Former President Ferdinand Marcos
petitions the SC for mandamus and prohibition asking to order
respondents to issue travel documents to him and his immediate family
and to enjoin the implementation of the President "s decision to
bar their return to the Philippines.
Issue:
WON the President may prohibit the
Marcoses from returning to the Philippines, in the exercise of the
powers granted in her by the Constitution.
Ruling:
Ruling:
Affirmative. Although the 1987
Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise of specific powers
of the President, it maintains intact what is traditionally
considered as within the scope of "executive power ". The
powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only to the
specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. Whatever power
inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor judicial
has to be executive. Even the members of the Legislature has
recognized that indeed Mrs. Aquino has the power under the
Constitution to bar the Marcoses from returning, as per House
Resolution No. 1342.
Marcos v Manglapus, et. al.
Facts: Same as above, except that Ferdinand has died.
Held: Among the duties of the President under the Constitution, in compliance with his (or her) oath of office, is to protect and promote the interest and welfare of the people. Her decision to bar the return of the Marcoses and subsequently, the remains of Mr. Marcos at the present time and under present circumstances is in compliance with this bounden duty. In the absence of a clear showing that she had acted with arbitrariness or with grave abuse of discretion in arriving at this decision, the Court will not enjoin the implementation of this decision.
Marcos v Manglapus, et. al.
Facts: Same as above, except that Ferdinand has died.
Held: Among the duties of the President under the Constitution, in compliance with his (or her) oath of office, is to protect and promote the interest and welfare of the people. Her decision to bar the return of the Marcoses and subsequently, the remains of Mr. Marcos at the present time and under present circumstances is in compliance with this bounden duty. In the absence of a clear showing that she had acted with arbitrariness or with grave abuse of discretion in arriving at this decision, the Court will not enjoin the implementation of this decision.
------------------
Facts:
This case involves a petition of mandamus and prohibition asking the
court to order the respondents Secretary of Foreign Affairs, etc. To
issue a "travel documents "to former Pres. 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.
Petitioners assert that the right of the Marcoses "to return "in
the Philippines is guaranteed by "the Bill of Rights,
specifically "Sections "1 and 6. They contended that Pres.
Aquino 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 the President impair their right to travel because no law
has authorized her to do so.
They further assert that under "international law, their right "to return "to the Philippines is guaranteed particularly by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on "Civil "and Political Rights, which has been ratified by the Philippines.
Issue:
They further assert that under "international law, their right "to return "to the Philippines is guaranteed particularly by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on "Civil "and Political Rights, which has been ratified by the Philippines.
Issue:
"Whether or
not, in the exercise of the powers granted by "the constitution,
the President (Aquino) may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to
the Philippines.
Held:
Held:
"It must be emphasized that the
individual right involved is not the right to "travel from "the
Philippines to other countries or within the Philippines. These are
what the right to travel would normally connote. Essentially, the
right involved in this case at bar is the right "to return "to
one's country, a distinct right under "international law,
independent from although related to the right to travel. Thus, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant
on "Civil "and Political Rights treat the right to freedom
of "movement "and abode within the territory of a state,
the right to leave the country, and the right to enter one's country
as separate and distinct rights. What the Declaration speaks of is
the "right to freedom of "movement "and residence
within the borders of each state". On the other hand, the
Covenant guarantees the right to liberty of "movement "and
freedom to choose his residence and the right to be free to leave any
country, including his own. Such rights may only be restricted by
laws protecting the "national security, public order, "public
health "or morals or the separate rights of others. However,
right to enter one's country cannot be arbitrarily deprived. It would
be therefore inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right
"to return "to ones country in the same context as those
pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to travel.
The Bill of rights "treats only the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is a well considered view that the right "to return "may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of "International Law "and under our Constitution as part of the law of the land. "
The court held that President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of the Former Pres. Marcos and his family poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare. President Aquino has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years after the Marcos regime.
The return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat and therefore prohibiting their return to the Philippines, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.
The Bill of rights "treats only the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is a well considered view that the right "to return "may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of "International Law "and under our Constitution as part of the law of the land. "
The court held that President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of the Former Pres. Marcos and his family poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare. President Aquino has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years after the Marcos regime.
The return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat and therefore prohibiting their return to the Philippines, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.