Marcos, petitioner

VS.
Manglapus, respondent (Part 1)
Facts:
Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent
“people power” revolution and was forced into exile. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his
wish to return to the Philippines to die. But President Corazon 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 Marcos and his family.
Aquino barred Marcos from returning due to possible threats & following supervening events:

1. failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by Marcos leaders

2. channel 7 taken over by rebels & loyalists
3. plan of Marcoses to return w/ mercenaries aboard a chartered plane of a Lebanese arms
dealer. This is to prove that they can stir trouble from afar
4. Honasan’s failed coup
5. Communist insurgency movements
6. secessionist movements in Mindanao
7. devastated economy because of

1. accumulated foreign debt

2. plunder of nation by Marcos & cronies

Marcos filed for a petition of mandamus and prohibition to order the respondents to issue them
their travel documents and prevent the implementation of President Aquino’s decision to bar
Marcos from returning in the Philippines. Petitioner questions Aquino’s power to bar his return in
the country. He also questioned the claim of the President that the decision was made in the
interest of national security, public safety and health. Petitioner also claimed that the President
acted outside her jurisdiction.
According to the Marcoses, such act deprives them of their right to life, liberty, property without
due process and equal protection of the laws. They also said that it deprives them of their right to
travel which according to Section 6, Article 3 of the constitution, may only be impaired by a court
order.
Issue:

1. Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the President
may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.
2. 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.

Decision:
No to both issues. Petition dismissed.
Ratio:
Separation of power dictates that each department has exclusive powers. According to Section
1, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, “the executive power shall be vested in the
President of the Philippines.” However, it does not define what is meant by “executive power”
although in the same article it touches on exercise of certain powers by the President, i.e., the
power of control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices, the power to execute the
laws, the appointing power to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons… (art VII secfs. 14-
23). Although the constitution outlines tasks of the president, this list is not defined & exclusive.
She has residual & discretionary powers not stated in the Constitution which include the power to
protect the general welfare of the people. She is obliged to protect the people, promote their
welfare & advance national interest. (Art. II, Sec. 4-5 of the Constitution). Residual powers,
according to Theodore Roosevelt, dictate that the President can do anything which is not
forbidden in the Constitution (Corwin, supra at 153), inevitable to vest discretionary powers on
the President (Hyman, American President) and that the president has to maintain peace during
times of emergency but also on the day-to-day operation of the State.
The rights Marcoses are invoking are not absolute. They’re flexible depending on the
circumstances. The request of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines cannot be
considered in the light solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and
the right to travel, subject to certain exceptions, or of case law which clearly never contemplated
situations even remotely similar to the present one. It must be treated as a matter that is
appropriately addressed to those residual unstated powers of the President which are implicit in
and correlative to the paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard and protect general
welfare. In that context, such request or demand should submit to the exercise of a broader
discretion on the part of the President to determine whether it must be granted or denied.
For issue number 2, the question for the court to determine is whether or not there exist factual
basis for the President to conclude that it was in the national interest to bar the return of the
Marcoses in the Philippines. It is proven that there are factual bases in her decision. The
supervening events that happened before her decision are factual. The President must take
preemptive measures for the self-preservation of the country & protection of the people. She has
to uphold the Constitution.

Fernan, Concurring
1. The president’s power is not fixed. Limits would depend on the imperatives of events and
not on abstract theories of law. We are undergoing a critical time and the current problem
can only be answerable by the President.
2. Threat is real. Return of the Marcoses would pose a clear & present danger. Thus, it’s
the executive’s responsibility & obligation to prevent a grave & serious threat to its safety
from arising.
3. We can’t sacrifice public peace, order, safety & our political & economic gains to give in
to Marcos’ wish to die in the country. Compassion must give way to the other state
interests.

Cruz, Dissenting
1. As a citizen of this country, it is Marcos’ right to return, live & die in his own country. It is a
right guaranteed by the Consti to all individuals, whether patriot, homesick, prodigal,
tyrant, etc.
2. Military representatives failed to show that Marcos’ return would pose a threat to national
security. Fears were mere conjectures.
3. Residual powers – but the executive’s powers were outlined to limit her powers & not
expand.

Paras, Dissenting
 1. AFP has failed to prove danger which would allow State to impair Marcos’ right to return
to the Philippines. .
2. Family can be put under house arrest & in the event that one dies, he/she should be
buried w/in 10 days.
3. Untenable that without a legislation, right to travel is absolute & state is powerless to
restrict it. It’s w/in police power of the state to restrict this right if national security, public
safety/health demands that such be restricted. It can’t be absolute & unlimited all the
time. It can’t be arbitrary & irrational.
4. No proof that Marcos’ return would endanger national security or public safety. Fears are
speculative & military admits that it’s under control. Filipinos would know how to handle
Marcos’ return.

Padilla, Dissenting
Sarmiento, Dissenting

1. President’s determination that Marcos’ return would threaten national security should be
agreed upon by the court. Such threat must be clear & present.

G.R. No. 88211, October 27, 1989

Marcos, petitioner
VS.
Manglapus, respondent (Part 2)
Facts:
In its decision dated September 15, 1989, the Court by a vote of eight to seven, dismissed the
petition, after finding 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 pose a threat to national
interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines. On September 28, 1989,
Marcos died in Honolulu, Hawaii.
President Corazon Aquino issued a statement saying that in the interest of the safety of those
who will take the death of Marcos in widely and passionately conflicting ways, and for the
tranquility and order of the state and society, she did not allow the remains of Marcos to be
brought back in the Philippines.
A motion for Reconsideration was filed by the petitioners raising the following arguments:

1. Barring their return would deny them their inherent right as citizens to return to their
country of birth and all other rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all Filipinos.
2. The President has no power to bar a Filipino from his own country; if she has, she had
exercised it arbitrarily.
3. There is no basis for barring the return of the family of former President Marcos.

Issue:
Whether or not the motion for reconsideration that the Marcoses be allowed to return in the
Philippines be granted.
Decision:
No. The Marcoses were not allowed to return. Motion for Reconsideration denied because of lack
of merit.
Ratio:
1. Petitioners failed to show any compelling reason to warrant reconsideration.
2. Factual scenario during the time Court rendered its decision has not changed. The
threats to the government, to which the return of the Marcoses has been viewed to
provide a catalytic effect, have not been shown to have ceased. Imelda Marcos also
called President Aquino “illegal” claiming that it is Ferdinand Marcos who is the legal
president.
3. President has unstated residual powers implied from grant of executive power.
Enumerations are merely for specifying principal articles implied in the definition; leaving
the rest to flow from general grant that power, interpreted in conformity with other parts of
the Constitution (Hamilton). Executive unlike Congress can exercise power from sources
not enumerates so long as not forbidden by constitutional text (Myers vs. US). This does
not amount to dictatorship. Amendment No. 6 expressly granted Marcos power of
legislation whereas 1987 Constitution granted Aquino with implied powers.
4. It is within Aquino’s power to protect & promote interest & welfare of the people. She
bound to comply w/ that duty and there is no proof that she acted arbitrarily