FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR.

,
IRENE M. ARANETA, IMEE M. MANOTOC, TOMAS MANOTOC, GREGORIO
ARANETA, PACIFICO E. MARCOS, NICANOR YNIGUEZ and PHILIPPINE
CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), represented by its President,
CONRADO F. ESTRELLA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS,
CATALINO MACARAIG, SEDFREY ORDO?EZ, MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO,
FIDEL RAMOS, RENATO DE VILLA, in their capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs,
Executive Secretary, Secretary of Justice, Immigration Commissioner, Secretary of
National Defense and Chief of Staff, respectively, respondents.
1989-09-15 | G.R. No. 88211
DECISION
CORTES, J p:
Before the Court is a controversy of grave national importance. While ostensibly only legal issues are
involved, the Court's decision in this case would undeniably have a profound effect on the political,
economic and other aspects of national life.
We recall that in February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the
non-violent "people power" revolution and forced into exile. In his stead, Corazon C. Aquino was
declared President of the Republic under a revolutionary government. Her ascension to and
consolidation of power have not been unchallenged. The failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by political
leaders of Mr. Marcos, the takeover of television station Channel 7 by rebel troops led by Col. Canlas
with the support of "Marcos loyalists" and the unsuccessful plot of the Marcos spouses to surreptitiously
return from Hawaii with mercenaries aboard an aircraft chartered by a Lebanese arms dealer [Manila
Bulletin, January 30, 1987] awakened the nation to the capacity of the Marcoses to stir trouble even from
afar and to the fanaticism and blind loyalty of their followers in the country. The ratification of the 1987
Constitution enshrined the victory of "people power" and also clearly reinforced the constitutional
moorings of Mrs. Aquino's presidency. This did not, however, stop bloody challenges to the government.
On August 28, 1987, Col. Gregorio Honasan, one of the major players in the February Revolution, led a
failed coup that left scores of people, both combatants and civilians, dead. There were several other
armed sorties of lesser significance, but the message they conveyed was the same - a split in the ranks
of the military establishment that threatened civilian supremacy over the military and brought to the fore
the realization that civilian government could be at the mercy of a fractious military.
But the armed threats to the Government were not only found in misguided elements in the military
establishment and among rabid followers of Mr. Marcos. There were also the communist insurgency and
the secessionist movement in Mindanao which gained ground during the rule of Mr. Marcos, to the
extent that the communists have set up a parallel government of their own in the areas they effectively
control while the separatists are virtually free to move about in armed bands. There has been no let up in
these groups' determination to wrest power from the government. Not only through resort to arms but
also through the use of propaganda have they been successful in creating chaos and destabilizing the
country.
Nor are the woes of the Republic purely political. The accumulated foreign debt and the plunder of the
nation attributed to Mr. Marcos and his cronies left the economy devastated. The efforts at economic
recovery, three years after Mrs. Aquino assumed office, have yet to show concrete results in alleviating
the poverty of the masses, while the recovery of the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses has remained
elusive.
Now, Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die. But Mrs.
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 Mr. Marcos and his family.

The Petition
This case is unique. It should not create a precedent, for the case of a dictator forced out of office and
into exile after causing twenty years of political, economic and social havoc in the country and who within
the short space of three years seeks to return, is in a class by itself.
This petition for mandamus and prohibition asks the Court to order the respondents to issue travel
documents to Mr. Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to enjoin the implementation of
the President's decision to bar their return to the Philippines.
The Issue
The issue is basically one of power: whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the
Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.
According to the petitioners, the resolution of the case would depend on the resolution of the following
issues:
1. Does the President have the power to bar the return of former President Marcos and his family
to the Philippines?
a. Is this a political question?
2. Assuming that the President has the power to bar former President Marcos and his family from
returning to the Philippines, in the interest of "national security, public safety or public health" a. Has the President made a finding that the return of former President Marcos and his
family to the Philippines is a clear and present danger to national security, public safety or
public health?
b. Assuming that she has made that finding, (1) Have the requirements of due process been complied with in making such finding?
