Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Marcos vs Manglapus

Marcos vs Manglapus



|Views: 3,041|Likes:
Published by Sui

More info:

Published by: Sui on Aug 10, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





MARCOS vs. MANGLAPUS (Sept. 15, 1989)
Petitioners: Ferdinand Marcos, Imelda Marcos, Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., Irene Araneta,Imee Manotoc, Tomas Manotoc, Gregorio Araneta, Pacifico Marcos, Nicanor Yñiguez& PHILCONSARespondents: Hon. Raul Manglapus (DFA Sec.), Catalino Macaraig (Exec. Sec.),Sedfrey Ordoñez (DOJ Sec.), Miriam Defensor-Santiago (ImmigrationCommissioner), Fidel Ramos (DND Sec.), Renato de Villa (Chief of Staff)
Substantive Facts:
Feb. 1986 – Marcos was deposed from presidency by means of the PeoplePower. He was forced into exile in Hawaii.After 3 years, Marcos, now dying, prays that he and his family be allowed toreturn to the country.Aquino – barred Marcoses from returning due to possible threats & followingsupervening events:1.failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by Marcos leaders2.channel 7 taken over by rebels & loyalists3.plan of Marcoses to return w/ mercenaries aboard a chartered plane of aLebanese arms dealer *proof that they can stir trouble from afar & fanaticism & blind loyalty of followers4.Honasan’s failed coup5.Communist insurgency movements6.secessionist movements in Mindanao (setting up own gov’t w/aim tooverthrow current gov’t thru arms or propaganda7.devastated economy due toa.accumulated foreign debtb.plunder of nation by Marcos & cronies
Procedural Facts (Petitioners):
1. Filed a petition for mandamus & prohibition to order respondents to issue themtravel documents & prevent implementation of President’s decision to bar Marcoses from returning.2. They question:a.President’s power to bar return of Marcoses. They ask if such is a politicalquestion.b.President’s claim that such decisions may be made in the interest of nationalsecurity, public safety and health. Questions: a)clear & present danger b) wasdue process observed c) were petitioners notified d) was there proper hearingof the case e) were petitioners notified of the decision. They ask if such is apolitical question & if such fact has been established.c.President’s capacity to bar return of Marcoses. They claim that she actsoutside/in excess of her jurisdiction.3. Petitioners claim that:a.Such act deprives them of their rt. To life, liberty, property w/o due process &equal protection of the laws.b.Such act deprives them of their right to travel w/c according to law (Consti Billof Rights, Sec. 6) may only be impaired by a court order c.Even international laws provide for their right to return: a) rt to leave anycountry including one’s own country & return to his country (UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights Art. 13) and b) rt to liberty, mov’t & freedom tochoose residence, free to leave any country including is own not subj torestrictions except if necessary to protect nat’l security, puborder/health/morals and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of rt to enter owncountry (International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights)
Procedural Facts (Respondents):
1.This is a political question w/c includes the State’s rt. To security & safety, aquestion which only the President can determine.2.Consider the supervening events w/c can endanger national security & publicsafety .3.Art II, Consti: State has the duty to maintain peace & order & protect rts of everyone & promote gen. welfare so everyone can enjoy democracy.4.International precedents: Trujillo of Dominican Rep., Somoza Jr. of Nicaragua,etc. are among deposed dictators banned from returning to their countries
1. WON the right to travel is similar to the right to return to one’s country.2. WON it is w/in the President’s power to ban deposed dictators from returning tothe country.3. WON the President in banning the deposed dictator from returning is acting withgrave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
1.NO.a.International laws cited distinguish right to freedom of mov’t & residencefrom rt. To leave any country including his own & to return to his country.b.Right to return to one’s country is not vested in the constitution but it’s onlyincorporated by virtue of the constitution’s adoption of international laws aspart of the laws of the land (Art II, Sec. 2)2.YES.a.Separation of power dictates that each department has exclusive powers.b.Though the constitution outlines tasks of the president, this list is not defined& exclusive. She has residual & discretionary powers not stated in the Constiw/c include the power to protect the general welfare of the people. She isobliged to protect the people, promote their welfare & advance nationalinterest. (Art. II, Sec. 4-5 of the Consti). Residual powers dictate that thePresident can do anything w/c is not forbidden in the Consti (Roosevelt),inevitable to vest discretionary powers on the President (Hyman, AmericanPresident) and that the president has to maintain peace during times of emergency but also on the day-to-day operation of the State.c.Any power not vested on the judicial and legislative bodies belong to theexecutive. (Springer vs. Gov’t of the Philippine Islands)d.Consider the fact that who is president affects & shapes the presidency.e.It’s a folly to limit governmental powers to what is in the Constitution.(Holmes Dissent)f.The rights Marcoses are invoking are not absolute. They’re flexibledepending on the circumstances.
 TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-AMarcos vs. Manglapus 1
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.
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 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.
Gutierrez, Dissenting
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.
Cruz, Dissenting
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 &not expand.
Paras, Dissenting
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.
Padilla, Dissenting
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.
Sarmiento, Dissenting
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

Activity (86)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Jill Adrales liked this
Jamie Tiu liked this
Louraine May Georfo liked this
azuka_devil6667485 liked this
Kirsten Casas liked this
Dael Gerong liked this
Mabel Academia liked this
Michael Harding liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->