MARCOS, ET AL. V. MANGLAPUS (DFA SECRETARY), ET AL.

15 Sep 1989 / Cortes FACTS Former President Ferdinand Marcos, in his deathbed, signified his wish to return to the PH to die. However, considering the dire consequence of his return at a time when government stability is under threat and the economy is just beginning to rise, President Aquino stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Marcos and his family. This petition for mandamus and prohibition asks the Court to order the respondents to issue travel documents to Marcos and his family and to enjoin the implementation of Aquinos decision to bar their return. Petitioners contentions A3/S1 (due process, equal protection) A3/S6 (liberty of abode, right to travel) o President is without power to impair these rights because only a court may do so within the limits prescribed by law (abode); no law authorizing President (travel) Court said the resolution of this issue is rendered unnecessary, and that an appropriate case for its resolution will have to be awaited Universal Declaration of Human Rights, A13/S1&2 o Movement and residence; right to leave, return to country International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, A12/S1-4 o Movement and residence; leave country; rights not subject to any restrictions + exceptions; no arbitrary deprivation of right to enter country Respondents contentions The issue in this case involves a political question which is non-justiciable Primacy of the right of the State to national security over individual rights o A2/S4 (prime government duty is to serve and protect people) o A2/S5 (maintenance of peace and order, protection of life, liberty, property, promotion of the general welfare) Decision to ban Marcos family from returning to the PH for reasons of national security and public safety has international precedents ISSUES AND HOLDING 1. WON the President has the power under the Constitution to bar the Marcoses from returning to the PH. YES 2. WON the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she determined that the return of the Marcoses to the PH poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and decided to bar their return. NO DISCUSSION The parties agree that the underlying issue is the scope of presidential power and its limits. Although the Court gives due weight to their formulation of the issues, it is not bound by its narrow confines in arriving at a solution to the controversy. The individual right involved is NOT the right to travel (from PH to other countries or within PH). The right involved is the RIGHT TO RETURN TO ONES COUNTRY, a distinct right under international law, independent from although related to the right to travel. This right is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, but said right is part of the law of the land as it is a generally accepted principle of international law (A2/S2). Executive power Angara v. Electoral Commission separation of powers Ocampo v. Cabangis a grant of the legislative power means a grant of all legislative power [it can equally be said of the executive power which is vested in the President alone] A7/S1 does not define what is meant by executive power although the same article touches on the exercise of certain powers by the President (recall Consti 1 powers of the President: control, execution of laws, commander-in-chief, etc.)

Question: Did the framers intend that the President shall exercise only those specific powers listed? NO. Although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise of specific powers, it maintains intact what is considered as within the scope of executive power. The executive power is more than the sum of the specific powers enumerated. o Springer v. Govt. of PH Islands whatever power inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive  Holmes dissent it would be a folly to construe the powers of a branch of government to embrace only what are specifically mentioned in the Constitution Development of the Constitution o 1935 Strong President with explicitly broader powers than the US President o 1973 Attempted to modify into parliamentary government with a powerful President to the point that he was also the de facto legislature o 1987 Presidential system is brought back, as well as the separation of powers with provision for checks and balances o

The power involved In making any decision, the President has to consider and adhere to the principles in A2/S4&51 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 (A2/S1) To the President, the problem is one of balancing the general welfare and the common good against the exercise of rights of certain individuals. This case calls for the exercise of the Presidents powers as protector of the peace, which is not limited to exercising the commander-in-chief powers or to leading the State against threats. Wide discretion in fulfilling presidential duties in times of peace is not diminished by the relative want of an emergency specified in the commander-in-chief provision. The members of the Legislature recognized that the President has the power under the Constitution to bar the Marcoses from returning, as manifested by the Resolution proposed in the HoR and signed by 103 members urging the President to allow Marcos to return. It is an appeal to the Presidents sense of compassion and NOT a questioning of the Presidents power. This must be treated as a matter addressed to the residual unstated powers of the President which are implicit in and correlative to the duty to protect general welfare, so the request should submit to the exercise of a broader discretion on the Presidents part to determine WON it must be granted. The extent of review The issue does NOT constitute a political question. The deliberations of the ConComm 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. The question for the Court to determine is WON there exist factual bases for the President to conclude that it was in the national interest to bar the Marcoses return. (If postulates exist, it cannot be said that she acted arbitrarily or she gravely abused her discretion.) YES o Documented history of Marcoses efforts to destabilize country bolsters the conclusion that their return would only intensify the violence against the State and instigate more chaos o Argument: There would be time for President to exercise commander-in-chief powers if return would cause the escalation of violence  State is not precluded from taking pre-emptive action against threats if they are perceived as apt to become serious and direct The President has determined that the destabilization caused by the Marcoses return would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years and lead to total economic collapse. Give what is within our individual and common knowledge of the economys state, we cannot argue with that determination. Petition dismissed.

1 A2/S4&5. Prime government duty is to serve and protect people; Maintenance of peace and order, protection of life, liberty, property, promotion of the general welfare

CONCURRENCE FERNAN Presidential powers and prerogatives are not fixed and their limits are dependent on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law. DISSENT GUTIERREZ, JR. We are interpreting the Constitution for only one person and constituting him into a class by himself. To have a person as one class by himself smacks of unequal protection of the laws. The issue before us is one of rights and not of power. The respondents have not pointed to any grave exigency, which permits the use of untrammeled governmental power in this case and the indefinite suspension of the constitutional right to travel. The authority implied in A3/S6 does not exist because no law has been enacted specifying the circumstances when the right may be impaired in the interest of national security or public safety. A3/S6 states that impairment of the right may only take place upon lawful order of a court. The provision also includes the right to travel out of or back into the country. DISSENT CRUZ Marcos, as a PH citizen, is entitled to return to and liveand diein his own country. DISSENT PARAS Marcos has the right to return except only if prevented by the demands of national safety and national security. Armed Forces failed to prove this danger. It is incredible that one man and his family can arouse an entire country to rise in sympathy for the cause he once espoused. DISSENT PADILLA With or without restricting legislation, the interest of national security, public safety, or public health can justify and even require restrictions on the right to travel. The clause as may be provided by law merely declares a constitutional leave or permission for Congress to enact laws that may restrict right to travel in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health. The States power to restrict travel finds support in its police power. DISSENT SARMIENTO We cannot leave the determination solely to the Chief Executive. The Court itself must be content that the threat is not only clear, but more so, present. We would have betrayed our own ideals if we denied Marcos his rights.