Marcos vs.

Manglapus (1989)

Summary Cases:

● Ferdinand Marcos vs. Raul Manglapus

Subject: Right to travel is distinct from Right to return to one's country— enjoys a different protection;
Right to Return to One's Country is not guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, but nevertheless recognized
as a generally accepted principle of international law; President’s residual power in the interest of
national security; Exercise of President's residual power not a political question, but subject to Judicial
Review

Facts:

Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency and was forced into exile. Corazon Aquino’s
ascension into presidency was challenged by failed coup attempts as well as by plots of Marcos loyalists
and the Marcoses themselves. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the
Philipppines to die. But President Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return
has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family. Hence a petition for
mandamus and prohibition was filed in order for the Marcoses to be issued travel documents and to
enjoin President Corazon’s decision in not allowing that the return of the Maroses will pose a threat to
national interest and welfare.

Hence, 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 of the remains of Mr. Marcos along with the
members of his family. The Marcoses assert their right to return to the Philippines and questions the
power of the president under the Constitution to prohibit the same.

Held:

Right to travel is distinct from Right to return to one's country; enjoys a different protection

1. 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.

2. The Universal Declaration of Humans Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights treat (i) the right to freedom of movement and abode within the territory of a state, (ii) the right to
leave a country, and (iii) the right to enter one's country as separate and distinct rights.

Right to Return to One's Country is not guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, but nevertheless
recognized as a generally accepted principle of international law

3. 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
| Page 1 of 3
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).]

President’s residual power in the interest of national security

4. 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. More particularly,
this case calls for the exercise of the President's powers as protector of the peace.It is a power
borne by the President's duty to preserve and defend the Constitution.

5. The president, upon whom executive power is vested, has unstated residual powers which are
implied from the grant of executive power and which are necessary for her to comply with her
duties under the Constitution. The powers of the President are not limited to what are expressly
enumerated in the article on the Executive Department and in scattered provisions of the
Constitution.

6. 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.

Exercise of President's residual power not a political question, but subject to Judicial Review

7. The present Constitution limits resort to the political question doctrine and broadens the
scope of judicial inquiry into areas which the Court, under previous constitutions, would have
normally left to the political departments to decide. But nonetheless there remain issues beyond
the Court's jurisdiction the determination of which is exclusively for the President, for Congress
or for the people themselves through a plebiscite or referendum. We cannot, for example,
question the President's recognition of a foreign government, no matter how premature or
improvident such action may appear. We cannot set aside a presidential pardon though it may
appear to us that the beneficiary is totally undeserving of the grant. Nor can we amend the
Constitution under the guise of resolving a dispute brought before us because the power is
reserved to the people.

8. When political questions are involved, the Constitution limits the determination to whether or
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of the official whose action is being questioned. If grave abuse is not established, the Court
will not substitute its judgment for that of the official concerned and decide a matter which by its
nature or by law is for the latter alone to decide.

9. 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.

10. 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
| Page 2 of 3
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."

| Page 3 of 3