FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS. JR., IRENE M.

ARANETA,
IMEE M. MANOTOC, TOMAS MANOTOC, GREGORIO ARANETA, PACIFICO E. MARCOS, NICANOR
YÑIGUEZ and PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), represented by its President,
CONRADO F. ESTRELLA, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS, CATALINO MACARAIG, SEDFREY ORDOÑEZ, MIRIAM DEFENSOR
SANTIAGO, FIDEL RAMOS, RENATO DE VILLA, in their capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Executive
Secretary, Secretary of Justice, Immigration Commissioner, Secretary of National Defense and Chief of Staff,
respectively, respondents.

G.R. No. 88211 October 27, 1989

EN BANC:

FACTS:

The Marcoses filed a petition asking the courts to compel the respondents to issue them travel documents and order
them to comply with the president's decision to bar their return to the Philippines. The Supreme Court, in its
decision dated September 15, 1989, dismissed the said petition, finding that President Corazon Aquino did not act
arbitrarily or commit grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the return of former President Marcos and his family at
that time and in the present situation is a threat to the national interest and welfare, and prevents their return to the
Philippines. Former President Marcos died on September 28, 1989 in Honolulu, Hawaii. In a statement, President
Aquino said: "For the safety of those who take the death of Mr. Marcos in widely and passionately controversial
ways, and for the peace and order of the country, the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos will not be allowed to be
brought into our country until the government, whether under this one or the next, decides otherwise. "The
petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on October 2, 1989, making the following essential arguments: The
President has no power to prevent a Filipino from entering his homeland; if he has, he has exercised it arbitrarily;
and there is no basis to prevent the return of the family of former president Marcos.

ISSUE:
Whether or not President Aquino can use the powers given by the Constitution to prohibit the Marcoses
from returning to the Philippines

HELD:

Yes. The Supreme Court justified the action of President Aquino to prohibit the return of the Marcoses to the
Philippines with the rest of the powers of the president. It cannot be said that the power of the President is limited
only to the special authority listed in the Constitution. Executive power is more than the sum of the special powers
thus enumerated. Having enumerated the powers of the president, the cadres did not intend to use those powers and
no others. Any power inherent in government that is not legislative or judicial must be executive. These undeclared
residual powers derive from the grant of executive power and are necessary for the president to fulfill his
constitutional duties.

Dissenting opinions:

Judge Cruz thought that the return of Marcos would not at all threaten the security of the country and would not send
the people into mourning.

Judge Paras argued that the former president, although he is already dead, still has certain rights. The alleged threats
to national security, which the defense forces can easily contain, are yet to be proven. According to him, an
agreement on the return of the money can be quickly reached, and the acceptance of the declaration can soften the
hearts of the opposition parties; paving the way to a unified citizenship.
Judge Padilla argued that the former president was a Filipino and therefore had the right to return to the country, die
and be buried. Philippine democracy is built on the fundamental premise that the Constitution and all its guarantees
apply to every Filipino, whoever he may be, as long as he is a Filipino. The right of a Filipino to be buried in his
country is part of a continuous right that begins at birth and ends only on the day he is finally buried in his country.

Judge Sarmiento voted for the reconsideration, noting that the president does not have the right to deny the requests
of Marcos' relatives to bury the former president in his homeland, because of the alleged "residual power" of the
president to deny the entry of citizens to the Philippines. is not found in the Constitution, neither directly nor
indirectly. The threats to the government that the return of Marcos may pose are mere guesses and conjectures.

According to the constitution, the duties of the president, according to the oath of office, also include protecting and
promoting the interests and welfare of the people. His decision to deny the return of the remains of Marcos, and
subsequently Mr. Marcos, now and under the current circumstances, is consistent with this mandatory duty.