Aleezah Gertrude Regado

INTRO TO LAW 2017

MARCOS Petitioner questions Aquino’s power to

bar his return in the country. He also
vs. questioned the claim of the President
MANGLAPUS that the decision was made in the
G.R NO. 88211; September 15, 1989 interest of national security, public
Cortes, J; safety and health. Petitioner also
claimed that the President acted outside
her jurisdiction.
FACTS:
o According to the Marcoses, such act
o Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos deprives them of their right to life,
was deposed from the presidency via the liberty, property without due process
non-violent “people power” revolution and and equal protection of the laws. They
was forced into exile. Marcos, in his also said that it deprives them of their
deathbed, has signified his wish to return right to travel which according to Section
to the Philippines to die. But President 6, Article 3 of the constitution, may only
Corazon Aquino, considering the dire be impaired by a court order.
consequences to the nation of his return
at a time when the stability of
government is threatened from various Petitioners assertion: Right of Marcoses to
directions and the economy is just return to the Philippines is guaranteed
beginning to rise and move forward, has under the following provisions of Art III of
stood firmly on the decision to bar the
Consti Bill of Rights
return of Marcos and his family.
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of
o Aquino barred Marcos from returning
due to possible threats & following life, liberty, or property without due
supervening events: process of law, nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws.
1.) Failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by
Marcos leaders Section 6. The liberty of abode and of
2.) Channel 7 taken over by rebels & changing the same within the limits
loyalists
3.) The unsuccessful plan of Marcoses to prescribed by law shall not be impaired
return w/ mercenaries aboard a except upon lawful order of the court.
chartered plane of a Lebanese arms Neither shall the right to travel be
dealer. impaired except in the interest of
 This is to prove that they can stir trouble
from afar national security, public safety, or public
4.) Honasan’s failed coup health, as may be provided by law.
5.) Communist insurgency movements
6.) Secessionist movements in Mindanao Petitioners contend that President is without
7.) devastated economy because of power to impair liberty to abode because
accumulated foreign debt plunder of
nation by Marcos & cronies only a court may do so “within the limits
prescribed by law.
o Marcos filed for a petition of mandamus
and prohibition to order the respondents They further assert that under international
to issue them their travel documents law, right of Marcoses to return to the
and prevent the implementation of Philippines is guaranteed.
President Aquino’s decision to bar
Marcos from returning in the Philippines. Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides:
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
INTRO TO LAW 2017
Art 13 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of
movement and residences within the borders of each
state (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country,
FIRST ISSUE – YES
including hhis own and to return to his country.
Essentially the right involved is the right to
International Covenant on Civil and Political
return to one’s country, a totally distict right
Rights likewise provides.
under indernational law, independent from
Article 12 although related to the right to travel.

1)Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State The declaration speaks of the “right to
shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of freedom of movement and residence within
movement and freedom to choose his residence.
the borders of each state.” (Art 13 , 1)
2)Everyone shall be free to leave any country, separately from “the right to leave any
including his own. country including his own and to return to
3)The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to
his country”. (Art 13,2)
any restrictions except those which are provided by
law, are necessary to protect national security, public Covenant guarantees “the right of liberty
order (order public), public health or morals or the of movement and freedom to choose his
rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with residence” (Art 12, 1) and the right “to be
the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. free to leave any country including his own”
4)No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to (Art 12,2) which rights may be restricted by
enter his own country. such laws “as are necessary to protect
national security, public order, public health
or morals r the separate rights and
freedoms of others” (Art 12 (4).
ISSUE:

I. Whether or not the President

has the power under the IT WOULD THEREFORE BE
constitution, to bar the INAPPROPRIATE TO CONSTRUE THE
Marcoss from returning to the LIMITATOPNS TO THE RIGHT TO
Philippines. RETURN TO ONE’S COUNTRY IN THE
II. Whether or not the President SAME CONTEXT AS THOSE PERTAINING
acted arbitrarily or with grave TO THE LIBERTY TO ABODE AND THE
abuse of discretion RIGHT TO TRAVEL
amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction when she
determined that the return of
Right to return to one’s country is not
the Marcoses to the
among the rights specifically guaranteed in
Philippines poses a seriours
the Bill of Rights which treats only the liberty
threat to national interest and
of abode and the right to travel. But it is our
welfare and decided to bar
well considered view that right to return may
their return.
be considered as a generally accepted
principe of international law and uder our
HELD: constitution as part of the law of the land.
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
INTRO TO LAW 2017

within the scope of “executive

powers”
However, it is distict and separate from  The powers of the President cannot
right to travel and enjoys different protection be said to be limited only to specific
under International Convenant of Civil and powers enumerated in the
Political Rights against being arbitrarily constitution.
deprived.
Ideals that guide government action
The 1987 Constitution provides that “the 1. Service and protection of the people
executive power shall be vested in the 2. Maintenance of peace and order
3. Protection of life, liberty and property
President of the Philippines (Art 7, Sec 1) 4. Promotion of general welfare
o However, it does not define what is
meant by “Executive power”, although o More than having sworn to defend
such article touches exercise of certain and uphold the constitution, the
powers by the president. (Art 7, Sec 14- President has the obligation under
23) constitution to protect their welfare
1.) Control over all executive depts, and advance the national interest.
bureaus, and offices o Constitution aside from being an
2.) Execute laws allocation of power is also a “social
3.) Appointing power contract” whereby the people have
4.) Powers under commander-in-chief surrendered their sovereign powers
clause to the State for common good.
5.) Grant reprieves, commutations and o The President is not only clothed
pardons with extraordinary powers in times of
6.) Grant amnesty with concurrence of emergency, but is also tasked with
Congress attending to the day to day problems
7.) Congract or guarantee foreign loans of maintaining peace and order and
8.) Enter into treaties or international ensuring domestic tranquility in
agreements times when no foreign for appears
9.) Submit budget to congress on the horizon
10.) Address Congress. o That the President has power under
the constitution to bar the Marcoses
from returning has been recorgnized
by members of the Legislature, and
o By enumerating certain powers of the
is manifested by Resolution
president, did the framers of the
proposed by the H.o.R and signed
constitution intend that the President
by 103 members urging President to
shall exercise those specific powers or
allow Mr.Marcos to return.
no other?
 We hold to view that although the
1987 constitution imposes limitations Extent of Review
to the exercise of specific powers of
 Under the Constitution, judicial power
the President, it maintains intact
includes the duty to determine whether
what is traditionally considered as
or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess
Aleezah Gertrude Regado
INTRO TO LAW 2017
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch
or instrumentality of the government.
(Art 7, Sec1)
 The present constitution limits resort to
the political question doctrine and
broadens the scope of judicial inquiry.

SECOND ISSUE -- NO

Accordingly, the question for the court to

determine is whether or not there exists
factual basses for the President to conclude
that it was in national interest to bar the
return of Marcoses to the Philippines. IF
EXISTS, it cannot be said that she acted or
acts arbitrarily or that she gravely abused
her discretion

 From the pleadings filed by the

parties, from oral arguments and
from facts revealed during briefing in
chambers by Chief of Staff of AFP
and National Security Adviser, there
exists factual bases for the
Presidents decision.
 President canot be said to have
acted arbitrarily and capriously and
whimsically in determining that the
return of Marcoses poses a serious
threat to the national interest and
welfare and in prohibiting their
return.
 The state acting through the
government is not precluded from
taking pre-emptive action against
threats to its existence, if though still
nascent, they are perceived as to
apt to become serious and direct.