MARCOS et. al. VS. MANGLAPUS [177 SCRA 668; G.R. NO.

88211; 15 SEPT 1989]

Facts: This case involves a petition of mandamus and prohibition asking the court to order the
respondents Secretary of Foreign Affairs, etc. To issue a travel documents to former Pres. Marcos and the
immediate members of his family and to enjoin the implementation of the President's decision to bar their
return to the Philippines. Petitioners assert that the right of the Marcos to return in the Philippines is
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, specifically Sections 1 and 6. They contended that Pres. Aquino is
without power to impair the liberty of abode of the Marcos because only a court may do so within the
limits prescribed by law. Nor the President impairs their right to travel because no law has authorized her
to do so.

They further assert that under international law, their right to return to the Philippines is guaranteed
particularly by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, which has been ratified by the Philippines.

Issue: Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the constitution, the President may
prohibit Marcos et. al. from returning to the Philippines.

Held: "It must be emphasized that the individual right involved is not the right to travel from the
Philippines to other countries or within the Philippines. These are what the right to travel would normally
connote. Essentially, the right involved in this case at bar is the right to return to one's country, a distinct
right under international law, independent from although related to the right to travel. Thus, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treat the right
to freedom of movement and abode within the territory of a state, the right to leave the country, and the
right to enter one's country as separate and distinct rights. What the Declaration speaks of is the "right to
freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state". On the other hand, the Covenant
guarantees the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence and the right to be free to
leave any country, including his own. Such rights may only be restricted by laws protecting the national
security, public order, public health or morals or the separate rights of others. However, right to enter
one's country cannot be arbitrarily deprived. It would be therefore inappropriate to construe the
limitations to the right to return to ones country in the same context as those pertaining to the liberty of
abode and the right to travel.

The Bill of rights treats only the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is a well considered view
that the right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of International Law and
under our Constitution as part of the law of the land.

The court held that President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that
the return of the Former Pres. Marcos and his family poses a serious threat to national interest and
welfare. President Aquino has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the Marcos
would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years after the Marcos regime.

Section 1, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution states "The executive power shall be vested in the
President of the Philippines…” The phrase, however, does not define what is meant by executive power
although the same article tackles on exercises of certain powers by the President such as appointing power
during recess of the Congress (S.16), control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices
(Section 17), power to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after
conviction by final judgment (Section 19), treaty making power (Section 21), borrowing power (Section
20), budgetary power (Section 22), informing power (Section 23).

The Constitution may have grant powers to the President, it cannot be said to be limited only to the
specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. Whatever power inherent in the government that is
neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive. (Residual Power) The Residual power used under the
1987 Constitution should not be confused with the powers of the President granted under the 1973
Constitution pursuant to Amendment No. 6 which is express and not implied. Then Amendment no. 6
refers to the grant to the President of specific powers of legislation.

The return of the Marcos poses a serious threat and therefore prohibiting their return to the Philippines,
Accordingly the Court herby resolved to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration for Lack of Merit.