(2) Has there been prior notice to petitioners?
(3) Has there been a hearing?
(4) Assuming that notice and hearing may be dispensed with, has the President\'s
decision, including the grounds upon which it was based, been made known to
petitioners so that they may controvert the same?
c. Is the President's determination that the return of former President Marcos and his family
to the Philippines is a clear and present danger to national security, public safety, or public
health a political question?
d. Assuming that the Court may inquire as to whether the return of former President Marcos
and his family is a clear and present danger to national security, public safety, or public
health, have respondents established such fact?
3. Have the respondents, therefore, in implementing the President\'s decision to bar the return of
former President Marcos and his family, acted and would be acting without jurisdiction, or in
excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in performing any act which would
effectively bar the return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines?
[Memorandum for Petitioners, pp. 5-7; Rollo, pp. 234-236.]
The case for petitioners is founded on the assertion that the right of the Marcoses to return to the
Philippines is guaranteed under the following provisions of the Bill of Rights, to wit:
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor
shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
xxx xxx xxx
Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall
not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired
except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by
law.
The petitioners contend that the President is without power to impair the liberty of abode of the Marcoses
because only a court may do so "within the limits prescribed by law." Nor may the President impair their
right to travel because no law has authorized her to do so. They advance the view that before the right to
travel may be impaired by any authority or agency of the government, there must be legislation to that

effect.
The petitioners further assert that under international law, the right of Mr. Marcos and his family to return
to the Philippines is guaranteed.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides:
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Likewise, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which had been ratified by the
Philippines, provides:
Article 12
1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty
of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are
provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (order public), public
health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights
recognized in the present Covenant.
4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
On the other hand, the respondents' principal argument is that the issue in this case involves a political
question which is non-justiciable. According to the Solicitor General:
As petitioners couch it, the question involved is simply whether or not petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos
and his family have the right to travel and liberty of abode. Petitioners invoke these constitutional rights
in vacuo without reference to attendant circumstances.
Respondents submit that in its proper formulation, the issue is whether or not petitioners Ferdinand E.
Marcos and family have the right to return to the Philippines and reside here at this time in the face of the
determination by the President that such return and residence will endanger national security and public
safety.
It may be conceded that as formulated by petitioners, the question is not a political question as it
involves merely a determination of what the law provides on the matter and application thereof to
petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family. But when the question is whether the two rights claimed by
petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family impinge on or collide with the more primordial and
transcendental right of the State to security and safety of its nationals, the question becomes political
and this Honorable Court can not consider it.
There are thus gradations to the question, to wit:
Do petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family have the right to return to the Philippines and
reestablish their residence here? This is clearly a justiciable question which this Honorable Court
can decide.
Do petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family have their right to return to the Philippines and
reestablish their residence here even if their return and residence here will endanger national
security and public safety? This is still a justiciable question which this Honorable Court can decide.
Is there danger to national security and public safety if petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family
shall return to the Philippines and establish their residence here? This is now a political question
which this Honorable Court can not decide for it falls within the exclusive authority and
competence of the President of the Philippines. [Memorandum for Respondents, pp. 9-11; Rollo,
pp. 297-299.]
Respondents argue for the primacy of the right of the State to national security over individual rights. In
support thereof, they cite Article II of the Constitution, to wit:
Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government
may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be
required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military, or civil service.
Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and

the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the
blessings of democracy.
Respondents also point out that the decision to ban Mr. Marcos and his family from returning to the
Philippines for reasons of national security and public safety has international precedents. Rafael Trujillo
of the Dominican Republic, Anastacio Somoza, Jr. of Nicaragua, Jorge Ubico of Guatemala, Fulgencio
Batista of Cuba, King Farouk of Egypt, Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez of El Salvador, and Marcos
Perez Jimenez of Venezuela were among the deposed dictators whose return to their homelands was
prevented by their governments. [See Statement of Foreign Affairs Secretary Raul S. Manglapus, quoted
in Memorandum for Respondents, pp. 26-32; Rollo, pp. 314-319.]
