You are on page 1of 3

MARCOS vs. MANGLAPUS (Sept. 15, 1989) c.

c. Even international laws provide for their right to return: a) rt to leave any
Petitioners: Ferdinand Marcos, Imelda Marcos, Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., Irene Araneta, country including one’s own country & return to his country (Universal
Imee Manotoc, Tomas Manotoc, Gregorio Araneta, Pacifico Marcos, Nicanor Yñiguez Declaration of Human Rights Art. 13) and b) rt to liberty, mov’t & freedom to
& PHILCONSA choose residence, free to leave any country including is own not subj to
restrictions except if necessary to protect nat’l security, pub
Respondents: Hon. Raul Manglapus (DFA Sec.), Catalino Macaraig (Exec. Sec.), order/health/morals and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of rt to enter own
Sedfrey Ordoñez (DOJ Sec.), Miriam Defensor-Santiago (Immigration country (International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights)
Commissioner), Fidel Ramos (DND Sec.), Renato de Villa (Chief of Staff) Procedural Facts (Respondents):
1. This is a political question w/c includes the State’s rt. To security & safety, a
Substantive Facts: question which only the President can determine.
Feb. 1986 – Marcos was deposed from presidency by means of the People 2. Consider the supervening events w/c can endanger national security & public
Power. He was forced into exile in Hawaii. safety .
After 3 years, Marcos, now dying, prays that he and his family be allowed to 3. Art II, Consti: State has the duty to maintain peace & order & protect rts of
return to the country. everyone & promote gen. welfare so everyone can enjoy democracy.
Aquino – barred Marcoses from returning due to possible threats & following 4. International precedents: Trujillo of Dominican Rep., Somoza Jr. of Nicaragua,
supervening events: etc. are among deposed dictators banned from returning to their countries
1. failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by Marcos leaders Issues:
2. channel 7 taken over by rebels & loyalists 1. WON the right to travel is similar to the right to return to one’s country.
3. plan of Marcoses to return w/ mercenaries aboard a chartered plane of a 2. WON it is w/in the President’s power to ban deposed dictators from returning to
Lebanese arms dealer the country.
*proof that they can stir trouble from afar & fanaticism & blind loyalty of followers 3. WON the President in banning the deposed dictator from returning is acting with
4. Honasan’s failed coup grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
5. Communist insurgency movements Reasoning:
6. secessionist movements in Mindanao (setting up own gov’t w/aim to 1. NO.
overthrow current gov’t thru arms or propaganda a. International laws cited distinguish right to freedom of mov’t & residence
7. devastated economy due to from rt. To leave any country including his own & to return to his country.
a. accumulated foreign debt b. Right to return to one’s country is not vested in the constitution but it’s only
b. plunder of nation by Marcos & cronies incorporated by virtue of the constitution’s adoption of international laws as
Procedural Facts (Petitioners): part of the laws of the land (Art II, Sec. 2)
1. Filed a petition for mandamus & prohibition to order respondents to issue them 2. YES.
travel documents & prevent implementation of President’s decision to bar a. Separation of power dictates that each department has exclusive powers.
Marcoses from returning. b. Though the constitution outlines tasks of the president, this list is not defined
2. They question: & exclusive. She has residual & discretionary powers not stated in the Consti
a. President’s power to bar return of Marcoses. They ask if such is a political w/c include the power to protect the general welfare of the people. She is
question. obliged to protect the people, promote their welfare & advance national
b. President’s claim that such decisions may be made in the interest of national interest. (Art. II, Sec. 4-5 of the Consti). Residual powers dictate that the
security, public safety and health. Questions: a)clear & present danger b) was President can do anything w/c is not forbidden in the Consti (Roosevelt),
due process observed c) were petitioners notified d) was there proper hearing inevitable to vest discretionary powers on the President (Hyman, American
of the case e) were petitioners notified of the decision. They ask if such is a President) and that the president has to maintain peace during times of
political question & if such fact has been established. emergency but also on the day-to-day operation of the State.
c. President’s capacity to bar return of Marcoses. They claim that she acts c. Any power not vested on the judicial and legislative bodies belong to the
outside/in excess of her jurisdiction. executive. (Springer vs. Gov’t of the Philippine Islands)
3. Petitioners claim that: d. Consider the fact that who is president affects & shapes the presidency.
a. Such act deprives them of their rt. To life, liberty, property w/o due process & e. It’s a folly to limit governmental powers to what is in the Constitution.
equal protection of the laws. (Holmes Dissent)
b. Such act deprives them of their right to travel w/c according to law (Consti Bill f. The rights Marcoses are invoking are not absolute. They’re flexible
of Rights, Sec. 6) may only be impaired by a court order depending on the circumstances.

TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A


Marcos vs. Manglapus 1
g. Congress has recognized the President’s power by coming up with a 5. It is Marcos’ constitutional right to be allowed to return home w/c is similar to rts
resolution to urge Aquino to allow Marcoses to return. to go abroad or move around the country. Rt to return home is the most impt
h. The Constitution is a social contract between the sovereign who surrenders among these rts.
its powers to the chosen rulers for the common good. 6. If the President’s fears would happen once Marcos is allowed to return, President
3. NO. can act by arresting & trying him in court but no sense denying him his right to
a. Factual bases – supervening events based on interviews w/AFP Chief of return.
Staff & National Security Adviser. 7. Allow Marcos to return out of tradition & custom and in the interest of national
b. The President must take preemptive measures for the self-preservation of unity & reconciliation.
the country & protection of the people. She has to uphold the Constitution. Cruz, Dissenting
Holding: President did not act arbitrarily or w/gadalej in barring Marcoses from 1. As a citizen of this country, it is Marcos’ right to return, live & die in his own
returning to the country. Their return, considering present time & circumstances, country. It is a right guaranteed by the Consti to all individuals, whether patriot,
would pose as a serious threat to national interest & welfare. Petition dismissed. homesick, prodigal, tyrant, etc.
2. Military representatives failed to show that Marcos’ return would pose a threat to
Fernan, Concurring national security. Fears were mere conjectures.
1. The president’s power is not fixed. Limits would depend on the imperatives of 3. Residual powers – but the executive’s powers were outlined to limit her powers &
events and not on abstract theories of law. We are undergoing a critical time and not expand.
the current problem can only be answerable by the President. Paras, Dissenting
2. Threat is real. Return of the Marcoses would pose a clear & present danger. 1. AFP has failed to prove danger which would allow State to impair Marcos’ right to
Thus, it’s the executive’s responsibility & obligation to prevent a grave & serious return to the Philippines. .
threat to its safety from arising. 2. Family can be put under house arrest & in the event that one dies, he/she should
3. We can’t sacrifice public peace, order, safety & our political & economic gains to be buried w/in 10 days.
give in to Marcos’ wish to die in the country. Compassion must give way to the Padilla, Dissenting
other state interests. 1. Untenable that without a legislation, right to travel is absolute & state is
Gutierrez, Dissenting powerless to restrict it. It’s w/in police power of the state to restrict this right if
1. The issue here is one of rights & not of powers. Bill of rights must be applied national security, public safety/health demands that such be restricted. It can’t be
equally to everyone including rulers & people. The right to travel & abode may absolute & unlimited all the time. It can’t be arbitrary & irrational.
only be impaired by a COURT ORDER and not an Executive Order such as what 2. No proof that Marcos’ return would endanger national security or public safety.
the President has done. And it can only be impaired in the interest of national Fears are speculative & military admits that it’s under control. Filipinos would
security, public safety & public health or as may be provided by law. No proof of know how to handle Marcos’ return.
such. We can’t interpret the Constitution for one person only. Sarmiento, Dissenting
2. No proof of grave threat/danger. The military has been able to quell previous 1. Consti and international law do not distinguish between rights…only one right is
attacks. involved, right to travel w/in one’s country or another & right to return.
3. It is not a political question. For such to exist, the Consti must provide that the 2. Residual powers of the president must yield to the primacy of the bill of rights
power is vested exclusively in the President or Congress, prohibiting the courts to especially if it has not been proven why the president’s exercise of her residual
examine exercise of the power. Respondents failed to point out a Consti powers should override the mandate of the fundamental law. Only 2 exceptions
provision granting the President power to decide such questions. Closest are created in impairing one’s right to travel: by statute or judicial mandate. If
provision would be commander-in-chief clause but there’s no rebellion or need to presidential initiative was an option, it should have been included in the Consti.
suspend writ of habeas corpus. Hardcore loyalists are few in number. As a matter of fact, present Consti has divested the Executive of that implied
4. GADALEJ is determined by evidence. However, when president presents power to impair rights…it should always be w/in the limits of the law.
