TITLE: MARCOS vs. MANGLAPUS, G.R. No.

88211 September 15, 1989

CAPTION: FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., IRENE M.
ARANETA, IMEE MANOTOC, TOMAS MANOTOC, GREGORIO ARANETA, PACIFICO E. MARCOS,
NICANOR YIGUEZ and PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), represented by
its President, CONRADO F. ESTRELLA, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS, CATALINO MACARAIG, SEDFREY ORDOEZ, MIRIAM DEFENSOR
SANTIAGO, FIDEL RAMOS, RENATO DE VILLA, in their capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs,
Executive Secretary, Secretary of Justice, Immigration Commissioner, Secretary of National
Defense and Chief of Staff, respectively, respondents.
PONENTE: CORTES, J.:
FACTS:
In February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from precidency via the non-violent
people power revolution and forced into exice.
Corazon Aquino was declared President of the Republic under a revolutionary government.
Her ascension to and consolidation of power have not been unchallenged. The failed Manila
Hotel coup in 1986 led by political leaders of Mr. Marcos, the takeover of television station
Channel 7 by rebel troops with the support of Marcos loyalists and the unsuccessful plot of
the Marcos spouse to return from Hawaii awakened the nation to the capacity of the Marcoses
to stir trouble even from afar and to the fanatism and blind loyalty of their followers in the
country.
Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die.
President Aquino, considering the dire consequence to the nation of his return, has stood firmly
on the decision to bar the return of Marcos and his family.
ISSUE: Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the
President may prohibit the Marcoses from retyrning to the Philippines.
RULING:
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 wellconsidered 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, i.e., against
being "arbitrarily deprived" thereof [Art. 12 (4).]
Faced with the problem of whether or not the time is right to allow the Marcoses to return to
the Philippines, the President is, under the Constitution, constrained to consider these basic
principles in arriving at a decision. More than that, having sworn to defend and uphold the
Constitution, the President has the obligation under the Constitution to protect the people,
promote their welfare and advance the national interest. It must be borne in mind that the
Constitution, aside from being an allocation of power is also a social contract whereby the
people have surrendered their sovereign powers to the State for the common good. Hence, lest
the officers of the Government exercising the powers delegated by the people forget and the

servants of the people become rulers, the Constitution reminds everyone that "[s]overeignty
resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them." [Art. II, Sec. 1.]
The Court cannot close its eyes to present realities and pretend that the country is not
besieged from within by a well-organized communist insurgency, a separatist movement in
Mindanao, rightist conspiracies to grab power, urban terrorism, the murder with impunity of
military men, police officers and civilian officials, to mention only a few. The documented
history of the efforts of the Marcose's and their followers to destabilize the country, as earlier
narrated in this ponencia bolsters the

conclusion that the return of the Marcoses at this time would only exacerbate and intensify the
violence directed against the State and instigate more chaos.
The President has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the Marcoses
would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years and lead to total economic
collapse. Given what is within our individual and common knowledge of the state of the
economy, we cannot argue with that determination.
WHEREFORE, and it being our well-considered opinion 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 at the present time and under present circumstances poses a serious threat to
national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines, the instant
petition is hereby DISMISSED.