The parties are in agreement that the underlying issue is one of the scope of presidential power and its
limits. We, however, view this issue in a different light. Although we give due weight to the parties'
formulation of the issues, we are not bound by its narrow confines in arriving at a solution to the
controversy.
At the outset, we must state that it would not do to view the case within the confines of the right to travel
and the import of the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in the leading cases of Kent v. Dulles [357
U.S. 116, 78 SCt. 1113, 2 L Ed. 2d 1204] and Haig v. Agee [453 U.S. 280, 101 SCt. 2766, 69 L Ed. 2d
640) which affirmed the right to travel and recognized exceptions to the exercise thereof, respectively.
It must be emphasized that the individual right involved is not the right to travel from the Philippines to
other countries or within the Philippines. These are what the right to travel would normally connote.
Essentially, the right involved is the right to return to one's country, a totally distinct right under
international law, independent from although related to the right to travel. Thus, the Universal Declaration
of Humans Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treat the right to freedom
of movement and abode within the territory of a state, the right to leave a country, and the right to enter
one's country as separate and distinct rights. The Declaration speaks of the "right to freedom of
movement and residence within the borders of each state" [Art. 13(1)] separately from the "right to leave
any country, including his own, and to return to his country." [Art. 13(2).] On the other hand, the
Covenant guarantees the "right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence" [Art. 12(1)]
and the right to "be free to leave any country, including his own." [Art. 12(2)] which rights may be
restricted by such laws as "are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or
morals or the separate rights and freedoms of others." [Art. 12(3)] as distinguished from the "right to
enter his own country" of which one cannot be "arbitrarily deprived." [Art. 12(4).] It would therefore be
inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right to return to one's country in the same context as
those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to travel.
The right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights,
which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is our well-considered view that the
right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of international law and, under our
Constitution, is part of the law of the land [Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.] However, it is distinct and
separate from the right to travel and enjoys a different protection under the International Covenant of
Civil and Political Rights, i.e., against being "arbitrarily deprived" thereof [Art. 12 (4).]
Thus, the rulings in the cases of Kent and Haig, which refer to the issuance of passports for the purpose
of effectively exercising the right to travel are not determinative of this case and are only tangentially
material insofar as they relate to a conflict between executive action and the exercise of a protected right.
The issue before the Court is novel and without precedent in Philippine, and even in American
jurisprudence.
Consequently, resolution by the Court of the well-debated issue of whether or not there can be
limitations on the right to travel in the absence of legislation to that effect is rendered unnecessary. An
appropriate case for its resolution will have to be awaited.
Having clarified the substance of the legal issue, we find now a need to explain the methodology for its
resolution. Our resolution of the issue will involve a two-tiered approach. We shall first resolve whether or
not the President has the power under the Constitution, to bar the Marcoses from returning to the
Philippines. Then, we shall determine, pursuant to the express power of the Court under the Constitution

in Article VIII, Section 1, 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.
Executive Power
The 1987 Constitution has fully restored the separation of powers of the three great branches of
government. To recall the words of Justice Laurel in Angara v. Electoral Commission [63 Phil. 139
(1936)], "the Constitution has blocked but with deft strokes and in bold lines, allotment of power to the
executive, the legislative and the judicial departments of the government." [At 157.] Thus, the 1987
Constitution explicitly provides that "[t]he legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the
Philippines" [Art. VI, Sec. 1], "[t]he executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines"
[Art. VII, Sec. 1], and "[t]he judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts
as may be established by law" [Art. VIII, Sec. 1.] These provisions not only establish a separation of
powers by actual division [Angara v. Electoral Commission, supra] but also confer plenary legislative,
executive and judicial powers subject only to limitations provided in the Constitution. For as the Supreme
Court in Ocampo v. Cabangis [15 Phil. 626 (1910)] pointed out "a grant of the legislative power means a
grant of all legislative power; and a grant of the judicial power means a grant of all the judicial power
which may be exercised under the government." [At 631-632.] If this can be said of the legislative power
which is exercised by two chambers with a combined membership of more than two hundred members
and of the judicial power which is vested in a hierarchy of courts, it can equally be said of the executive
power which is vested in one official - the President.
