The SC ruled that the President has implied residual powers under the Constitution to comply with her duties, including protecting public interest and welfare. Thus, the President did not act arbitrarily in barring the return of the Marcoses and Marcos' remains given threats they posed to destabilizing the government. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration arguing the right to return was denied as Marcos' death did not change the risks and Mrs. Marcos' statements reinforced fears of destabilization.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
The SC ruled that the President has implied residual powers under the Constitution to comply with her duties, including protecting public interest and welfare. Thus, the President did not act arbitrarily in barring the return of the Marcoses and Marcos' remains given threats they posed to destabilizing the government. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration arguing the right to return was denied as Marcos' death did not change the risks and Mrs. Marcos' statements reinforced fears of destabilization.
The SC ruled that the President has implied residual powers under the Constitution to comply with her duties, including protecting public interest and welfare. Thus, the President did not act arbitrarily in barring the return of the Marcoses and Marcos' remains given threats they posed to destabilizing the government. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration arguing the right to return was denied as Marcos' death did not change the risks and Mrs. Marcos' statements reinforced fears of destabilization.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
The SC ruled that the President has implied residual powers under the Constitution to comply with her duties, including protecting public interest and welfare. Thus, the President did not act arbitrarily in barring the return of the Marcoses and Marcos' remains given threats they posed to destabilizing the government. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration arguing the right to return was denied as Marcos' death did not change the risks and Mrs. Marcos' statements reinforced fears of destabilization.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
President, upon whom executive power is vested, has
unstated residual powers which are implied from the grant FACTS: of executive power and which are necessary for her to comply with her duties under the Constitution. The powers of • In its decision dated September 15,1989, the Court, by a vote of 8 the President are not limited to what are expressly enumerated in to 7, dismissed the petition, after finding that the President did the article on the Executive Department and in scattered not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining provisions of the Constitution. This is so, notwithstanding the that the return of former President Marcos and his family. avowed intent of the members of the Constitutional Commission of • On September 28, 1989, former President Marcos died in 1986 to limit the powers of the President as a reaction to the Honolulu, Hawaii. In a statement, President Aquino said: In the abuses under the regime of Mr. Marcos, for the result was a interest of the safety of those who will take the death of Mr. limitation of specific power of the President, particularly those Marcos in widely and passionately conflicting ways, and for the relating to the commander-in-chief clause, but not a diminution of tranquility of the state and order of society, the remains of the general grant of executive power. Ferdinand E. Marcos will not be allowed to be brought to our country until such time as the government, be it under this • And neither can we subscribe to the view that a recognition of the administration or the succeeding one, shall otherwise decide. President's implied or residual powers is tantamount to setting the • On October 2, 1989, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed by stage for another dictatorship. Despite petitioners' strained petitioners, raising the following major arguments:1. to bar is to analogy, the residual powers of the President under the deny them not only the inherent right of citizens to return to their Constitution should not be confused with the power of the country of birth but also the protection of the Constitution;2. the President under the 1973 Constitution. President has no power to bar a Filipino from his own country; if she has, she had exercised it arbitrarily; and 3. there is no basis • The death of Mr. Marcos, although it may be viewed as a for barring the return of the family of former President Marcos. supervening event, has not changed the factual scenario under • The Solicitor General argued that the motion for reconsideration is which the Court's decision was rendered. The threats to the moot and academic as to the deceased Mr. Marcos. Moreover, he government, to which the return of the Marcoses has been viewed asserts that "the 'formal' rights being invoked by the Marcoses to provide a catalytic effect, have not been shown to have ceased. under the label 'right to return', including the label 'return of On the contrary, instead of erasing fears as to the destabilization Marcos' remains, is in reality or substance a 'right' to destabilize that will be caused by the return of the Marcoses, Mrs. Marcos the country, a 'right' to hide the Marcoses' incessant shadowy reinforced the basis for the decision to bar their return when she orchestrated efforts at destabilization." Thus, he prays that the called President Aquino "illegal," claiming that it is Mr. Marcos, not Motion for Reconsideration be denied. Mrs. Aquino, who is the "legal" President of the Philippines, and • Petitioners prayed that the Court reconsider its decision, order declared that the matter "should be brought to all the courts of respondents to issue the necessary travel documents and enjoin the world." respondents from implementing President Aquino's decision to bar • Among the duties of the President under the Constitution, the return of the remains of Mr. Marcos, and the other petitioners, in compliance with his (or her) oath of office, is to protect to the Philippines. and promote the interest and welfare of the people. Her decision to bar the return of the Marcoses and ISSUE(S)/HELD: subsequently, the remains of Mr. Marcos at the present Whether the President has the power to bar the return of the time and under present circumstances is in compliance Marcoses and subsequently the remains of Mr. Marcos? YES. with this bounden duty. In the absence of a clear showing that she had acted with arbitrariness or with grave abuse of discretion RATIO: in arriving at this decision, the Court will not enjoin the • Contrary to petitioners' view, it cannot be denied that the implementation of this decision.
Nadine Teston Balan
Constitutional Law Powers of the President No discussion on RTC, and CA. SC: respondents