MARCOS v. MANGLAPUS, G.R. No.

88211 September 15, 1989

(BILL OF RIGHTS: LIBERTY OF ABODE: RULE AND LIMITATION)
DOCTRINE: Whatever power inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be
executive.
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. Her ascension to and consolidation of power have not been unchallenged.
"Marcos loyalists" brought bloody challenges to the government. Now, Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has
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.

ISSUE: Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the President may
prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.

RULING: YES. The power involved is the President's residual power to protect the general welfare of
the people.

Essentially, the right involved is the right to return to one's country, a totally distinct right under international
law, independent from although related to the right to travel.

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).]

The Constitution provides that "the 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.

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

The Constitution declares among the guiding principles that "the prime duty of the Government is to serve and
protect the people" and that "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." [Art. II, Secs. 4 and 5.] Faced with the problem of whether or not the time is right to allow the
Marcoses to return to the Philippines, 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.
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 request or demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines cannot be considered in the
light solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel, subject to
certain exceptions, or of case law which clearly never contemplated situations even remotely similar to the
present one. It 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.

The Court cannot close its eyes to present realities and pretend that the country is not besieged from within by a
well-organized communist insurgency, a separatist movement in Mindanao, rightist conspiracies to grab power,
urban terrorism, the murder with impunity of military men, police officers and civilian officials, to mention only
a few. The documented history of the efforts of the Marcose's and their followers to destabilize the country, as
earlier narrated in this ponencia bolsters the conclusion that the return of the Marcoses at this time would only
exacerbate and intensify the violence directed against the State and instigate more chaos. With these before her,
the President cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily and capriciously and whimsically in determining that the
return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat to the national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return.