1-B, College of Law, San Beda Manila, A.Y.

2017-2018

CASE DIGEST: GR. NO. 88211 - September 15, 1989

CASE TITLE: FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., IRENE
M. ARANETA, IMEE M. MANOTOC, TOMAS MANOTOC, GREGORIO ARANETA, PACIFICO E.
MARCOS, NICANOR YÑIGUEZ and PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA),
represented by its President, CONRADO F. ESTRELLA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE RAUL
MANGLAPUS, CATALINO MACARAIG, SEDFREY ORDOÑEZ, MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, FIDEL
RAMOS, RENATO DE VILLA, in their capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Executive Secretary,
Secretary of Justice, Immigration Commissioner, Secretary of National Defense and Chief of
Staff, respectively, respondents.

FACTS:
 Feb. 1986 – Ferdinand Marcos was deposed from the presidency via a non-violent
‘people power’ revolution and forced to exile.
 Corazon Aquino was declared president under a revolutionary government.
 failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by political leaders of Mr. Marcos, the takeover of
television station Channel 7 by rebel troops led by Col. Canlas with the support of "Marcos
loyalists" and the unsuccessful plot of the Marcos spouses to surreptitiously return from
Hawaii with mercenaries aboard an aircraft chartered by a Lebanese arms dealer [Manila
Bulletin, January 30, 1987] awakened the nation to the capacity of the Marcoses to stir
trouble even from afar and to the fanaticism and blind loyalty of their followers in the
country.
 1987 Constitution enshrined the victory of "people power"
 Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die. But
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.
 According to the petitioners:
o 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.llcd
o 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.
 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
 1-B, College of Law, San Beda Manila, A.Y. 2017-2018

of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by

law.
o The petitioners 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, and to return to his country.
o Likewise, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which had been
ratified by the Philippines, provides: Art 12 (4) no one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of the right to enter his own country
 Respondents argument
o issue in the case involves a political question which is non-justiciable.
o primacy of the right of the State to national security over individual rights
o Respondents also point out that the decision to ban Mr. Marcos and his family
from returning to the Philippines for reasons of national security and public
safety has international precedents

ISSUE/S:
 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
Marcoses to the Philippines poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and
decided to bar their return.

HELD/RULING:

 Petition DISMISSED:
o 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
 This case calls for the exercise of the President's powers as protector of the peace. 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 speci ed in the commander-in- chief
provision.
 President has the power under the Constitution to bar the Marcoses from returning has
 1-B, College of Law, San Beda Manila, A.Y. 2017-2018

been recognized by members 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 unsel sh
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.] 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
 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.
o pleadings led by the parties, from their oral arguments, and the facts revealed
during the brie ng 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.
o the enemies of the State may be contained. The military establishment has given
assurances that it could handle the threats posed by particular groups. But it is
the catalytic effect of the return of the Marcoses that may prove to be the
proverbial final straw that would break the camel's back.
o Protection of the people is the essence of the duty of the government.
o The President, sworn to preserve and defend the Constitution and to see the
faithful execution the laws, cannot shirk from that responsibility.LLjur
 The President has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the
Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years and lead to
total economic collapse.
 Ferdinand E. Marcos and family have their right to return to the Philippines and
reestablish their residence here even if their return and residence here will endanger
national security and public safety. This is still a justiciable question which this
Honorable Court can decide.
o The right to return to one's country is not among the rights guaranteed in the Bill
of Rights 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
o primacy of the right of the state to national security over individual rights.
Banning of Aquino due to reasons of national security and public safety.

DISSENTING OPINION (additional info just incase)

 1-B, College of Law, San Beda Manila, A.Y. 2017-2018

Guierrez, Jr.

 With all due respect for the majority in the Court, I believe that the issue before us is
one of rights and not of power
 The Government has the power to arrest and punish him. But does it have the power to
deny him his right to come home and die among familiar surroundings?
 The Bill of Rights provides:
"Sec. 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." (Emphasis supplied, Section 6, Art. III, Constitution)
 In this particular case, judicial notice would be the only basis for determining the clear
and present danger to national security and public safety. The majority of the Court has
taken judicial notice of the Communist rebellion, the separatist movement, the rightist
conspiracies, and urban terrorism. But is it fair to blame the present day Marcos for
these incidents? All these problems are totally unrelated to the Marcos of today and, in
fact, are led by people who have always opposed him. If we use the problems of
Government as excuses for denying a person's right to come home, we will never run
out of justifying reasons. These problems or others like them will always be with us.
 The physical condition of Mr. Marcos does not justify our ignoring or refusing to act on
his claim to a basic right which is legally demandable and enforceable. For his own good,
it might be preferable to stay where he is. But he invokes a constitutional right. We have
no power to deny it to him.
 the Government can act. It can have Mr. Marcos arrested and tried in court. The
Government has more than ample powers under existing law to deal with a person who
transgresses the peace and imperils public safety. But the denial of travel papers is not
one of those powers because the Bill of Rights says so. There is no law prescribing exile
in a foreign land as the penalty for hurting the Nation.