evidence, court is in no position to disprove them and it seems as if the executive 3. President’s determination that Marcos’ return would threaten national security
dept participates in the decision-making process or executive itself judges the should be agreed upon by the court. Such threat must be clear & present.
suit (Morales vs. Enrile). Another option would be to avail of judicial notice.
Supervening events however are unrelated to the Marcoses. Disturbances are MARCOS vs. MANGLAPUS II (October 27, 1989)
caused not by Marcos followers but by NPA. President has failed to pronounce Substantive Facts:
that Marcos’ return would create a clear & present danger to the security & public Sept. 28, 1989 – Marcos died in Honolulu
safety. Reasons cited (nat’l welfare & interest, preserve gains of recovery & Aquino statement – remains of Marcos will not be allowed to be brought to the
stability) are too generic & sweeping. Even military has expressed its capacity to country in the interest of safety of those who will react conflictingly to the death of
quell opposing groups & that it’s on top of the situation.
TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A
Marcos vs. Manglapus 2
Marcos and for tranquility of state & order of society. This will hold until Padilla, Dissenting
government, whether present or succeeding, decides otherwise. 1. We have denied him his right to return & die in his country, let’s not deny him his
Petitioners Procedural Facts: rt to be buried here. We can’t apply Consti selectively, it should apply to all
1. pray that necessary travel documents be issued to them Filipinos whether dictator, pauper, learned, ignorant, religious, etc. All Filipinos
2. pray that respondents be enjoined from implementing Aquino’s decision to bar have the constitutional right to be buried in his country. Government can lay
return of Marcos’ remain down conditions if it pleases but it should recognize rt. We can’t abandon our
3. MFR filed Oct. 2, 1989 w/following arguments: ageless & finest tradition of respect & deference to the dead.
a. barring their return would deny them their inherent right as citizens to return 2. Respondents have yet to present hard evidence to prove alleged threats. All they
to their country of birth & all other rights guaranteed by the Consti to all can give are general conclusions. Live Marcos did not pose serious threat, why
Filipinos should a dead one be any worse? There might be a graver threat if we deprive
b. President has no power to bar a Filipino from his own country, if she has, him of his rt to be buried here.
she acted arbitrarily Sarmiento, Dissenting
c. No basis for barring their return 1. Still no proof of residual powers of the president whether implied / expressly
Respondents Procedural Facts: granted. See first dissent re presidential initiative etc.
1. MFR is moot & academic as to deceased Marcos 2. Bill of Rights limits legislative & presidential intrusion on individual liberties.
2. Formal rights they’re invoking, right to return = right to destabilize the country, 3. Threats are conjectures, speculations & imaginations. No hard evidence. Military
hide their efforts to destabilize said they are on top of the situation & even President has expressed stability of
Issue: WON Marcos’ should be allowed to return to the country - NO the nation.
Reasoning:
1. Petitioners failed to show any compelling reason to warrant reconsideration.
2. Factual scenario during the time Court rendered its decision has not changed.
Threats are still there. Imelda even made a comment about Marcos being the
legal president.
3. President has unstated residual powers implied from grant of executive power.
Enumerations are merely for specifying principal articles implied in the definition;
leaving the rest to flow from general grant that power, interpreted in conformity
w/other parts of the Consti (Hamilton). Executive unlike Congress can exercise
power from sources not enumerates so long as not forbidden by consti’l text
(Myers vs. US). This does not amount to dictatorship. Amendment No. 6
expressly granted Marcos power of legislation whereas 1987 Consti granted
Aquino w/implied powers.
4. It is w/in Aquino’s power to protect & promote interest & welfare of the people.
She bound to comply w/ that duty and there is no proof that she acted arbitrarily
or w/gadalej.
Holding: Motion denied for lack of merit.

Cruz, Dissenting
No extraordinary reaction from so-called loyalists. There was only a display of
passing interest, if not outright indifference. Feeble threat has died with him. His
death has reduced him to a non-person as State has admitted, no reason to be
scared of him. He’s just a cadaver waiting to be interred in his country. We have
bigger problems.
Paras, Dissenting
1. dead still has rights – libel vs. deceased, etc. His widow & family have rights too.
2. threats are still unproven & unpersuasive. Chaos might arise if we bar him from
returning.
3. Return might mean reconciliation.
4. World will applaud our act of mercy.
TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A
Marcos vs. Manglapus 3