7/25/2019 Marcos v. Manglapus (GR 88211, Sept. 15, 1989)
1/2
Marcos v. Manglapus (GR 88211, Sept. 15, 1989)FactsFerdinand E.
Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent people
powerrevolution and forced into exile. Pres. Corazon C. !uino was
declared President of the Philsunder a revolutionary "overnment.
#owever$ the ratification of the %&'( Constitution
furtherstren"thened the le"itimacy of Mrs !uino)s authority. *he
country was far from +ein" sta+ilized$thou"h$ as continued threats
from various sectors ran"in" from the re+els to the followers of
theMarcoses and even those that were initiators of the people power
revolution. *he economy$ too$of the country has its own challen"es
as it fi"hts to relieve itself of the devastatin" effect of
theMarcos a+use or accumulation of wealth and the accumulated
forei"n de+t as a result of sucha+uses.
Mr. Marcos has si"nified$ in his death+ed$ to return to the
Phils. ,ut Mrs !uino considerin" thedire conse!uences to the nation
of his return has stood firmly on the decision to +ar the his
andhis family)s return.
*his petition is +rou"ht into +y the Marcoses$ asin" the court
to compel the responsi+ledepartments of "overnment to "rant
documents for his return.
*he petitioners invoe the ,ill of i"hts specifically the ri"ht
of a person of li+erty of a+ode and
the ri"ht to travel. /t has also mentioned the freedom of
movement and the ri"ht to leave anycountry and to return to his
country as provided for in the 0niversal 1eclaration of #uman
i"hts.
*he respondents$ on the other hand ar"ues that the issue in this
case involves a political !uestionwhich is non-2usticia+le. *he
President has decided$ as an executive act$ to +ar the return of
theMarcoses +ecause such return and residence will endan"er
national security and pu+lic safety.espondents ar"ue for the
primacy of the ri"ht of the 3tate to national security over
individualri"hts as provided for in the Constitution.
/ssue4hether or not Ferdinand Marcos and his family will +e
allowed to "o +ac to the Philippines andwhether or not Pres !uino
acted with "rave a+use of discretion on the decision not to allow
theMarcoses to come +ac.
ulin"*he 3upreme Court ruled that President !uino did not act
with "rave a+use of discretion indeterminin" that the return of
former Pres Marcos and his family at the present time and
underpresent circumstances poses a serious threat to national
interest and welfare and in prohi+itin"their return to the
Phils.
*he ri"ht to return to one5s country is not amon" the ri"hts
specifically "uaranteed in the ,ill ofi"hts$ which treats only of
the li+erty of a+ode and the ri"ht to travel$ +ut it is our
well-consideredview that the ri"ht to return may +e considered$ as
a "enerally accepted principle of internationallaw and$ under our
Constitution$ is part of the law of the land 6rt. //$ 3ec. 7 of the
Constitution.8#owever$ it is distinct and separate from the ri"ht
to travel and en2oys a different protection underthe /nternational
Covenant of Civil and Political i"hts$ i.e.$ a"ainst +ein"
9ar+itrarily deprived9
thereof./t would not +e accurate$ however$ to state that
9executive power9 is the power to enforce thelaws$ for the
President is head of state as well as head of "overnment and
whatever powersinhere 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 thepowers of the President. /t also "rants the President
other powers that do not involve theexecution of any provision of
law$ e.".$ his power over the country5s forei"n relations.:n these
premises$ we hold the view that althou"h the %&'( Constitution
imposes limitations onthe exercise of specific powers of the
President$ it maintains intact what is traditionally consideredas
within the scope of 9executive power.9 Corollarily$ the powers of
the President cannot +e said
