Marcos v Manglapus (Constitutional Law)

Marcos v Manglapus

GR No. 88211 September 15, 1989

CORTES, J:

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines.

FACTS:

(1) This is a petition for prohibition and mandamus to order 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 to the Philippines. This is in response to Marcos’s wish to return to the Philippines to die. The petitioner’s case is founded on the following provisions in the Bill of Rights:

Section 1.No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

And other contentions including:

                  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.

the right to travel may be impaired by any authority or agency of the government, there must be legislation to that effect.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides:

Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Likewise, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides:

Article 12

1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (order public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

(2) The respondents contend primacy of the right of the State to national security over individual rights, citing Article II

Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military, or civil service.

Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.

and the decision of other countries to ban deposed dictators like Cuba (Fulgencio Batista), etc.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines

(2) Whether or not the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she determined that the return of the Marcose's to the Philippines poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and decided to bar their return.

HELD:

Petition dismissed.  President did not act with abuse of discretion in determining the return of former President Marcos and his family at the present time since it poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare.

RATIO:

(1) Even from afar, the Marcoses had the capacity to stir trouble to the fanaticism and blind loyalty of their followers.

(2) 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.

(3) "what the presidency is at any particular moment depends in important measure on who is

President." (Corwin) 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. It has been advanced that whatever power inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive.

(4) The Constitution declares among the guiding principles that "[t]he prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people" and that "[t]he maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy." 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.

(5) Protection of the people is the essence of the duty of government. The preservation of the State the fruition of the people's sovereignty is an obligation in the highest order. The President, sworn to preserve and defend the Constitution and to see the faithful execution the laws, cannot shirk from that responsibility.