Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No.

88211, 15 September 1989

-Petitioner is asserting his right and his family’s to go back to the Phil in invoking his right to
travel and his right to return to his country
-The president, Cory Aquino, barred the return of the said petitioner
-Respondents, as part of the exec branch, argues, in its contention, that the determination of
the pres that the return of the marcoses will exacerbate the current armed conflicts the country is
experiencing.

SC HELD
1. Tho the case before us has no precedence, what the court can only rule upon or could subject under
judicial review is if the executive branch, the president, has exercised her power with grave abuse of
discretion. If the president, in barring the petitioner’s return, has factual bases on its decision and has
not acted arbitrarily
2. The court ruled that in view of the current situation of the country where armed conflicts has arisen
and the PH is just starting to recover from the recent alleged charges and acts of the marcoses which, as
aresult, stifle the economy because of corruption, THE PRESIDENT has not done its power with grave
abuse.
3. Therefore, since it belongs to the president such power and the duty to uphold peace and protect and
defend the nation, such exercise of power is granted, thus, MARCOSES ARE BARRED from their return.

1. Bill of Rights, to wit:

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process
of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

xxx xxx xxx

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed
by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the
right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or
public health, as may be provided by law.

2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides:

Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within
the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to
return to his country.

3. Likewise, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which had been ratified by
the Philippines, provides:

Article 12

1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the
right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
 2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those
which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order
(order public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are
consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

4. Article II of the Constitution, to wit:

Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The
Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment
thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render
personal, military, or civil service.

Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and
property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by
all the people of the blessings of democracy.

5. the Universal Declaration of Humans 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 a country, and the right to enter one's country as separate and
distinct rights.

The Declaration speaks of the "right to freedom of movement and residence within the
borders of each state" [Art. 13(l)] separately from the "right to leave any country, including his
own, and to return to his country." [Art. 13(2).]
On the other hand, the Covenant guarantees the "right to liberty of movement and freedom
to choose his residence" [Art. 12(l)] and the right to "be free to leave any country, including
his own." [Art. 12(2)] which rights may be restricted by such laws as "are necessary to
protect national security, public order, public health or morals or enter qqqs own country" of
which one cannot be "arbitrarily deprived." [Art. 12(4).] It would therefore be inappropriate to
construe the limitations to the right to return to one's country in the same context as those
pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to travel.

6. The right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill
of Rights, which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is our well-
considered view that the right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted principle
of international law and, under our Constitution, is part of the law of the land [Art. II, Sec. 2 of
the Constitution.] However, it is distinct and separate from the right to travel and enjoys
a different protection under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights,
i.e., against being "arbitrarily deprived" thereof [Art. 12 (4).]

7. the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that "[the legislative power shall be vested in the
Congress of the Philippines" Art VI, Sec. 11, "[t]he executive power shall bevested in the
President of the Philippines" [Art. VII, Sec. 11, and "[te judicial power shall be vested in one
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law" [Art. VIII, Sec. 1.]
These provisions not only establish a separation of powers by actual division [Angara v.
Electoral Commission, supra] but also confer plenary legislative, executive and judicial
 powers subject only to limitations provided in the Constitution.
For as the Supreme Court in Ocampo v. Cabangis [15 Phil. 626 (1910)] pointed out "a grant
of the legislative power means a grant of all legislative power; and a grant of the judicial
power means a grant of all the judicial power which may be exercised under the
government." [At 631-632.1 If this can be said of the legislative power which is exercised by
two chambers with a combined membership of more than two hundred members and of the
judicial power which is vested in a hierarchy of courts, it can equally be said of the executive
power which is vested in one official the President.

As stated above, the Constitution provides that "[t]he executive power shall be vested in the
President of the Philippines." [Art. VII, Sec. 1]. However, it does not define what is meant by
executive power" although in the same article it touches on the exercise of certain powers by
the President, i.e., the power of control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices,
the power to execute the laws, the appointing power, the powers under the commander-in-
chief clause, the power to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, the power to grant
amnesty with the concurrence of Congress, the power to contract or guarantee foreign loans,
the power to enter into treaties or international agreements, the power to submit the budget
to Congress, and the power to address Congress [Art. VII, Sec. 14-23].

8. We do not say that the presidency is what Mrs. Aquino says it is or what she does but,
rather, that the consideration of tradition and the development of presidential power under
the different constitutions are essential for a complete understanding of the extent of and
limitations to the President's powers under the 1987 Constitution.

The 1987 Constitution, however, brought back the presidential system of government
and restored the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers by their
actual distribution among three distinct branches of government with provision for
checks and balances.

9. It would not be accurate, however, to state that "executive power" is the power to enforce the
laws, for the President is head of state as well as head of government and whatever powers
inherent in such positions pertain to the office unless the Constitution itself withholds it.
Furthermore, the Constitution itself provides that the execution of the laws is only one of the
powers of the President. It also grants the President other powers that do not involve the
execution of any provision of law, e.g., his power over the country's foreign relations.

On these premises, we hold the view that although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations
on the exercise of specific powers of the President, it maintains intact what is traditionally
considered as within the scope of "executive power." Corollarily, the powers of the
President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the
Constitution. In other words, executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so
enumerated,

It has been advanced that whatever power inherent in the government that is neither
legislative nor judicial has to be executive.

