Marcos v Manglapus
and to return to his country.
Facts: 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 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,
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.
Issue: Whether or not, the issue of the return of Marcoses to the country is a
political question and whether or not the courts may review this controversy.
Held: 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.
There is nothing in the case before us that precludes our determination thereof on the We find that from the pleadings filed by the parties, from their oral arguments, and
political question doctrine. The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission cited the facts revealed during the briefing in chambers by the Chief of Staff of the Armed
by petitioners show that the framers intended to widen the scope of judicial review Forces of the Philippines and the National Security Adviser, wherein petitioners and
but they did not intend courts of justice to settle all actual controversies before them. respondents were represented, there exist factual bases for the President's decision..
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 The Court cannot close its eyes to present realities and pretend that the country is
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the official whose action is being questioned. If not besieged from within by a well-organized communist insurgency, a separatist
grave abuse is not established, the Court will not substitute its judgment for that of movement in Mindanao, rightist conspiracies to grab power, urban terrorism, the
the official concerned and decide a matter which by its nature or by law is for the murder with impunity of military men, police officers and civilian officials, to mention
latter alone to decide. In this light, it would appear clear that the second paragraph of only a few. The documented history of the efforts of the Marcose's and their followers
Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution, defining "judicial power," which specifically to destabilize the country, as earlier narrated in this ponencia bolsters the conclusion
empowers the courts to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of that the return of the Marcoses at this time would only exacerbate and intensify the
discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government, violence directed against the State and instigate more chaos.
incorporates in the fundamental law the ruling in Lansang v. Garcia [G.R. No. L-
33964, December 11, 1971, 42 SCRA 4481 that:] 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
Article VII of the [1935] Constitution vests in the Executive the power particular groups. But it is the catalytic effect of the return of the Marcoses that may
to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under specified prove to be the proverbial final straw that would break the camel's back. With these
conditions. Pursuant to the principle of separation of powers before her, the President cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily and capriciously
underlying our system of government, the Executive is supreme and whimsically in determining that the return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat
within his own sphere. However, the separation of powers, under the to the national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return.
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.