Marcos vs manglapus

Facts:
1. Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via
the non-violent people power revolution and was forced into exile
2. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philippines to
die. But President Corazon 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 Marcos and his
family.
3. Marcos filed for a petition of mandamus and prohibition to order the
respondents to issue them their travel documents and prevent the
implementation of President Aquinos decision to bar Marcos from returning in
the Philippines.
4. According to the Marcoses, such act deprives them of their right to life, liberty,
property without due process and equal protection of the laws. They also said
that it deprives them of their right to travel which according to Section 6,
Article 3 of the constitution, may only be impaired by a court order.
Issue:
1. Whether or not 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 Philippines poses a serious threat to national interest and
welfare and decided to bar their return.
Ruling:
NoConstitution, the executive power shall be vested in the President of the
Philippines.
However, it does not define what is meant by executive power although in the same
article it touches on 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 to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons (art VII
secfs. 14-23). Although the constitution outlines tasks of the president, this list is not
defined & exclusive. She has residual & discretionary powers not stated in the
Constitution which include the power to protect the general welfare of the people. She is
obliged to protect the people, promote their welfare & advance national interest. (Art. II,
Sec. 4-5 of the Constitution). Residual powers, according to Theodore Roosevelt,
dictate that the President can do anything which is not forbidden in the Constitution

(Corwin, supra at 153), inevitable to vest discretionary powers on the President

(Hyman, American President) and that the president has to maintain peace during times
of emergency but also on the day-to-day operation of the State.
The rights Marcoses are invoking are not absolute. Theyre flexible depending on the
circumstances. The request 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. In that context, such
request or demand should submit to the exercise of a broader discretion on the part of
the President to determine whether it must be granted or denied.

Manotoc Vs CA
FACTS:
1.

2.

3.

4.

Petitioner Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr., is one of the two principal

stockholders of Trans-Insular Management, Inc. and the Manotoc
Securities, Inc., a stock brokerage house.
Following the "run" on stock brokerages caused by stock broker
Santamaria's flight from this jurisdiction, petitioner, who was then in the
United States, came home, and together with his co-stockholders, filed
a petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
appointment of a management committee, not only for Manotoc
Securities, Inc., but likewise for Trans-Insular Management, Inc.
Pending disposition of SEC Case No. 001826, the Securities and
Exchange Commission requested the then Commissioner of
Immigration, Edmundo Reyes, not to clear petitioner for departure
When a Torrens title submitted to and accepted by Manotoc Securities,
Inc. was suspected to be a fake, six of its clients filed six separate
criminal complaints against petitioner and one Raul Leveriza, Jr., as
president and vice-president, respectively, of Manotoc Securities, Inc. In
due course, corresponding criminal charges for estafa were filed by the
investigating fiscal before the then Court of First Instance of Rizal,
docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 45399 and 45400, assigned to
respondent Judge Camilon, and Criminal Cases Nos. 45542 to 45545,

5.

6.

raffled off to Judge Pronove. In all cases, petitioner has been admitted
to bail in the total amount of P105,000.00, with FGU Instance
Corporation as surety.
Petitioner filed before each trial court motion for permission to leave the
country stating his desire to go to US relative to his business
transactions and opportunities. Such was opposed by the prosecution
and was also denied by the judges. He filed petition for certiorari with
CA seeking to annul the prior orders and the SEC communication
request denying his leave to travel abroad.
According to the petitioner, having been admitted to bail as a matter of
right, neither the courts that granted him bail nor SEC, which has no
jurisdiction over his liberty, could prevent him from exercising his
constitutional right to travel.

Issiue:
ON petitioners constitutional right to travel was violated.
Ruling
The court has power to prohibit person admitted to bail from leaving the country
because this is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail
bond. The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all
times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on
his constitutional right to travel. In case he will be allowed to leave the country
without sufficient reason, he may be placed beyond the reach of courts.
Furthermore, petitioner failed to satisfy trial court and CA of the urgency of his travel,
duration thereof, as well as consent of his surety to the proposed travel. He was not
able to show the necessity of his travel abroad. He never indicated that no other person
in his behalf could undertake such business transaction.
Article 3 Sec6: The liberty of abode and of changing the same shall not be impaired
except upon lawful order of the court. According to SC, the order of trial court in
releasing petitioner on bail constitutes such lawful order as contemplated by the
provision on right to travel.