Thus, in the landmark decision of Springer v. Government of the Philippine Islands, 277 U.S.
189 (1928), on the issue of who between the Governor-General of the Philippines and the
Legislature may vote the shares of stock held by the Government to elect directors in the
National Coal Company and the Philippine National Bank, the U.S. Supreme Court, in
upholding the power of the Governor-General to do so, said:
 ...Here the members of the legislature who constitute a majority of the "board" and
"committee" respectively, are not charged with the performance of any legislative
functions or with the doing of anything which is in aid of performance of any such
functions by the legislature. Putting aside for the moment the question whether the
duties devolved upon these members are vested by the Organic Act in the Governor-
General, it is clear that they are not legislative in character, and still more clear that
they are not judicial. The fact that they do not fall within the authority of either of
these two constitutes logical ground for concluding that they do fall within that
of the remaining one among which the powers of government are divided ....[At
202-203; Emphasis supplied.]

10. The Constitution declares among the guiding principles that "[t]he prime duty of
theGovernment is to serve and protect the people" and that "[t]he maintenance of peace and
order,the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are
essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy." [Art. II, Secs. 4
and 5.]

Admittedly, service and protection of the people, the maintenance of peace and order, the
protection of life, liberty and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are
essentially ideals to guide governmental action. But such does not mean that they are empty
words. Thus, in the exercise of presidential functions, in drawing a plan of government, and
in directing implementing action for these plans, or from another point of view, in making any
decision as President of the Republic, the President has to consider these principles, among
other things, and adhere to them.

the President is, under the Constitution, constrained to consider these basic
principles in arriving at a decision.

More than that, having sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution, the President has the
obligation under the Constitution to protect the people, promote their welfare and advance
the national interest. It must be borne in mind that the Constitution, aside from being an
allocation of power is also a social contract whereby the people have surrendered their
sovereign powers to the State for the common good. Hence, lest the officers of the
Government exercising the powers delegated by the people forget and the servants of the
people become rulers, the Constitution reminds everyone that "[s]overeignty resides in the
people and all government authority emanates from them." [Art. II, Sec. 1.]

11. To the President, the problem is one of balancing the general welfare and the common good
against the exercise of rights of certain individuals. The power involved is the President's
residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. It is founded on the duty of
the President, as steward of the people.

To paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt, it is not only the power of the President but also his
duty to do anything not forbidden by the Constitution or the laws that the needs of the
nation demand [See Corwin, supra, at 153]. It is a power borne by the President's duty to
preserve and defend the Constitution. It also may be viewed as a power implicit in the
President's duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed [see Hyman, The American
President, where the author advances the view that an allowance of discretionary power is
unavoidable in any government and is best lodged in the President].

The power of the President to keep the peace is not limited merely to exercising the
commander-in-chief powers in times of emergency or to leading the State against external
 and internal threats to its existence. The President is not only clothed with extraordinary
powers in times of emergency, but is also tasked with attending to the day-to-day problems
of maintaining peace and order and ensuring domestic tranquility in times when no foreign
foe appears on the horizon. Wide discretion, within the bounds of law, in fulfilling presidential
duties in times of peace is not in any way diminished by the relative want of an emergency
specified in the commander-in-chief provision.

12. Under the Constitution, judicial power includes the duty to determine whether or not there
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part
of any branch or instrumentality of the Government." [Art. VIII, Sec. 1]

The present Constitution limits resort to the political question doctrine and broadens the
scope of judicial inquiry into areas which the Court, under previous constitutions, would have
normally left to the political departments to decide. But nonetheless there remain issues
beyond the Court's jurisdiction the determination of which is exclusively for the President, for
Congress or for the people themselves through a plebiscite or referendum.
We cannot, for example, question the President's recognition of a foreign government, no
matter how premature or improvident such action may appear.
We cannot set aside a presidential pardon though it may appear to us that the beneficiary is
totally undeserving of the grant.
Nor can we amend the Constitution under the guise of resolving a dispute brought before us
because the power is reserved to the people.

The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission cited by petitioners show that the framers
intended to widen the scope of judicial review but they did not intend courts of justice to
settle all actual controversies before them.
When political questions are involved, the Constitution limits the determination to
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the official whose action is being questioned .
If grave abuse is not established, the Court will not substitute its judgment for that of
the official concerned and decide a matter which by its nature or by law is for the
latter alone to decide. In this light, it would appear clear that the second paragraph of
Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution, defining "judicial power," which specifically
empowers the courts to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government, incorporates in the
fundamental law the ruling in Lansang v. Garcia [G.R. No. L-33964, December 11, 1971, 42
SCRA 4481 that:]

However, the separation of powers, under the Constitution, is not absolute. What is more, it
goes hand in hand with the system of checks and balances, under which the Executive is
supreme, as regards the suspension of the privilege, but only if and when he acts within the
sphere alloted to him by the Basic Law, and the authority to determine whether or not he has
so acted is vested in the Judicial Department, which, in this respect, is, in turn,
constitutionally supreme. In the exercise of such authority, the function of the Court is
merely to check — not to supplant the Executive, or to ascertain merely whether he
has gone beyond the constitutional limits of his jurisdiction, not to exercise the power
vested in him or to determine the wisdom of his act

13. The State, acting through the Government, is not precluded from taking pre-emptive action
against threats to its existence if, though still nascent they are perceived as apt to become
serious and direct. Protection of the people is the essence of the duty of government. The
preservation of the State the fruition of the people's sovereignty is an obligation in the
highest order. The President, sworn to preserve and defend the Constitution and to see the
faithful execution the laws, cannot shirk from that responsibility.

The resulting precarious state of our economy is of common knowledge and is easily within
the ambit of judicial notice