Marcos v.

Manglapus Decision
Facts:
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 case for petitioners is founded on the assertion that the right of the Marcoses
to return to the Philippines is guaranteed under Sections 1 and 6 of the Bill of Rights
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
The petitioners further assert that under international law, the right of Mr. Marcos
and his family to return to the Philippines is guaranteed
Petitioners advance the view that the President's powers are limited to those
specically 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
On the other hand, the respondents' principal argument is that the issue in this case
involves a political question which is non-justiciable
Issue:
Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the
President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.
Held:
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. 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).]
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.
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.]
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.
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
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.
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.
We find that from the pleadings led by the parties that there exist factual bases for
the President's decision.
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.