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]. LLphil
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.]