CASE OUTLINE

Carinan, Ezekiel Jacob D. Atty. Nashmyleen Marohomsalic

2018-80061 Legal Writing 1
Marcos v Manglapus
GR No. 88211 September 15, 1989
CORTES, J:
Statement of the Case:
The petitioner, Mr. Marcos and his family, filed for petition for mandamus
and prohibition, asking the Courts to order the respondents to issue travel
documents and allow them to return to the Philippines.
Facts of the Case:
In February 1986, People Power Revolution deposed former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos, and forced him into exile. Corazon C. Aquino was declared
President of the Republic under a revolutionary government.
In 1986, Col. Canlas, together with Marcos loyalists, staged a coup in
Manila Hotel, but failed. This was followed by takeover of television station
Channel 7 and the unsuccessful plan of the Marcos spouses to return from Hawaii
with mercenaries aboard an aircraft chartered by a Lebanese arms dealer. On 1987,
Col. Gregorio Honasan staged a failed coup that left combatants and civilians dead.
Military threatened civilian supremacy, while the communists set up a parallel
government of their own and separatists move freely with armed bands. Foreign
debt and plunder of the nation attributed to the former President left the economy
devastated.
Mr. Marcos wished to return to the Philippines to die. But Mrs. Aquino,
considering the consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability
of government is threatened and the economy is just beginning to rise and move
forward has firmly decided to bar the return of the Marcos family.

A. Issue: Whether or not the Marcos family has the right to return to its home
country despite that they “pose a threat to national security” of the
Philippines.

B. Applicable Laws or Rules:

Pro-Petitioner
a) Bill of Rights of the Constitution
Sec. 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.
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
1|Page
Carinan, Ezekiel Jacob D.
 CASE OUTLINE

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.
b) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
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.
c) 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.
Pro-Defendant
a) Article II of the Constitution
Sec. 4 The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people.
The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the
fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided
by law, to render personal, military, or civil service.
Sec. 5 The 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.
b) International Precedents

These are among the deposed dictators who are no longer allowed to
return to their home country:

1) Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic,

2) Anastacio Somoza Jr. of Nicaragua,
3) Jorge Ubico of Guatemala,
4) Fulgencio batista of Cuba,
5) King Farouk of Egypt,
6) Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez of El Salvador,

2|Page
Carinan, Ezekiel Jacob D.
 CASE OUTLINE

7) and Marcos Perez Jimenez of Venezuela

C. Arguments:
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 mean. 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.
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.
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.

A. Issue: Whether or not the power to bar the return of former President Marcos
and his family to the Philippines even if their return and residence here will
endanger national security and public safety is a political question which
shall belong under the discretion of the Executive.

B. Applicable Laws or Rules:

Pro-Petitioner:

1) Clearly, there is no mention of an enumerated power in the Constitution

that the President possesses to prevent anyone from returning to one’s
home country.

Pro-Defendant

Article II of the Constitution, Sec. 4 and Sec. 5, supra.

C. Arguments:

3|Page
Carinan, Ezekiel Jacob D.
 CASE OUTLINE

Officer of the Solicitor General first distinguished the two arising questions at
the moment:

1) “Do petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family have the right to return
to the Philippines and reestablish their residence here?” is a justiciable
question.
2) “Do petitioners 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?” is
a political question. This is because under the Article II of the
Constitution, the government is obliged to maintain peace and order, and
protect life, liberty, and property, and general welfare of the people.

The power to bar an individual or group of individuals should they “threaten”

national security and order of the country may not be exactly specified among the
powers of the Executive, the following must be observed:

As stated in Article VII, Section 1 of the Constitution, the executive power shall be
vested in the President of the Philippines. Although this does not indicate what
“executive power” means, it enumerates the different powers as executive: power
of control over all executive departments, bureaus, and offices, power to execute
the laws, power to appoint, and powers under commander-in-chief clause. The
framers of the Constitution did not intend that the only the powers enumerated in
the constitution can be exercised. It has been advanced that whatever power
inherent in the government that neither belongs to legislative not to judiciary shall
belong to the executive. Under the concept of residual powers, the powers of the
President cannot be concluded to be limited only to the specific powers written in
the constitution. Executive power is more than the sum of specific powers
enumerated in the Constitution.

Any other power that does not belong to the Legislative or to the Judiciary shall
belong to under the discretion of the Executive.

A. Issue: Whether or not the respondents have proved that return of former
President Marcos and his family is a clear and present danger to national
security, public safety, or public health.

B. Applicable Laws or Rules:

1) Rules on Evidence shall apply here.

C. Arguments

4|Page
Carinan, Ezekiel Jacob D.
 CASE OUTLINE

The courts decided that upon the facts revealed by National Security Adviser
and Armed of the Philippines regarding the return of the Marcos and his family
posed a threat to the national security and order. Insurgencies and coup d’etats
were happening perpetually, and the economy of the Philippines was left
destroyed by the Marcos administration. It is the catalytic effect of their return
that may prove to be the proverbial final straw that would break the camel's
back. With these before her, the President cannot be said to have acted
arbitrarily and capriciously and whimsically. The President, granted by powers
belonging to commander-in-chief of AFP is not precluded from taking a pre-
emptive action against threats to national order.

Conclusion of the Case:

The Bill of Rights cannot be construed in favor to petitioner’s claim of his
right to return to his home country as this is clearly different from the right to
travel or abode expressed under the Constitution. In addition, international
precedents regarding deposed dictators who are not allowed to return to their home
country are established by the petitioner. As OSG contended, the question of
whether or not the petitioner has the right to return to his home country changes
from it being a justiciable question to political question when the national security
is threatened, and shall be under the discretion of the Executive power to decide
upon. In terms of proving that the petitioner poses a threat to the country’s national
security, the petitioner contended that there is no “hard evidence”. However,
confirmation of AFP and NSA of the existence of the said threat shall warrant the
Executive to take pre-emptive action against threats to national order.

5|Page
Carinan, Ezekiel Jacob D.