MARCOS vs.

MANGLAPUS
GR No. 88211 – Oct. 27, 1989
Cortes
SUBJECT:

FACTS:
 In Feb. 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the people power
revolution and forced into exile.
 In his stead, Corazon Aquino was declared President of the Republic under a revolutionary gov.
 However, attempts to oust the new administration by ‘Marcos loyalists’ and the Marcos spouses
surreptitiously return from Hawaii with mercenaries aboard an aircraft awakened the nation to the
capacity of the Marcoses to stir trouble even afar due to fanaticism of loyaltY of theiR followers.
 Also, there were communist insurgencies and the secessionist movement in Mindanao which gained
ground during the Marcos regime.
 Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the PH to die but the President,
considering the dire consequences to the nation at his return, has stood firmly to bar his return.
 The petitioners, Ferdinand Marcos, et al., petitioned for mandamus and prohibition asking the Court
to order the respondents to issue travel documents to Mr. Marcos and the immediate family members
and to enjoin the implementation of the President’s decision to bar their return in the PH.

ISSUE:Whether or not the President's decisions to bar the return of the remains of former President Marcos
is constitutional.

HELD:
Petitioners’ arguments
 The right of the Marcoses to return to the PH is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights (Sec. 1 & Sec.
6).
 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.
 That under international law, the right of Mr. Marcos and his family to return to the PH is
guaranteed.

Respondents’ arguments
 That the issue in this case involves a political question which is non-justiciable.
 That the return of Mr. Marcos, at such time, will endanger national security and public safety.
 That reasons to ban Mr. Marcos and his family from returning to the PH for reasons of national
security and public safety has international precedents.

SC’s DECISION
he 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
The resolution of the problem is made difficult because the persons who seek to return
to the country are the deposed dictator and his family at whose door the travails of the
country are laid and from whom billions of dollars believed to be illgotten wealth are
sought to be recovered. The constitutional guarantees they invoke are neither absolute
nor inflexible. For the exercise of even the preferred freedoms of speech and of
expression, although couched in absolute terms, admits of limits and must be adjusted
to the requirements of equally important public interests.1
The 1987 Constitution has fully restored the separation of powers of the three great
branches of government. 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 inhere 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. On these premises, we hold the
view that although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise of
specificpowers 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. In
other words, executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated.
More particularly, this case calls for the exercise of the President’s powers as protector
of the peace. The power of the President to keep the peace is not limited merely to
exercising the commanderinchief powers in times of emergency or to leading the State
against external and internal threats to its existence. The President is not only clothed
with extraordinary powers in times of emergency, but is also tasked with attending to
the day today problems of maintaining peace and order and ensuring domestic
tranquility in times when no foreign foe appears on the horizon. Wide discretion,
within the bounds of law, in fulfilling presidential duties in times of peace is not in any
way disminished by the relative want of an emergency specified in the commanderin-
chief provision. For in making the President commanderinchief the enumeration of
powers that follow cannot be said to exclude the President’s exercising as
1
Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan (1988)
Commanderin Chief powers short of the calling of the armed forces, or suspending the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpusor declaring martial law, in order to keep the
peace, and maintain public order and security.
That the President has the power under the Constitution to bar the Marcoses from
returning has been recognized by members of the Legislature, and is manifested by the
Resolution proposed in the House of Representatives and signed by 103 of its
members urging the President to allow Mr. Marcos to return to the Philippines “as a
genuine unselfish gesture for true national reconciliation and as irrevocable proof of
our collective adherence to uncompromising respect for human rights under the
Constitution and our laws.”

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.

The death of Mr. Marcos, although it may be viewed as a supervening event, has not changed the factual
scenario under which the Court's decision was rendered. The threats to the government, to which the return
of the Marcoses has been viewed to provide a catalytic effect, have not been shown to have ceased. On the
contrary, instead of erasing fears as to the destabilization that will be caused by the return of the Marcoses,
Mrs. Marcos reinforced the basis for the decision to bar their return when she called President Aquino
"illegal," claiming that it is Mr. Marcos, not Mrs. Aquino, who is the "legal" President of the Philippines,
and declared that the matter "should be brought to all the courts of the world."

