FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., IRENE M.

ARANETA, IMEE MANOTOC, TOMAS MANOTOC, GREGORIO ARANETA, PACIFICO E. MARCOS,

NICANOR YÑIGUEZ and PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), CONRADO F.
ESTRELLA,

vs.

HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS, CATALINO MACARAIG, SEDFREY ORDOÑEZ, MIRIAM

DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, FIDEL RAMOS, RENATO DE VILLA,

Facts:

September 15, 1989, the SC voted 8 to7 to dismiss the petition of the Marcos family to
allow the return of former President Ferdinand Marcos from Honolulu, Hawaii to the
Philippines. The Court held that President Corazon Aquino did not act arbitrarily 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 pose a threat to national
interest and welfare. The decision affirmed the constitutionality of President Corazon
Aquino's prior refusal, fearing the instability and security issues that may arise once the
remains of former President Marcos were to be brought back to the country. In a
statement, she said: "In the interest of the safety of those who will take the death of Mr.
Marcos in widely and passionately conflicting ways, and for the tranquility of the state
and order of society, the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos will not be allowed to be
brought to our country until such time as the government, be it under this administration
or the succeeding one, shall otherwise decide."

Issue:

1. Does the President have the power to bar the return of former President Marcos  and
family to the Philippines? 

a. Is this a political question? 

2. Assuming that the President has the power to bar former President
Marcos and  his family from returning to the Philippines, in the interest
of "national security,  public safety or public health 

a. Has the President made a finding that the return of former President
Marcos and  his family to the Philippines is a clear and present danger to
national security, public  safety or public health? 

b. Assuming that she has made that finding 

 (1) Have the requirements of due process been complied with in  
making such finding? 

(2) Has there been prior notice to petitioners?

(3) Has there been a hearing? 

(4) Assuming that notice and hearing may be dispensed with, has the  
President's decision, including the grounds upon which it was based,  
been made known to petitioners so that they may controvert the  
same? 

c. Is the President's determination that the return of former President

Marcos and  his family to the Philippines is a clear and present danger to
national security, public  safety, or public health a political question? 

d. Assuming that the Court may inquire as to whether the return of former
President  Marcos and his family is a clear and present danger to national
security, public  safety, or public health, have respondents established
such fact? 

3. Have the respondents, therefore, in implementing the President's

decision to bar  the return of former President Marcos and his family,
acted and would be acting  without jurisdiction, or in excess of jurisdiction,
or with grave abuse of discretion, in  performing any act which would
effectively bar the return of former President  Marcos and his family to the
Philippines? [Memorandum for Petitioners, pp. 5-7;  Rollo, pp. 234-236.1 
RULING:

This is Contrary to petitioners' view, it cannot be denied that the President, upon whom
executive power is vested, has unstated residual powers which are implied from the
grant of executive power and which are necessary for her to comply with her duties
under the Constitution. The powers of the President are not limited to what are
expressly enumerated in the article on the Executive Department and in scattered
provisions of the Constitution.

This is so, notwithstanding the avowed intent of the members of the Constitutional
Commission of 1986 to limit the powers of the President as a reaction to the abuses
under the regime of Mr. Marcos, for the result was a limitation of specific power of the
President, particularly those relating to the commander-in-chief clause, but not a
diminution of the general grant of executive power. Among the duties of the President
under the Constitution, in compliance with his (or her) oath of office, 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.