Marcos vs.

Manglapus
G.R. No. 88211. October 27, 1989

Facts:

In February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency, via the non-violent "people
power" revolution forced into exile, and was replaced by Corazon C. Aquino who was declared President
of the Republic under a revolutionary government. On September 28, 1989, former President Marcos
died in Honolulu, Hawaii. In his deathbed, he signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die, but,
Mrs. Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability
of government is threatened from various directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move
forward has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family.

The Court dismissed the petition in its decision dated September 15, 1989, hence the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by petitioners.

Issue:

May the President prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines in the exercise of the powers
granted by the Constitution

Ruling and Analysis:

Yes. The Court held that among the duties of the President under the Constitution is to protect and
promote the interest and welfare of the people. Her decision to bar the return of the Marcoses and
subsequently, the remains of Mr. Marcos at the present time and under present circumstances is in
compliance with this bounden duty. In the absence of a clear showing that she had acted with
arbitrariness or with grave abuse of discretion in arriving at this decision, the Court will not enjoin the
implementation of this decision.

Accordingly, the Court resolved to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
 Planas vs. Comelec
G.R. No. L-35925. January 22, 1973

Facts:

In February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent "people
power" revolution and forced into exile. In his stead, Corazon C. Aquino was declared President of the
Republic under a revolutionary government. On September 28, 1989, former President Marcos died in
Honolulu, Hawaii. In his deathbed, he signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die, but, Mrs.
Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of
government is threatened from various directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move
forward has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family.

The Court dismissed the petition in its decision dated September 15, 1989, hence the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by petitioners.

Issue:

May the President prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines in the exercise of the powers
granted by the Constitution

Ruling:

Yes. The Court held that among the duties of the President under the Constitution is to protect and
promote the interest and welfare of the people. Her decision to bar the return of the Marcoses and
subsequently, the remains of Mr. Marcos at the present time and under present circumstances is in
compliance with this bounden duty. In the absence of a clear showing that she had acted with
arbitrariness or with grave abuse of discretion in arriving at this decision, the Court will not enjoin the
implementation of this decision.

Accordingly, the Court resolved to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
 Javellana vs. Exec. Sec.
G.R. No. L-36142. March 31, 1973

Facts:

In February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent "people
power" revolution and forced into exile. In his stead, Corazon C. Aquino was declared President of the
Republic under a revolutionary government. On September 28, 1989, former President Marcos died in
Honolulu, Hawaii. In his deathbed, he signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die, but, Mrs.
Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of
government is threatened from various directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move
forward has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family.

The Court dismissed the petition in its decision dated September 15, 1989, hence the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by petitioners.

Issue:

May the President prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines in the exercise of the powers
granted by the Constitution

Ruling:

Yes. The Court held that among the duties of the President under the Constitution is to protect and
promote the interest and welfare of the people. Her decision to bar the return of the Marcoses and
subsequently, the remains of Mr. Marcos at the present time and under present circumstances is in
compliance with this bounden duty. In the absence of a clear showing that she had acted with
arbitrariness or with grave abuse of discretion in arriving at this decision, the Court will not enjoin the
implementation of this decision.

Accordingly, the Court resolved to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
 Aquino vs. Enrile
G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974

Facts:

In February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent "people
power" revolution and forced into exile. In his stead, Corazon C. Aquino was declared President of the
Republic under a revolutionary government. On September 28, 1989, former President Marcos died in
Honolulu, Hawaii. In his deathbed, he signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die, but, Mrs.
Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of
government is threatened from various directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move
forward has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family.

The Court dismissed the petition in its decision dated September 15, 1989, hence the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by petitioners.

Issue:

May the President prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines in the exercise of the powers
granted by the Constitution

Ruling:

Yes. The Court held that among the duties of the President under the Constitution is to protect and
promote the interest and welfare of the people. Her decision to bar the return of the Marcoses and
subsequently, the remains of Mr. Marcos at the present time and under present circumstances is in
compliance with this bounden duty. In the absence of a clear showing that she had acted with
arbitrariness or with grave abuse of discretion in arriving at this decision, the Court will not enjoin the
implementation of this decision.

Accordingly, the Court resolved to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
 Sanidad vs. Comelec
G.R. No. L-44640. October 12, 1976

Facts:

President Marcos issued the following Presidential Decrees:

P.D. 991 (Sept. 2, 1976) – calling for a national referendum on October 16, 1976 for the Citizens
Assemblies (“Barangay”) to resolve, among other things, the issues of martial law, the interim assembly,
its replacement, the powers of such replacement, the period of its existence, the length of the period for
the exercise by the President of his present powers;

P.D.1031 (Sept. 22, 1976) which amended P.D. 991 by declaring the provisions of P.D. 229 applicable as
to the manner of voting and canvassing of votes in barangays for the national referendum-plebiscite of
October 16, 1976;

P.D. 1033 (Sept. 22, 1976) which states that the question of the continuance of martial law will be
submitted for referendum at the same time as the submission of his (President) proposed amendments
to the Constitution through a plebiscite on October 16, 1976.

COMELEC held the exclusive supervision and control of the Oct. 1976 National Referendum-Plebiscite.

Petitioners Sanidad, et al filed several suits to (1) prohibit COMELEC from holding the said referendum-
plebiscite, and to (2) declare Presidential Decrees 991, 1031, and 1033 to be without force and effect.

Issue:

Does the president have the authority to propose amendments to the Constitution?

Ruling:

Yes. The Court held that the president has the authority to propose amendments as the governmental
powers are generally concentrated to the president in times of crisis.

Accordingly, the vote being 8 to 2 to dismiss, the said petitions are hereby dismissed. This decision is
immediately executory.
 Occena vs. Comelec (1)
G.R. No. L-56350. April 2, 1981

Facts:

Two suits for Prohibition were filed by Samuel Occena and Ramon A. Gonzales, both members of the
Philippine Bar and former delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention that framed the present
Constitution, assailing the validity of the Batasang Pambansa Resolution Nos. 28, 104, and 106 proposing
constitutional amendments. After hearing and oral argument, the Supreme Court dismissed both
petitions, reiterating the effectivity of the present Constitution and upholding the validity of the
questioned resolutions, the Interim Batasang Pambansa, by a majority vote, having the power to
propose amendments for ratification by the sovereign people.

Issue:

Is the 1973 Constitution already in effect

Ruling:

Yes. The Court held that it is much too late in the day to deny the force and applicability of the 1973
Constitution. In the dispositive portion of Javellana v. The Executive Secretary, the Court dismissed the
petitions for prohibition and mandamus to declare invalid its ratification by a vote of six to four. It then
concluded: “This being the vote of the majority, there is no further judicial obstacle to the new
Constitution being considered in force and effect.”

With such a pronouncement by the Supreme Court and with the recognition of the cardinal postulate
that what the Supreme Court says is not only entitled to respect but must also be obeyed, a factor for
instability was removed. The Supreme Court can check as well as legitimate. In declaring what the law is,
it may not only nullify the acts of coordinate branches but may also sustain their validity. In the latter
case, there is an affirmation that what was done cannot be stigmatized as constitutionally deficient. The
mere dismissal of a suit of this character suffices. That is the meaning of the concluding statement in
Javellana. Since then, the Court has invariably applied the present Constitution.

Wherefore, the petitions are dismissed for lack of merit.

 Occena vs. Comelec (2)
G.R. No. L-56350. April 2, 1981

Facts:

Two suits for Prohibition were filed by Samuel Occena and Ramon A. Gonzales, both members of the
Philippine Bar and former delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention that framed the present
Constitution, assailing the validity of the Batasang Pambansa Resolution Nos. 28, 104, and 106 proposing
constitutional amendments. After hearing and oral argument, the Supreme Court dismissed both
petitions, reiterating the effectivity of the present Constitution and upholding the validity of the
questioned resolutions, the Interim Batasang Pambansa, by a majority vote, having the power to
propose amendments for ratification by the sovereign people.

Issue:

Does the Interim Batasang Pambansa has the power to propose amendments?

Ruling:

Yes. The Court held that the existence of the power of the Interim Batasang Pambasa is indubitable. The
applicable provision in the 1976 Amendments is quite explicit. Insofar as pertinent it reads thus: “The
Interim Batasang Pambansa shall have the same powers and its Members shall have the same functions,
responsibilities, rights, privileges, and disqualifications as the Interim National Assembly and the regular
National Assembly and the Members thereof.” One of such powers is precisely that of proposing
amendments. Article XVII, Section 15 of the 1973 Constitution in its Transitory Provisions vested the
Interim National Assembly with the power to propose amendments upon special call by the Prime
Minister by a vote of the majority of its members to be ratified in accordance with the Article on
Amendments.

Wherefore, the petitions are dismissed for lack of merit.

 Occena vs. Comelec (3)
G.R. No. L-56350. April 2, 1981

Facts:

Two suits for Prohibition were filed assailing the validity of the Batasang Pambansa Resolution Nos. 28,
104, and 106 proposing constitutional amendments. After hearing and oral argument, the Supreme
Court dismissed both petitions, reiterating the effectivity of the present Constitution and upholding the
validity of the questioned resolutions, the Interim Batasang Pambansa, by a majority vote, having the
power to propose amendments for ratification by the sovereign people.

Issue:

Are the three resolutions valid/

Ruling:

Yes. The Court held that the question of whether the proposed resolutions constitute amendments or
revision is of no relevance. It suffices to quote from the opinion of Justice Makasiar, speaking for the
Court, in Del Rosario v. Commission on Elections to dispose of this contention. Whether the
Constitutional Convention will only propose amendments to the Constitution or entirely overhaul the
present Constitution and propose an entirely new Constitution based on an ideology foreign to the
democratic system, is of no moment, because the same will be submitted to the people for ratification.
Once ratified by the sovereign people, there can be no debate about the validity of the new
Constitution. The fact that the present Constitution may be revised and replaced with a new one… is no
argument against the validity of the law because an “amendment” includes the ‘revision’ or total
overhaul of the entire Constitution. At any rate, whether the Constitution is merely amended in part or
revised or totally changed would become immaterial the moment the same is ratified by the sovereign
people.”

Wherefore, the petitions are dismissed for lack of merit.

 Phil. Bar Assoc. vs. Comelec
G.R. No. 72915. December 20, 1985

Facts:

Batas Pambansa Blg. 883 was approved calling for snap elections on February 07, 1986. By December
03, 1985, 11 petitioners contend the legality of the act on the ground that the vacancy required under
Sec. 9 Art. 7 of the 1973 Constitution in calling for an election was not met as President Marcos called
for the elections whilst signing a conditional “resignation” letter to the Batasang Pambansa. The letter
stated that Marcos would irrevocably vacate the presidency and after the winner of the elections would
take his oath of office 10 days after proclamation. However, the accompanying motion to restrain the
enforcement of the act failed to reach a majority vote, hence the United Opposition was able to field
candidates – Corazon Aquino and Salvador Laurel as president and vice president respectively, and
campaign without insisting Marcos to resign so long as elections would be held in a clean, fair, and
honest matter.

Issue:

Does Batas Pambansa Blg. 883 which provides for a "snap" election on February 7, 1986 violates the
Constitution

Ruling:

No. After considering all the pleadings and deliberating on the issues raised in the petitions as well as on
the oral arguments of the parties and the amici curiae in the hearings held in these cases, Chief Justice
Ramon C. Aquino and six (6) Justices, namely, Justices Claudio Teehankee, Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr.,
Vicente Abad Santos, Efren I. Plana, Venicio T. Escolin and Lorenzo Relova, voted to DISMISS the
petitions in these cases and to DENY the prayer for the issuance of an injunction restraining respondents
from holding the election on February 7, 1986.

Accordingly, inasmuch as there are less than the required ten (10) votes to declare Batas Pambansa
Bilang 883 unconstitutional, the petitions in these cases are hereby DISMISSED and the writs therein
prayed for are DENIED.
 Francisco vs. HoR
G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003

Facts:

On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution which directed the Committee on
Justice to “conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of disbursements and
expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).”
Within a period of one year, two (2) impeachment proceedings were filed against Supreme Court Chief
Justice Hilario Davide, first was on June 02, 2003 which was dismissed on October 22, 2003 for being
insufficient in substance; the second complaint was filed on October 23, 2003, a day after the House
Committee on Justice voted to dismiss it. This second impeachment was accompanied by a “Resolution
of Endorsement/Impeachment” signed by at least one-third (1/3) of all the Members of the House of
Representatives.

Issue:

Whether the filing of the second impeachment complaint against Davide was unconstitutional as it
violates the provision of Sec. 5 of Art. XI of the Constitution that “no impeachment proceedings shall be
initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”

Ruling:

Yes. The Court held that having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing of the
impeachment complaint and referral to the House Committee on Justice, the initial action taken
thereon, the meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment complaint has
been initiated in the foregoing manner, another may not be filed against the same official within a one-
year period following Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.

Wherefore, Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings which
were approved by the HoR on Nov. 28, 2001 are unconstitutional. Consequently, the second
impeachment complaint was barred under par. 5, sec. 3 of Article XI of the Constitution.