CRUZ, J., dissenting:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT TO TRAVEL AND RETURN TO ONE'S

COUNTRY; GRANT THEREOF STILL HOLDS. — The death of Marcos has not plunged the nation into
paroxysms of grief as the so-called "loyalists" had hoped. By and large, it has been met with only passing
interest if not outright indifference from the people. Clearly, the discredited dictator is in death no El Cid.
Marcos dead is only an unpleasant memory, not a bolt of lightning to whip the blood. This only shows that
if he was at all a threat to the national security when he was already moribund, that feeble threat has died
with him. As the government stresses, he has been reduced to a non-person (which makes me wonder why it
is still afraid of him). His cadaver is not even regarded as a symbol of this or that or whatever except by his
fanatical followers. It is only a dead body waiting to be interred in this country. This is a tempest in a teapot.
We have more important things to do than debating over a corpse that deserves no kinder fate than
dissolution and oblivion. I say let it be brought home and, buried deep and let us be done with it forever.

PARAS, J., dissenting:

THOUGH ALREADY DEAD STILL ENTITLED TO CERTAIN RIGHTS. — The former President,
although already dead, is still entitled to certain rights. It is not correct to say that a dead man, since he is no
longer a human being, has ceased to have rights. For instance, our Revised Penal Code prohibits the
commission of libel against a deceased individual. And even if we were to assume the non-existence
anymore of his human rights what about the human rights of his widow and the other members of his
family?

PADILLA, J., dissenting:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT TO TRAVEL AND TO RETURN TO ONE'S

COUNTRY; RIGHT OF A CITIZEN TO BE BURIED IN HIS HOMELAND. — The first cogent and
decisive proposition in this case is that "Mr. Marcos is a Filipino and, as such, entitled to return to, die and
be buried in this country." Respondents have succeeded in denying Mr. Marcos the first two (2) rights, i.e.
to return to and die in this country. The remaining right of this Filipino that cries out for vindication at this
late hour is the right to be buried in this country. Will the respondents be allowed to complete the circle of
denying the constitutional and human right of Mr. Marcos to travel which, as stated in my dissenting
opinion, includes the right to return to, die and be buried in this country? The answer should be in the
negative if the Constitution is to still prevail; the answer should be in the negative if we are to avoid the
completely indefensible act of denying a Filipino the last right to blend his mortal remains with a few square
feet of earth in the treasured land of his birth.

ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. — The constitutional and human right to be buried in
this country would apply to any Filipino, except Mr. Marcos, because he was a dictator and he plundered the
country. This is the most irrelevant argument that can be raised at this time. For, our democracy is built on
the fundamental assumption (so we believe) that the Constitution and all its guarantees apply to all
Filipinos, whether dictator or pauper, learned or ignorant, religious or agnostic, as long as he is a Filipino. If
a live Marcos returning to this country did not pose a serious threat to national security, the situation cannot
be any worse with a dead Marcos returning.

ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGHT TRANSCENDS DAY OF BIRTH UNTIL DAY OF BURIAL. — It is also said
that Mr. Marcos, in cadaver form, has no constitutional or human rights, to speak of. This contention
entirely begs the issue. In the first place, one cannot overlook that the right of Mr. Marcos, as a Filipino, to
be buried in this country, is asserted not for the first time after his death. It was vigorously asserted long
before his death. But, more importantly, the right of every Filipino to be buried in his country, is part of a
continuing right that starts from birth and ends only on the day he is finally laid to rest in his country. The
majority resolution, in effect, bans Mr. Marcos' burial in this country now. Without in any way affecting my
respect and regard for my brethren and sisters in the majority, I am deeply concerned and greatly disturbed
that, with their decision banning a dead Marcos from burial in this country, they have passed an opportunity
to defuse a constitutional crisis that, in my humble assessment, threatens to ignite an already divided nation.
Regrettably, they have ignored the constitutional dimension of the problem rooted in the ageless and finest
tradition of our people for respect and deference to the dead. What predictably follows will be a continuing
strife, among our people, of unending hatred, recriminations and retaliations. God save this country!

SARMIENTO, J., dissenting:

RIGHT TO TRAVEL; RIGHT OF A CITIZEN TO BE BURIED IN HIS OWN COUNTRY. — The

military has shown no hard evidence that "the return of the Marcoses" would indeed interpose a threat to
national security. And apparently, the majority itself is not convinced ("has been viewed . . .") That Mrs.
Marcos has referred to President Corazon Aquino as an illegitimate President, does not, so I submit,
reinforce alleged fears of a massive destabilization awaiting the nation. The military has said over and over
that Marcos followers are not capable of successful destabilization effort. And only this morning (October
27, 1989), media reported the assurances given to foreign investors by no less than the President, of the
political and economic stability of the nation, as well as the Government's capability to quell forces that
menace the gains of EDSA. The President has no power to deny requests of Marcos relatives to bury
Marcos in his homeland. As for the former, let them get their just deserts here too. And let the matter rest.