You are on page 1of 2

MARCOS VS MANGLAPUS

Posted by kaye lee on 1:16 PM

G.R. No. 88211 September 15 1989

FACTS:

Former President Marcos, after his and his family spent three year exile in Hawaii, USA, sought to return
to the Philippines. The call is about to request of Marcos family to order the respondents to issue travel
order to them and to enjoin the petition of the President's decision to bar their return to the Philippines.

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.

RULING:
Yes
According to Section 1, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution: "The executive power shall be vested in the
President of the Philippines." The phrase, however, does not define what is meant by executive power
although the same article tackles on exercises of certain powers by the President such as appointing
power during recess of the Congress (S.16), control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and
offices (Section 17), power to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and
forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment (Section 19), treaty making power (Section 21), borrowing
power (Section 20), budgetary power (Section 22), informing power (Section 23).
The Constitution may have grant powers to the President, it cannot be said to be limited only to the
specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. Whatever power inherent in the government that is
neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive.

Marcos vs. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668; 1989

FACTS: This case involves a petition of mandamus and prohibition asking the court to order the
respondents Secretary of Foreign Affairs, etc. To issue travel documents to former Pres. 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. Petitioners assert that the right of the Marcoses to return in the
Philippines is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, specifically Sections 1 and 6. They contended that Pres.
Aquino 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 the President impair their right to travel because no law has
authorized her to do so.

They further assert that under international law, their right to return to the Philippines is guaranteed
particularly by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, which has been ratified by the Philippines.

ISSUE: Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the constitution, the President (Aquino)
may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.

HELD: "It must be emphasized that the individual right involved is not the right to travelfrom the
Philippines to other countries or within the Philippines. These are what the rightto travel would
normally connote. Essentially, the right involved in this case at bar is the right to return to one's country,
a distinct right under international law, independent from although related to the right to travel. Thus,
the Universal Declaration of Human 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 the
country, and the right to enter one's country as separate and distinct rights. What the Declaration
speaks of is the "right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state". On the
other hand, the Covenant guarantees the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his
residence and the right to be free to leave any country, including his own. Such rights may only be
restricted by laws protecting the national security, public order, public health or morals or the separate
rights of others. However, right to enter one's country cannot be arbitrarily deprived. It would be
therefore inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right to return to ones country in the same
context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to travel.

The Bill of rights treats only the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is a well considered view
that the right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of International Law and
under our Constitution as part of the law of the land.

The court held that President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that
the return of the Former Pres. Marcos and his family poses a serious threat to national interest and
welfare. President Aquino has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the Marcoses
would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years after the Marcos regime.

The return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat and therefore prohibiting their return
to the Philippines, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED