G.R. No.

88211 September 15, 1989

FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., IRENE M. ARANETA, IMEE MANOTOC, TOMAS
MANOTOC, GREGORIO ARANETA, PACIFICO E. MARCOS, NICANOR YÑIGUEZ and PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION
(PHILCONSA), represented by its President, CONRADO F. ESTRELLA, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS, CATALINO MACARAIG, SEDFREY ORDOÑEZ, MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, FIDEL RAMOS,
RENATO DE VILLA, in their capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Executive Secretary, Secretary of Justice, Immigration
Commissioner, Secretary of National Defense and Chief of Staff, respectively, respondents.

Cortes, J.

Nature of the case: Executive Power

Supreme Court’s decision: The President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return
of former President Marcos and his family at the present time and under present circumstances poses a serious threat to
national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.

Legal Doctrine: 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.

FACTS: Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent ―people power revolution and forced into
exile. Pres. Corazon C. Aquino was declared President of the Philippines under a revolutionary government. However, the
ratification of the 1987 Constitution further strengthened the legitimacy of Mrs. Aquino‘s authority. The country was far from
being stabilized, though, as continued threats from various sectors ranging from the rebels to the followers of the Marcoses
and even those that were initiators of the people power revolution. Mr. Marcos has signified, in his deathbed, to return to
the Philippines. But Mrs. Aquino considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return has stood firmly on the decision
to bar the his and his family’s return.

The case for petitioners is founded on the assertion that the right of the Marcoses to return to the Philippines is guaranteed
under the following provisions of the 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.

The petitioners contend that the President is without power to impair the liberty of abode of the Marcoses because only a
court may do so "within the limits prescribed by law." Nor may the President impair their right to travel because no law has
authorized her to do so. They advance the view that before the right to travel may be impaired by any authority or agency of
the government, there must be legislation to that effect. The petitioners further assert that under international law, the right
of Mr. Marcos and his family to return to the Philippines is guaranteed.

ISSUE: Whether the President has the power to bar the petitioners from returning home?


HELD: Yes. 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. It is a (1) power borne by the President's duty to preserve and defend the Constitution. It also may be
viewed as a (2) power implicit in the President's duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

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 in here 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.
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. 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. 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.]