As stated above, the Constitution provides that "[t]he executive power shall be vested in the President of
the Philippines." [Art. VII, Sec. 1]. However, it does not define what is meant by "executive power"
although in the same article it touches on the exercise of certain powers by the President, i.e., the power
of control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices, the power to execute the laws, the
appointing power, the powers under the commander-in-chief clause, the power to grant reprieves,
commutations and pardons, the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of Congress, the power to
contract or guarantee foreign loans, the power to enter into treaties or international agreements, the
power to submit the budget to Congress, and the power to address Congress [Art. VII, Secs. 14-23].
The inevitable question then arises: by enumerating certain powers of the President did the framers of
the Constitution intend that the President shall exercise those specific powers and no other? Are these
enumerated powers the breadth and scope of "executive power"? Petitioners advance the view that the
President's powers are limited to those specifically enumerated in the 1987 Constitution. Thus, they
assert: "The President has enumerated powers, and what is not enumerated is impliedly denied to her.
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius." [Memorandum for Petitioners, p. 4; Rollo p. 233.] This argument
brings to mind the institution of the U. S. Presidency after which ours is legally patterned. **
Corwin, in his monumental volume on the President of the United States grappled with the same
problem. He said:
Article II is the most loosely drawn chapter of the Constitution. To those who think that a
constitution ought to settle everything beforehand it should be a nightmare; by the same token, to
those who think that constitution makers ought to leave considerable leeway for the future play of
political forces, it should be a vision realized.
We encounter this characteristic of Article II in its opening words: "The executive power shall be
vested in a President of the United States of America." . . . [The President: Office and Powers,
1787-1957, pp. 3-4.]
Reviewing how the powers of the U.S. President were exercised by the different persons who held the
office from Washington to the early 1900's, and the swing from the presidency by commission to
Lincoln's dictatorship, he concluded that "what the presidency is at any particular moment depends in
important measure on who is President." [At 30.]
This view is shared by Schlesinger, who wrote in The Imperial Presidency:
For the American Presidency was a peculiarly personal institution. It remained, of course, an agency of
government subject to unvarying demands and duties no matter who was President. But, more than

most agencies of government, it changed shape, intensity and ethos according to the man in charge.
Each President's distinctive temperament and character, his values, standards, style, his habits,
expectations, idiosyncrasies, compulsions, phobias recast the White House and pervaded the entire
government. The executive branch, said Clark Clifford, was a chameleon, taking its color from the
character and personality of the President. The thrust of the office, its impact on the constitutional order,
therefore altered from President to President. Above all, the way each President understood it as his
personal obligation to inform and involve the Congress, to earn and hold the confidence of the electorate
and to render an accounting to the nation and posterity determined whether he strengthened or
weakened the constitutional order. [At 212-213.]
We do not say that the presidency is what Mrs. Aquino says it is or what she does but, rather, that the
consideration of tradition and the development of presidential power under the different constitutions are
essential for a complete understanding of the extent of and limitations to the President's powers under
the 1987 Constitution. The 1935 Constitution created a strong President with explicitly broader powers
than the U.S. President. The 1973 Constitution attempted to modify the system of government into the
parliamentary type, with the President as a mere figurehead, but through numerous amendments, the
President became even more powerful, to the point that he was also the de facto Legislature. The 1987
Constitution, however, brought back the presidential system of government and restored the separation
of legislative, executive and judicial powers by their actual distribution among three distinct branches of
government with provision for checks and balances.
