Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

Marcos Vs.

177 SCRA 668
G.R. No. 88211
September 15, 1989

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: 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: "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