to the Marcoses, such act deprives them of their right to life, libert y, property without due process and equal protection of the laws. They also said that it deprives them of their right to travel which according to Section 6, Ar ticle 3 of the constitution, may only be impaired by a court order. Issue: Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the P resident may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. Whether or not the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she determined that the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and decided to bar their return. Decision: No to both issues. Petition dismissed. Ratio: Separation of power dictates that each department has exclusive powers. Accordin g to Section 1, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the executive po wer shall be vested in the President of the Philippines. However, it does not def ine what is meant by executive power although in the same article it touches on ex ercise of certain powers by the President, i.e., the power of control over all e xecutive departments, bureaus and offices, the power to execute the laws, the ap pointing power to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons (art VII secfs. 14-23 ). Although the constitution outlines tasks of the president, this list is not d efined & exclusive. She has residual & discretionary powers not stated in the Co nstitution which include the power to protect the general welfare of the people. She is obliged to protect the people, promote their welfare & advance national interest. (Art. II, Sec. 4-5 of the Constitution). Residual powers, according to Theodore Roosevelt, dictate that the President can do anything which is not for bidden in the Constitution (Corwin, supra at 153), inevitable to vest discretio nary powers on the President (Hyman, American President) and that the president has to maintain peace during times of emergency but also on the day-to-day opera tion of the State. The rights Marcoses are invoking are not absolute. They re flexible depending on t he circumstances. The request of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Phi

lippines cannot be considered in the light solely of the constitutional provisio ns guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel, subject to certain exc eptions, or of case law which clearly never contemplated situations even remotel y similar to the present one. It must be treated as a matter that is appropriate ly addressed to those residual unstated powers of the President which are implic it in and correlative to the paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard and protect general welfare. In that context, such request or demand should sub mit to the exercise of a broader discretion on the part of the President to dete rmine whether it must be granted or denied. For issue number 2, the question for the court to determine is whether or not th ere exist factual basis for the President to conclude that it was in the nationa l interest to bar the return of the Marcoses in the Philippines. It is proven th at there are factual bases in her decision. The supervening events that happened before her decision are factual. The President must take preemptive measures fo r the self-preservation of the country & protection of the people. She has to up hold the Constitution. FERNAN, CONCURRING The president s power is not fixed. Limits would depend on the imperatives of even ts and not on abstract theories of law. We are undergoing a critical time and th e current problem can only be answerable by the President. Threat is real. Return of the Marcoses would pose a clear & present danger. Thus , it s the executive s responsibility & obligation to prevent a grave & serious thre at to its safety from arising. We can t sacrifice public peace, order, safety & our political & economic gains to give in to Marcos wish to die in the country. Compassion must give way to the ot her state interests. CRUZ, DISSENTING As a citizen of this country, it is Marcos right to return, live & die in his own country. It is a right guaranteed by the Consti to all individuals, whether pat riot, homesick, prodigal, tyrant, etc. Military representatives failed to show that Marcos return would pose a threat to national security. Fears were mere conjectures. Residual powers but the executive s powers were outlined to limit her powers & not expand. PARAS, DISSENTING AFP has failed to prove danger which would allow State to impair Marcos right to return to the Philippines. . Family can be put under house arrest & in the event that one dies, he/she should be buried w/in 10 days. Untenable that without a legislation, right to travel is absolute & state is pow erless to restrict it. It s w/in police power of the state to restrict this right if national security, public safety/health demands that such be restricted. It c an t be absolute & unlimited all the time. It can t be arbitrary & irrational. No proof that Marcos return would endanger national security or public safety. Fe ars are speculative & military admits that it s under control. Filipinos would kno w how to handle Marcos return. PADILLA, DISSENTING Sarmiento, Dissenting President s determination that Marcos return would threaten national security shoul d be agreed upon by the court. Such threat must be clear & present. G.R. No. 88211, October 27, 1989 Marcos, petitioner VS. Manglapus, respondent (Part 2) Facts: In its decision dated September 15, 1989, the Court by a vote of eight to seven, dismissed the petition, after finding that the President did not act arbitraril y or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of former Pre sident Marcos and his family pose a threat to national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines. On September 28, 1989, Marcos di

ed in Honolulu, Hawaii. President Corazon Aquino issued a statement saying that in the interest of the s afety of those who will take the death of Marcos in widely and passionately conf licting ways, and for the tranquility and order of the state and society, she di d not allow the remains of Marcos to be brought back in the Philippines. A motion for Reconsideration was filed by the petitioners raising the following arguments: Barring their return would deny them their inherent right as citizens to return to their country of birth and all other rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all Filipinos. The President has no power to bar a Filipino from his own country; if she has, s he had exercised it arbitrarily. There is no basis for barring the return of the family of former President Marco s. Issue: Whether or not the motion for reconsideration that the Marcoses be allowed to re turn in the Philippines be granted. Decision: No. The Marcoses were not allowed to return. Motion for Reconsideration denied b ecause of lack of merit. Ratio: Petitioners failed to show any compelling reason to warrant reconsideration. Factual scenario during the time Court rendered its decision has not changed. Th e threats to the government, to which the return of the Marcoses has been viewed to provide a catalytic effect, have not been shown to have ceased. Imelda Marco s also called President Aquino illegal claiming that it is Ferdinand Marcos who is the legal president. President has unstated residual powers implied from grant of executive power. En umerations are merely for specifying principal articles implied in the definitio n; leaving the rest to flow from general grant that power, interpreted in confor mity with other parts of the Constitution (Hamilton). Executive unlike Congress can exercise power from sources not enumerates so long as not forbidden by const itutional text (Myers vs. US). This does not amount to dictatorship. Amendment N o. 6 expressly granted Marcos power of legislation whereas 1987 Constitution gra nted Aquino with implied powers. It is within Aquino s power to protect & promote interest & welfare of the people. She bound to comply w/ that duty and there is no proof that she acted arbitrari ly