It would not be accurate, however, to state that "executive power" is the power to enforce the laws, for
the President is head of state as well as head of government and whatever powers inhere in such
positions pertain to the office unless the Constitution itself withholds it. Furthermore, the Constitution
itself provides that the execution of the laws is only one of the powers of the President. It also grants the
President other powers that do not involve the execution of any provision of law, e.g., his power over the
country's foreign relations.
On these premises, we hold the view that although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the
exercise of specific powers of the President, it maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within
the scope of "executive power." Corollarily, the powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only
to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, executive power is more than the
sum of specific powers so enumerated.
It has been advanced that whatever power inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor
judicial has to be executive. Thus, in the landmark decision of Springer v. Government of the Philippine
Islands, 277 U.S. 189 (1928), on the issue of who between the Governor-General of the Philippines and
the Legislature may vote the shares of stock held by the Government to elect directors in the National
Coal Company and the Philippine National Bank, the U.S. Supreme Court, in upholding the power of the
Governor-General to do so, said:
. . . Here the members of the legislature who constitute a majority of the "board" and "committee"
respectively, are not charged with the performance of any legislative functions or with the doing of
anything which is in aid of performance of any such functions by the legislature. Putting aside for
the moment the question whether the duties devolved upon these members are vested by the
Organic Act in the Governor-General, it is clear that they are not legislative in character, and still
more clear that they are not judicial. The fact that they do not fall within the authority of either of
these two constitutes logical ground for concluding that they do fall within that of the remaining one
among which the powers of government are divided . . . [At 202-203; emphasis supplied.]
We are not unmindful of Justice Holmes' strong dissent. But in his enduring words of dissent we find
reinforcement for the view that it would indeed be a folly to construe the powers of a branch of
government to embrace only what are specifically mentioned in the Constitution:
The great ordinances of the Constitution do not establish and divide fields of black and white. Even
the more specific of them are found to terminate in a penumbra shading gradually from one
extreme to the other. . . .
xxx xxx xxx

It does not seem to need argument to show that however we may disguise it by veiling words we
do not and cannot carry out the distinction between legislative and executive action with
mathematical precision and divide the branches into watertight compartments, were it ever so
desirable to do so, which I am far from believing that it is, or that the Constitution reqiures.[At
210-211.]
The Power Involved
The Constitution declares among the guiding principles that "[t]he prime duty of the Government is to
serve and protect the people" and that "[t]he maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life,
liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the
people of the blessings of democracy." [Art. II, Secs. 4 and 5.]
Admittedly, service and protection of the people, the maintenance of peace and order, the protection of
life, liberty and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essentially ideals to guide
governmental action. But such does not mean that they are empty words. Thus, in the exercise of
presidential functions, in drawing a plan of government, and in directing implementing action for these
plans, or from another point of view, in making any decision as President of the Republic, the President
has to consider these principles, among other things, and adhere to them.
Faced with the problem of whether or not the time is right to allow the Marcoses to return to the
Philippines, the President is, under the Constitution, constrained to consider these basic principles in
arriving at a decision. More than that, having sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution, the President
has the obligation under the Constitution to protect the people, promote their welfare and advance the
national interest. It must be borne in mind that the Constitution, aside from being an allocation of power
is also a social contract whereby the people have surrendered their sovereign powers to the State for the
common good. Hence, lest the officers of the Government exercising the powers delegated by the
people forget and the servants of the people become rulers, the Constitution reminds everyone that
"[s]overeignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them." [Art. II, Sec. 1.]
The resolution of the problem is made difficult because the persons who seek to return to the country are
the deposed dictator and his family at whose door the travails of the country are laid and from whom
billions of dollars believed to be ill-gotten wealth are sought to be recovered. The constitutional
guarantees they invoke are neither absolute nor inflexible. For the exercise of even the preferred
freedoms of speech and of expression, although couched in absolute terms, admits of limits and must be
adjusted to the requirements of equally important public interests [Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
79690-707, October 7, 1988].
