MARCOS VS.

MANGLAPUS

G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989

CORTES, J.:

FACTS:

 After being deposed from the presidency, then President Ferdinand E.

Marcos was forced into exile. Before he died in Hawaii, he wished to return to
the Philippines. However, then President Corazon Aquino has stood firmly on
the decision to prohibit the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines, due to
some possible threats to national security.

 Consequently, Marcos filed for a petition of mandamus and prohibition asking

the Court to order the respondents to issue the Mascoses’ travel documents
and prevent the implementation of President Aquino’s decision to bar Marcos
from returning in the Philippines. The Marcoses contend that the President is
without power to impair their 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.
 Hence, the issue.

ISSUE:

WON the right to travel and liberty of abode of the Marcoses have been impaired.

HELD:
NO. It must be emphasized that the individual right involved is not the right to travel
from the Philippines to other countries or within the Philippines. These are what the
right to travel would normally connote. 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. Thus, the Universal Declaration of
Humans Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treat the
right to freedom of movement and abode within the territory of a state, the right to
leave a country, and the right to enter one’s country as separate and distinct rights.
The Declaration speaks of the “right to freedom of movement and residence within
the borders of each state” [Art. 13(l)] separately from the “right to leave any
country, including his own, and to return to his country.” [Art. 13(2).] On the other
hand, the Covenant guarantees the “right to liberty of movement and freedom to
choose his residence” [Art. 12(l)] and the right to “be free to leave any country,
including his own.” [Art. 12(2)] which rights may be restricted by such laws as “are
necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or enter
qqqs own country” of which one cannot be “arbitrarily deprived.” [Art. 12(4).] It
would therefore be inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right to return to
one’s country in the same context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and 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).]