Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CORTES, J.:
But the armed threats to the Government were not only found in
misguided elements and among rabid followers of Mr. Marcos. There
are also the communist insurgency and the seccessionist 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 on the areas they effectively control while the
separatist are virtually free to move about in armed bands. There
has been no let up on this groups' determination to wrest power
from the govermnent. Not only through resort to arms but also to
through the use of propaganda have they been successful in
dreating chaos and destabilizing the country. chanroblesvi rtua lawlib rary chan roble s virtual law l ibra ry
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. chanroblesv irt ualawli bra rychan rob les vi rtual law lib rary
Now, Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to
the Philipppines 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. chan roblesv irtualawl ibra rycha nrob les vi rtua l law lib rary
This petition for mandamus and prohibition asks the Courts 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
1. Does the President have the power to bar the return of former
President Marcos and family to the Philippines? chanrobles vi rtua l law li bra ry
(2) Has there been prior notice to petitioners? chanroble s virtual law lib rary
(3) Has there been a hearing? chanrobles vi rtua l law lib rary
(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?
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 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 further assert that under international law, the right
of Mr. Marcos and his family to return to the Philippines is
guaranteed. chanroblesv irt ualawli bra rycha nrob les vi rtual law lib rary
Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and
residence within the borders of each state. chanroblesvi rtualaw lib rary cha nrob les vi rtua l law lib rary
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own,
and to return to his country.
Respondents also point out that the decision to ban Mr. Marcos and
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.] chanrobles vi rtua l law lib ra ry
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. chanroblesv irt ualawli bra ry chan robles v irt ual law l ibra ry
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. chan roble svirtualawl ibra ry chan rob les vi rtual law lib rary
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(l)] 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(l)] 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 enter qqqs 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.chan roble svirtualawl ibra ry chan rob les vi rtual law lib rary
Thus, the rulings in the cases 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. chanroblesvi rtua lawlib rary cha nrob les vi rtual law li bra ry
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
Marcose's to the Philippines poses a serious threat to national
interest and welfare and decided to bar their return.
Executive Power
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.]chanrobles v irt ual law l ibra ry
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 tranquility 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.
law libra ry
chanroblesv irt ualawli bra ry chan robles v irt ual
That the President has the power under the Constitution to bar the
Marcose's from returning has been recognized by memembers 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. 321.1 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.chanroblesv irtualawli bra ry chan roble s virtual law l ibra ry
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..
chanroble svi rtualawl ib raryc hanrobles vi rt ual law li bra ry
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
Marcose's 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. chanroblesvi rtua lawlib rary c hanro bles vi rtua l law lib ra ry
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. chanroblesv irt ualawli bra ry chan robles v irt ual law l ibra ry
SO ORDERED. chanroblesvi rtua lawlib rary chan robles v irt ual law l ib rary