To the President, the problem is one of balancing the general welfare and the common good against the
exercise of rights of certain individuals. The power involved is the President's residual power to protect
the general welfare of the people. It is founded on the duty of the President, as steward of the people. To
paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt, it is not only the power of the President but also his duty to do anything
not forbidden by the Constitution or the laws that the needs of the nation demand [See Corwin, supra, at
153]. It is a power borne by the President's duty to preserve and defend the Constitution. It also may be
viewed as a power implicit in the President's duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed [see
Hyman, The American President, where the author advances the view that an allowance of discretionary
power is unavoidable in any government and is best lodged in the President].
More particularly, this case calls for the exercise of the President's powers as protector of the peace.
[Rossiter, The American Presidency]. The power of the President to keep the peace is not limited merely
to exercising the commander-in-chief powers in times of emergency or to leading the State against
external and internal threats to its existence. The President is not only clothed with extraordinary powers
in times of emergency, but is also tasked with attending to the day-to-day problems of maintaining peace
and order and ensuring domestic tranquillity in times when no foreign foe appears on the horizon. Wide
discretion, within the bounds of law, in fulfilling presidential duties in times of peace is not in any way
diminished by the relative want of an emergency specified in the commander-in-chief provision. For in
making the President commander-in-chief the enumeration of powers that follow cannot be said to
exclude the President\'s exercising as Commander-in-Chief powers short of the calling of the armed

forces, or suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or declaring martial law, in order to keep
the peace, and maintain public order and security.
That the President has the power under the Constitution to bar the Marcoses from returning has been
recognized by members of the Legislature, and is manifested by the Resolution proposed in the House
of Representatives and signed by 103 of its members urging the President to allow Mr. Marcos to return
to the Philippines "as a genuine unselfish gesture for true national reconciliation and as irrevocable proof
of our collective adherence to uncompromising respect for human rights under the Constitution and our
laws." [House Resolution No. 1342, Rollo, p. 321.] The Resolution does not question the President's
power to bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines, rather, it appeals to the President's sense of
compassion to allow a man to come home to die in his country.
What we are saying in effect is that the request or demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the
Philippines cannot be considered in the light solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of
abode and the right to travel, subject to certain exceptions, or of case law which clearly never
contemplated situations even remotely similar to the present one. It must be treated as a matter that is
appropriately addressed to those residual unstated powers of the President which are implicit 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 submit to the exercise of a broader discretion on the part of the
President to determine whether it must be granted or denied.
The Extent of Review
Under the Constitution, judicial power includes the duty to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government." [Art. VIII, Sec. 1.] Given this wording, we cannot agree with the
Solicitor General that the issue constitutes a political question which is beyond the jurisdiction of the
Court to decide.
The present Constitution limits resort to the political question doctrine and broadens the scope of judicial
inquiry into areas which the Court, under previous constitutions, would have normally left to the political
departments to decide. But nonetheless there remain issues beyond the Court's jurisdiction the
determination of which is exclusively for the President, for Congress or for the people themselves
through a plebiscite or referendum. We cannot, for example, question the President's recognition of a
foreign government, no matter how premature or improvident such action may appear. We cannot set
aside a presidential pardon though it may appear to us that the beneficiary is totally undeserving of the
grant. Nor can we amend the Constitution under the guise of resolving a dispute brought before us
because the power is reserved to the people.
