Marcos Vs.

Manglapus Case Digest

Marcos Vs. Manglapus177 SCRA 668

G.R. No. 88211

September 15, 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 Marcoses 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 Marcoses because only a court may do so within the
limits prescribed by law. Nor the President impair 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(Aquino) may prohibit the Marcoses 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
Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years after the
Marcos regime. The return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat and therefore
prohibiting their return to the Philippines, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.
You're reading a preview. Unlock full access with a free trial.
Pages 2 to 5 are not shown in this preview.