MARCOS VS MANGLAPUS

FACTS:

1. Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philipppines to
die.

2. This petition for mandamus and prohibition asks the Courts to order the
respondents to issue travel documents to Mr. Marcos and the immediate members
of his family and to enjoin the implementation of the President's decision to bar their
return to the Philippines.

3. 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.

4. The petitioners further assert that under international law, the right of Mr. Marcos
and his family to return to the international Philippines is guaranteed. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights provides: Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to
freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone
has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Likewise, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which had been
ratified by the Philippines, International provides: Article 12 1) Everyone lawfully
within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of
movement and freedom to choose his residence. 2) Everyone shall be free to leave
any country, including his own.

5. On the other hand, the respondents' principal argument is that the issue in this
case involves a political question which is non-justiciable.

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? YES

HELD:

1. 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 international 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).]
2. 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, It has been advanced that whatever
power inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be
executive.

3. 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.

4. The State, acting through the Government, is not precluded from taking pre-
emptive action against threats to its existence if, though still nascent they are
perceived as apt to become serious and direct. Protection of the people is the
essence of the duty of government. The preservation of the State the fruition of the
people's sovereignty is an obligation in the highest order. The President, sworn to
preserve and defend the Constitution and to see the faithful execution the laws,
cannot shirk from that responsibility.

5. The President has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of
the Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years
and lead to total economic collapse.

6. WHEREFORE, and it being our well-considered opinion that 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.