c. Even international laws provide for their right to return: a) rt to leave any
Petitioners: Ferdinand Marcos, Imelda Marcos, Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., Irene Araneta, country including one’s own country & return to his country (Universal
Imee Manotoc, Tomas Manotoc, Gregorio Araneta, Pacifico Marcos, Nicanor Yñiguez Declaration of Human Rights Art. 13) and b) rt to liberty, mov’t & freedom to
& PHILCONSA choose residence, free to leave any country including is own not subj to
restrictions except if necessary to protect nat’l security, pub
Respondents: Hon. Raul Manglapus (DFA Sec.), Catalino Macaraig (Exec. Sec.), order/health/morals and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of rt to enter own
Sedfrey Ordoñez (DOJ Sec.), Miriam Defensor-Santiago (Immigration country (International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights)
Commissioner), Fidel Ramos (DND Sec.), Renato de Villa (Chief of Staff) Procedural Facts (Respondents):
1. This is a political question w/c includes the State’s rt. To security & safety, a
Substantive Facts: question which only the President can determine.
Feb. 1986 – Marcos was deposed from presidency by means of the People 2. Consider the supervening events w/c can endanger national security & public
Power. He was forced into exile in Hawaii. safety .
After 3 years, Marcos, now dying, prays that he and his family be allowed to 3. Art II, Consti: State has the duty to maintain peace & order & protect rts of
return to the country. everyone & promote gen. welfare so everyone can enjoy democracy.
Aquino – barred Marcoses from returning due to possible threats & following 4. International precedents: Trujillo of Dominican Rep., Somoza Jr. of Nicaragua,
supervening events: etc. are among deposed dictators banned from returning to their countries
1. failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by Marcos leaders Issues:
2. channel 7 taken over by rebels & loyalists 1. WON the right to travel is similar to the right to return to one’s country.
3. plan of Marcoses to return w/ mercenaries aboard a chartered plane of a 2. WON it is w/in the President’s power to ban deposed dictators from returning to
Lebanese arms dealer the country.
*proof that they can stir trouble from afar & fanaticism & blind loyalty of followers 3. WON the President in banning the deposed dictator from returning is acting with
4. Honasan’s failed coup grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
5. Communist insurgency movements Reasoning:
6. secessionist movements in Mindanao (setting up own gov’t w/aim to 1. NO.
overthrow current gov’t thru arms or propaganda a. International laws cited distinguish right to freedom of mov’t & residence
7. devastated economy due to from rt. To leave any country including his own & to return to his country.
a. accumulated foreign debt b. Right to return to one’s country is not vested in the constitution but it’s only
b. plunder of nation by Marcos & cronies incorporated by virtue of the constitution’s adoption of international laws as
Procedural Facts (Petitioners): part of the laws of the land (Art II, Sec. 2)
1. Filed a petition for mandamus & prohibition to order respondents to issue them 2. YES.
travel documents & prevent implementation of President’s decision to bar a. Separation of power dictates that each department has exclusive powers.
Marcoses from returning. b. Though the constitution outlines tasks of the president, this list is not defined
2. They question: & exclusive. She has residual & discretionary powers not stated in the Consti
a. President’s power to bar return of Marcoses. They ask if such is a political w/c include the power to protect the general welfare of the people. She is
question. obliged to protect the people, promote their welfare & advance national
b. President’s claim that such decisions may be made in the interest of national interest. (Art. II, Sec. 4-5 of the Consti). Residual powers dictate that the
security, public safety and health. Questions: a)clear & present danger b) was President can do anything w/c is not forbidden in the Consti (Roosevelt),
due process observed c) were petitioners notified d) was there proper hearing inevitable to vest discretionary powers on the President (Hyman, American
of the case e) were petitioners notified of the decision. They ask if such is a President) and that the president has to maintain peace during times of
political question & if such fact has been established. emergency but also on the day-to-day operation of the State.
c. President’s capacity to bar return of Marcoses. They claim that she acts c. Any power not vested on the judicial and legislative bodies belong to the
outside/in excess of her jurisdiction. executive. (Springer vs. Gov’t of the Philippine Islands)
3. Petitioners claim that: d. Consider the fact that who is president affects & shapes the presidency.
a. Such act deprives them of their rt. To life, liberty, property w/o due process & e. It’s a folly to limit governmental powers to what is in the Constitution.
equal protection of the laws. (Holmes Dissent)
b. Such act deprives them of their right to travel w/c according to law (Consti Bill f. The rights Marcoses are invoking are not absolute. They’re flexible
of Rights, Sec. 6) may only be impaired by a court order depending on the circumstances.
Cruz, Dissenting
No extraordinary reaction from so-called loyalists. There was only a display of
passing interest, if not outright indifference. Feeble threat has died with him. His
death has reduced him to a non-person as State has admitted, no reason to be
scared of him. He’s just a cadaver waiting to be interred in his country. We have
bigger problems.
Paras, Dissenting
1. dead still has rights – libel vs. deceased, etc. His widow & family have rights too.
2. threats are still unproven & unpersuasive. Chaos might arise if we bar him from
returning.
3. Return might mean reconciliation.
4. World will applaud our act of mercy.
TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A
Marcos vs. Manglapus 3