Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    Marcos Vs Manlapuz

    Uploaded by

    Jovenal Salibad
    Case digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Marcos Vs Manlapuz

    Uploaded by

    Jovenal Salibad
    1 views2 pages
    Case digest

    Original Title

    Marcos vs Manlapuz

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Case digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1 views2 pages

    Marcos Vs Manlapuz

    Uploaded by

    Jovenal Salibad
    Case digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Ferdinand E. Marcos, et al. vs HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS et al.

    G.R. No. 88211 September 15, 1989


    Facts:
    In the depose of the former President Ferdinand E. Marcos (Marcos) during the
    non-violent people power revolution, Corazon C. Aquino was declared President
    of the Republic under a revolutionary government.
    In his deathbed, President Marcos, wished to return to the Philippines ( from
    Hawaii) to die but Mrs. Corazon Aquino stood firm on the decision to bar the
    return of the Marcos family considering the consequences of his return during
    that time when the government is threatened from various directions and the
    economy is just beginning.
    Hence a petition for Mandamus has been filed 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.
    Issue:
    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:
    1. Yes. The President has the residual power to protect the general welfare
    of the people founded on the President’s duty as steward of the people. It
    is the power and duty t do anything not forbidden in the constitution. It
    is the power born to the President to defend the Constitution and may
    also be viewed as a power implicit in the President to take care that the
    laws are faithfully executed. This calls for the exercise of the President's
    powers as protector of the peace not limited merely to exercising the
    commander-in-chief powers. The President is not only clothed with
    extraordinary powers in times of emergency but also tasked to attend t
    the day-today problems of maintaining peace and order and ensuring
    domestic tranquility.
    The President’s power under the Constitution to bar the Marcose's from
    returning has been recognized by members of the Legislature. The
    Resolution of the members of the Legislature to allow Mr. Marcos to
    return does not question the Presidents power to bar the Marcoses from
    returning to the Philippines but rather appealed for compassion to allow
    a man to come home to die.

    2. No. The Court held that there is nothing in the case that precludes its
    determination thereof on the political question doctrine. The only time
    when the Court can intervene on the determination of political questions
    is when there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
    excess of jurisdiction on the part of the official whose action is being
    questioned (Article III, Sec. 1). The catalytic effect of the return of the
    Marcoses that may prove to be the proverbial final straw that would
    break the camel's back. With these before her, the President cannot be
    said to have acted arbitrarily and capriciously and whimsically in
    determining that the return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat to the
    national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return. The State is
    not precluded from taking preemptive action against threats to its
    existence if, though still nascent they are perceived as apt to become
    serious and direct. Hence, the Court cannot argue with the
    determination of the President.

    You might also like