Conclusion:

No one is above the law or the Constitution. The Chief Justice is not above the law and neither is any
other member of the Court. But just because he is the Chief Justice does not imply that he gets to have
less in law than anybody else. The law is solicitous of every individual’s rights irrespective of his station
in life.
 Neri vs. Senate Committees
G.R. No. 180643. September 4, 2008

Facts:

In February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent "people
power" revolution and forced into exile. In his stead, Corazon C. Aquino was declared President of the
Republic under a revolutionary government. On September 28, 1989, former President Marcos died in
Honolulu, Hawaii. In his deathbed, he signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die, but, Mrs.
Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of
government is threatened from various directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move
forward has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family.

The Court dismissed the petition in its decision dated September 15, 1989, hence the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by petitioners.

Issue:

May the President prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines in the exercise of the powers
granted by the Constitution

Ruling:

Yes. The Court held that among the duties of the President under the Constitution is to protect and
promote the interest and welfare of the people. Her decision to bar the return of the Marcoses and
subsequently, the remains of Mr. Marcos at the present time and under present circumstances is in
compliance with this bounden duty. In the absence of a clear showing that she had acted with
arbitrariness or with grave abuse of discretion in arriving at this decision, the Court will not enjoin the
implementation of this decision.

Accordingly, the Court resolved to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
 Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS
G.R. No. 122156. February 3, 1997

Facts:

In February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent "people
power" revolution and forced into exile. In his stead, Corazon C. Aquino was declared President of the
Republic under a revolutionary government. On September 28, 1989, former President Marcos died in
Honolulu, Hawaii. In his deathbed, he signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die, but, Mrs.
Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of
government is threatened from various directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move
forward has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family.

The Court dismissed the petition in its decision dated September 15, 1989, hence the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by petitioners.

Issue:

May the President prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines in the exercise of the powers
granted by the Constitution

Ruling:

Yes. The Court held that among the duties of the President under the Constitution is to protect and
promote the interest and welfare of the people. Her decision to bar the return of the Marcoses and
subsequently, the remains of Mr. Marcos at the present time and under present circumstances is in
compliance with this bounden duty. In the absence of a clear showing that she had acted with
arbitrariness or with grave abuse of discretion in arriving at this decision, the Court will not enjoin the
implementation of this decision.

Accordingly, the Court resolved to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
 Garcia vs. Executive Secretary
G.R. No. 157584. April 2, 2009

Facts:

On March 1996, the government decided to pursue a policy of deregulation by enacting Republic Act No.
8180 or the “Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act of 1996.” RA 9180 however met strong
opposition, and rightly so, the Court struck down the law in its entirety because its offensive provisions
permeated the whole law and were the principal tools to carry deregulation into effect. On February 10,
1998, a new oil deregulation law, RA No 8479 was enacted by the Congress, excluding the offensive
provisions found in the invalidated law.

Petitioner asked to examine the constitutionality of Sec. 19 of RA 8479 through this petition for
certiorari.

Issue:

Is Sec. 19 of RA 8479 unconstitutional?

Ruling:

No. The Court held that in asking the Court to declare its unconstitutionality, petitioner invokes the
exercise by the Court of its power of judicial review. The power of judicial review is the power of the
courts to test the validity of executive and legislative acts for their conformity with the Constitution. The
petition failed to satisfy the very first of the requirements before the Court can exercise the power of
judicial review – the existence of an actual case or controversy. Petitioner Garcia’s issues fit snugly into
the political question mold. His thesis readily reveals the political, hence non-justiciable, nature of his
petition.

Wherefore, the petition was DISMISSED.

Conclusion:

The immediate implementation of full deregulation of the local downstream oil industry is a policy
determination by Congress which this Court cannot overturn without offending the Constitution and the
principle of separation of powers.
 Ifurung vs. Carpio-Morales
G.R. No. 232131. April 24, 2018

Facts:

In February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent "people
power" revolution and forced into exile. In his stead, Corazon C. Aquino was declared President of the
Republic under a revolutionary government. On September 28, 1989, former President Marcos died in
Honolulu, Hawaii. In his deathbed, he signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die, but, Mrs.
Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of
government is threatened from various directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move
forward has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family.

The Court dismissed the petition in its decision dated September 15, 1989, hence the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by petitioners.

Issue:

May the President prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines in the exercise of the powers
granted by the Constitution

Ruling:

Yes. The Court held that among the duties of the President under the Constitution is to protect and
promote the interest and welfare of the people. Her decision to bar the return of the Marcoses and
subsequently, the remains of Mr. Marcos at the present time and under present circumstances is in
compliance with this bounden duty. In the absence of a clear showing that she had acted with
arbitrariness or with grave abuse of discretion in arriving at this decision, the Court will not enjoin the
implementation of this decision.

Accordingly, the Court resolved to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.