g.Congress has recognized the President’s power by coming up with aresolution to urge Aquino to allow Marcoses to return.h.The Constitution is a social contract between the sovereign who surrendersits powers to the chosen rulers for the common good.3.NO.a.Factual bases – supervening events based on interviews w/AFP Chief of Staff & National Security Adviser.b.The President must take preemptive measures for the self-preservation of the country & protection of the people. She has to uphold the Constitution.
President did not act arbitrarily or w/gadalej in barring Marcoses fromreturning to the country. Their return, considering present time & circumstances,would pose as a serious threat to national interest & welfare. Petition dismissed.
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 andthe 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 & seriousthreat to its safety from arising.3.We can’t sacrifice public peace, order, safety & our political & economic gains togive in to Marcos’ wish to die in the country. Compassion must give way to theother state interests.
1.The issue here is one of rights & not of powers. Bill of rights must be appliedequally to everyone including rulers & people. The right to travel & abode mayonly be impaired by a COURT ORDER and not an Executive Order such as whatthe President has done. And it can only be impaired in the interest of nationalsecurity, public safety & public health or as may be provided by law. No proof of such. We can’t interpret the Constitution for one person only.2.No proof of grave threat/danger. The military has been able to quell previousattacks.3.It is not a political question. For such to exist, the Consti must provide that thepower is vested exclusively in the President or Congress, prohibiting the courts toexamine exercise of the power. Respondents failed to point out a Constiprovision granting the President power to decide such questions. Closestprovision would be commander-in-chief clause but there’s no rebellion or need tosuspend writ of habeas corpus. Hardcore loyalists are few in number.4.GADALEJ is determined by evidence. However, when president presentsevidence, court is in no position to disprove them and it seems as if the executivedept participates in the decision-making process or executive itself judges thesuit (Morales vs. Enrile). Another option would be to avail of judicial notice.Supervening events however are unrelated to the Marcoses. Disturbances arecaused not by Marcos followers but by NPA. President has failed to pronouncethat Marcos’ return would create a clear & present danger to the security & publicsafety. Reasons cited (nat’l welfare & interest, preserve gains of recovery &stability) are too generic & sweeping. Even military has expressed its capacity toquell opposing groups & that it’s on top of the situation.5.It is Marcos’ constitutional right to be allowed to return home w/c is similar to rtsto go abroad or move around the country. Rt to return home is the most imptamong these rts.6.If the President’s fears would happen once Marcos is allowed to return, Presidentcan act by arresting & trying him in court but no sense denying him his right toreturn.7.Allow Marcos to return out of tradition & custom and in the interest of nationalunity & reconciliation.
1.As a citizen of this country, it is Marcos’ right to return, live & die in his owncountry. 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 tonational security. Fears were mere conjectures.3.Residual powers – but the executive’s powers were outlined to limit her powers ¬ expand.
1.AFP has failed to prove danger which would allow State to impair Marcos’ right toreturn to the Philippines. .2.Family can be put under house arrest & in the event that one dies, he/she shouldbe buried w/in 10 days.
1.Untenable that without a legislation, right to travel is absolute & state ispowerless 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 beabsolute & unlimited all the time. It can’t be arbitrary & irrational.2.No proof that Marcos’ return would endanger national security or public safety.Fears are speculative & military admits that it’s under control. Filipinos wouldknow how to handle Marcos’ return.
1.Consti and international law do not distinguish between rights…only one right isinvolved, right to travel w/in one’s country or another & right to return.2.Residual powers of the president must yield to the primacy of the bill of rightsespecially if it has not been proven why the president’s exercise of her residualpowers should override the mandate of the fundamental law. Only 2 exceptionsare created in impairing one’s right to travel: by statute or judicial mandate. If presidential initiative was an option, it should have been included in the Consti.As a matter of fact, present Consti has divested the Executive of that impliedpower to impair rights…it should always be w/in the limits of the law.3.President’s determination that Marcos’ return would threaten national securityshould be agreed upon by the court. Such threat must be clear & present.
MARCOS vs. MANGLAPUS II (October 27, 1989)Substantive Facts:
Sept. 28, 1989 – Marcos died in HonoluluAquino statement – remains of Marcos will not be allowed to be brought to thecountry in the interest of safety of those who will react conflictingly to the death of
TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-AMarcos vs. Manglapus 2