There is nothing in the case before us that precludes our determination thereof on the political question
doctrine. The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission cited by petitioners show that the framers
intended to widen the scope of judicial review but they did not intend courts of justice to settle all actual
controversies before them. When political questions are involved, the Constitution limits the
determination to whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of the official whose action is being questioned. If grave abuse is not
established, the Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the official concerned and decide a
matter which by its nature or by law is for the latter alone to decide. In this light, it would appear clear
that the second paragraph of Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution, defining "judicial power," which
specifically empowers the courts to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government, incorporates in the fundamental law the
ruling in Lansang v. Garcia [G.R. No. L-33964, December 11, 1971, 42 SCRA 448] that:
Article VII of the [1935] Constitution vests in the Executive the power to suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus under specified conditions. Pursuant to the principle of separation of powers
underlying our system of government, the Executive is supreme within his own sphere. However, the
separation of powers, under the Constitution, is not absolute. What is more, it goes hand in hand with the
system of checks and balances, under which the Executive is supreme, as regards the suspension of the
privilege, but only if and when he acts within the sphere alloted to him by the Basic Law, and the

authority to determine whether or not he has so acted is vested in the Judicial Department, which, in this
respect, is, in turn, constitutionally supreme.
In the exercise of such authority, the function of the Court is merely to check - not to supplant - the
Executive, or to ascertain merely whether he has gone beyond the constitutional limits of his jurisdiction,
not to exercise the power vested in him or to determine the wisdom of his act .. [At 479-480.].
Accordingly, the question for the Court to determine is whether or not there exist factual bases for the
President to conclude that it was in the national interest to bar the return of the Marcoses to the
Philippines. If such postulates do exist, it cannot be said that she has acted, or acts, arbitrarily or that
she has gravely abused her discretion in deciding to bar their return.
We find that from the pleadings filed by the parties, from their oral arguments, and the facts revealed
during the briefing in chambers by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the
National Security Adviser, wherein petitioners and respondents were represented, there exist factual
bases for the President's decision.
The Court cannot close its eyes to present realities and pretend that the country is not besieged from
within by a well-organized communist insurgency, a separatist movement in Mindanao, rightist
conspiracies to grab power, urban terrorism, the murder with impunity of military men, police officers and
civilian officials, to mention only a few. The documented history of the efforts of the Marcoses and their
followers to destabilize the country, as earlier narrated in this ponencia bolsters the conclusion that the
return of the Marcoses at this time would only exacerbate and intensify the violence directed against the
State and instigate more chaos.
As divergent and discordant forces, the enemies of the State may be contained. The military
establishment has given assurances that it could handle the threats posed by particular groups. But it is
the catalytic effect of the return of the Marcoses that may prove to be the proverbial final straw that
would break the camel's back.
With these before her, the President cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily and capriciously and
whimsically in determining that the return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat to the national interest
and welfare and in prohibiting their return.
It will not do to argue that if the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines will cause the escalation of
violence against the State, that would be the time for the President to step in and exercise the
commander-in-chief powers granted her by the Constitution to suppress or stamp out such violence. The
State, acting through the Government, is not precluded from taking pre-emptive action against threats to
its existence if, though still nascent, they are perceived as apt to become serious and direct. Protection
of the people is the essence of the duty of government. The preservation of the State - the fruition of the
people's sovereignty - is an obligation in the highest order. The President, sworn to preserve and defend
the Constitution and to see the faithful execution the laws, cannot shirk from that responsibility.
We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the country is only now beginning to recover from the hardships
brought about by the plunder of the economy attributed to the Marcoses and their close associates and
relatives, many of whom are still here in the Philippines in a position to destabilize the country, while the
Government has barely scratched the surface, so to speak, in its efforts to recover the enormous wealth
stashed away by the Marcoses in foreign jurisdictions. Then, We cannot ignore the continually increasing
burden imposed on the economy by the excessive foreign borrowing during the Marcos regime, which
stifles and stagnates development and is one of the root causes of widespread poverty and all its
attendant ills. The resulting precarious state of our economy is of common knowledge and is easily
within the ambit of judicial notice.
The President has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the Marcoses would wipe
away the gains achieved during the past few years and lead to total economic collapse. Given what is
within our individual and common knowledge of the state of the economy, we cannot argue with that
determination.
WHEREFORE, and it being our well-considered opinion that the President did not act arbitrarily or with
grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of former President Marcos and his family at the
present time and under present circumstances poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare

and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gancayco, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Feliciano, J., is on leave.