22. Marcos v.

Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668 (1989)

FACTS:

In February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the
non-violent "people power" revolution and forced into exile. In his stead, Corazon C.
Aquino was declared President of the Republic under a revolutionary government.
After he and his family spent three year exile in Hawaii, USA, Mr. Marcos, in his
deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philipppines to die. But Mrs. 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 Mr. Marcos and his family.

This case is unique. It should not create a precedent, for the case of a dictator
forced out of office and into exile after causing twenty years of political, economic
and social havoc in the country and who within the short space of three years
seeks to return, is in a class by itself.

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.

ISSUE:

1. whether or not the President has the power under the Constitution, to bar the
Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.

2. 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 Marcose's to the Philippines poses a serious threat to national interest and
welfare and decided to bar their return.

RULING:

Petitioners argue that right to return is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights : Right to
travel and Liberty of Abode. It is the court’s view that : 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 the court’s
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).]

1. 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
What we are saying in effect is that the request or demand 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.

2. NO, Accordingly, the question for the Court to determine is whether or not there
exist factual bases for the President to conclude that it was in the national interest to
bar the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines. If such postulates do exist, it
cannot be said that she has acted, or acts, arbitrarily or that she has gravely abused
her discretion in deciding to bar their return.

As divergent and discordant forces, the enemies of the State may be contained. The
military establishment has given assurances that it could handle the threats posed by
particular groups. But it is the catalytic effect of the return of the Marcoses that may
prove to be the proverbial final straw that would break the camel's back. With these
before her, the President cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily and capriciously
and whimsically in determining that the return of the Marcoses poses a serious
threat to the national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return. 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. Given what is within our individual and common knowledge
of the state of the economy, we cannot argue with that determination.