Marcos v.

Manglapus,
G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989 & October 27, 1989

FACTS:

Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos was forced into exile after being overthrown from
the presidency by a nonviolent "people power" revolution. Marcos has expressed his
desire to die in the Philippines on his deathbed.

However, President Corazon Aquino has stayed fast in her decision to ban Marcos and
his family from returning, citing the terrible ramifications of their return at a time when
the government's stability is under assault from different directions and the economy is
just beginning to grow and move forward.

Marcos filed for a petition of mandamus and prohibition to order the respondents to issue
them their travel documents and prevent the implementation of President Aquino’s
decision to bar Marcos from returning in the Philippines. Petitioner questions Aquino’s
power to bar his return in the country. According to the Marcoses, such act deprives them
of their right to life, liberty, property without due process and equal protection of the
laws. They also said that it deprives them of their right to travel which according to
Section 6, Article 3 of the constitution, may only be impaired by a court order.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioners have the right to return to the Philippines invoking their right
under Section 6, Article 3 of the Constitution

HELD:

No. 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., and the right to enter one's country as separate and distinct
rights. Thus, the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights and the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights treat the right to freedom of movement and abode within the
territory of a state, the right to leave a country, and the right to enter one's country as
separate and distinct rights.

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 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).]

Moreover, it will not do to argue that if the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines will
cause the escalation of violence against the State, that would be the time for the President
to step in and exercise the commander-in-chief powers granted her by the Constitution to
suppress or stamp out such violence.