Marcos v.

Manglapus
GR 88211, 177 SCRA 669 [Sept 15, 1989]

Facts.
Only about 3 years after Pres. Aquino replaced Marcos, the latter, in his
deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die. But Pres.
Aquino, considering the dire consequences of his return to the nation 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 his and his family’s return. The Marcoses now seek to enjoin
the implementation of the Pres. Aquino’s decision, invoking their
constitutionally guaranteed liberty of abode and right to travel.

Issue.
Is the President granted power in the Constitution to prohibit the Marcoses
from returning to the Philippines?

Held.
Yes. It would not be accurate 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 in here in such positions pertain to the
office unless the Constitution itself withholds it. Although the
Constitution imposes limitations of the exercise of specific powers126 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. Executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so
enumerated. More particularly, this case calls for the exercise of the President’s
powers as protector of the peace. The President is also tasked with xxx
ensuring domestic tranquility xxx. The demand of the Marcoses to be allowed
to return to the Philippines xxx must be treated as a matter that is appropriately
addressed to those residual unstated powers of the President which are implicit
in and correlative to the paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard
and protect general welfare. There exists factual basis for the President’s
decision. The Court cannot xxx pretend the country is not besieged from
within xxx. xxx the catalytic effect of the return of the Marcoses xxx may
prove to be the proverbial final straw that would break the camel’s back. With
these before her, the President cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily and
capriciously xxx in determining that the return of the Marcoses poses a serious
threat to the national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return. The
Court voted 8-7.

Marcos v. Manglapus
GR 88211, 178 SCRA 761 [Oct 27, 1989

Facts.
On Sept 28, 1989, F. Marcos died in Honolulu, Hawaii. Pres. Aquino insisted
still to bar the return of the Marcoses including the former President’s remains.
The Marcoses filed this motion for reconsideration.

Issue.
Is the President granted power in the Constitution to prohibit the Marcoses
from returning to the Philippines?

Held.
Yes. No compelling reasons have been established by the Marcoses to warrant
a reconsideration of the Court’s decision. The death of F. Marcos has not
changed the factual scenario. The threats to the govt, to which the return of
the Marcoses has been viewed to provide a catalytic effect, have not been
shown to have ceased. It cannot be denied that the President upon whom
executive power is vested, has unstated residual power which are implied from
the grant of executive power which are necessary for her to comply with her
duties. This is so, notwithstanding the avowed intent of the framers of the
Constitution to limit the powers of the President for the result was a limitation
of specific powers of the President, particularly those relating to the
commander-in-chief clause, but not a diminution of the general grant of
executive power. The Court retained their voting: 8-7.