G.R. No.

88211, September 15, 1989

Marcos, petitioner
VS.
Manglapus, respondent (Part 1)
Facts:
Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent people
power revolution and was forced into exile. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to
the Philippines to die. But President Corazon Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of
his return at a time when the stability of government is threatened from various directions and the
economy is just beginning to rise and move forward, has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return
of Marcos and his family.
Aquino barred Marcos from returning due to possible threats & following supervening events:
1. failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by Marcos leaders
2. channel 7 taken over by rebels & loyalists
3. plan of Marcoses to return w/ mercenaries aboard a chartered plane of a Lebanese arms dealer.
This is to prove that they can stir trouble from afar
4. Honasans failed coup
5. Communist insurgency movements
6. secessionist movements in Mindanao
7. devastated economy because of
1. accumulated foreign debt
2. plunder of nation by Marcos & cronies
Marcos filed for a petition of mandamus and prohibition to order the respondents to issue them their
travel documents and prevent the implementation of President Aquinos decision to bar Marcos from
returning in the Philippines. Petitioner questions Aquinos power to bar his return in the country. He also
questioned the claim of the President that the decision was made in the interest of national security,
public safety and health. Petitioner also claimed that the President acted outside her jurisdiction.
According to the Marcoses, such act deprives them of their right to life, liberty, property without due
process and equal protection of the laws. They also said that it deprives them of their right to travel
which according to Section 6, Article 3 of the constitution, may only be impaired by a court order.
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 Marcoses to the
Philippines poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and decided to bar their return.
Decision:
No to both issues. Petition dismissed.
Ratio:
Separation of power dictates that each department has exclusive powers. According to Section 1, Article
VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the executive power shall be vested in the President of the
Philippines. However, it does not define what is meant by executive power although in the same
article it touches on exercise of certain powers by the President, i.e., the power of control over all
executive departments, bureaus and offices, the power to execute the laws, the appointing power to
grant reprieves, commutations and pardons (art VII secfs. 14-23). Although the constitution outlines
tasks of the president, this list is not defined & exclusive. She has residual & discretionary powers not
stated in the Constitution which include the power to protect the general welfare of the people. She is
obliged to protect the people, promote their welfare & advance national interest. (Art. II, Sec. 4-5 of the
Constitution). Residual powers, according to Theodore Roosevelt, dictate that the President can do
anything which is not forbidden in the Constitution (Corwin, supra at 153),

inevitable to vest

discretionary powers on the President (Hyman, American President) and that the president has to
maintain peace during times of emergency but also on the day-to-day operation of the State.
The rights Marcoses are invoking are not absolute. Theyre flexible depending on the circumstances.
The request of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines cannot be considered in the light
solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel, subject to
certain exceptions, or of case law which clearly never contemplated situations even remotely similar to
the present one. It must be treated as a matter that is appropriately addressed to those residual
unstated powers of the President which are implicit in and correlative to the paramount duty residing in
that office to safeguard and protect general welfare. In that context, such request or demand should
submit to the exercise of a broader discretion on the part of the President to determine whether it must
be granted or denied.
For issue number 2, the question for the court to determine is whether or not there exist factual basis
for the President to conclude that it was in the national interest to bar the return of the Marcoses in the
Philippines. It is proven that there are factual bases in her decision. The supervening events that
happened before her decision are factual. The President must take preemptive measures for the selfpreservation of the country & protection of the people. She has to uphold the Constitution.
Fernan, Concurring
1. The presidents power is not fixed. Limits would depend on the imperatives of events and not on
abstract theories of law. We are undergoing a critical time and the current problem can only be
answerable by the President.
2. Threat is real. Return of the Marcoses would pose a clear & present danger. Thus, its the
executives responsibility & obligation to prevent a grave & serious threat to its safety from
arising.

3. We cant sacrifice public peace, order, safety & our political & economic gains to give in to
Marcos wish to die in the country. Compassion must give way to the other state interests.
Cruz, Dissenting
1. As a citizen of this country, it is Marcos right to return, live & die in his own country. It is a right
guaranteed by the Consti to all individuals, whether patriot, homesick, prodigal, tyrant, etc.
2. Military representatives failed to show that Marcos return would pose a threat to national
security. Fears were mere conjectures.
3. Residual powers but the executives powers were outlined to limit her powers & not expand.
Paras, Dissenting
1. AFP has failed to prove danger which would allow State to impair Marcos right to return to the
Philippines. .
2. Family can be put under house arrest & in the event that one dies, he/she should be buried w/in
10 days.
3. Untenable that without a legislation, right to travel is absolute & state is powerless to restrict it.
Its w/in police power of the state to restrict this right if national security, public safety/health
demands that such be restricted. It cant be absolute & unlimited all the time. It cant be
arbitrary & irrational.
4. No proof that Marcos return would endanger national security or public safety. Fears are
speculative & military admits that its under control. Filipinos would know how to handle Marcos
return.
Padilla, Dissenting
Sarmiento, Dissenting
1. Presidents determination that Marcos return would threaten national security should be agreed
upon by the court. Such threat must be clear & present.

G.R. No. 88211, October 27, 1989

Marcos, petitioner
VS.
Manglapus, respondent (Part 2)
Facts:
In its decision dated September 15, 1989, the Court by a vote of eight to seven, dismissed the petition,
after finding that the President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining
that the return of former President Marcos and his family pose a threat to national interest and welfare
and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines. On September 28, 1989, Marcos died in Honolulu,
Hawaii.

President Corazon Aquino issued a statement saying that in the interest of the safety of those who will
take the death of Marcos in widely and passionately conflicting ways, and for the tranquility and order of
the state and society, she did not allow the remains of Marcos to be brought back in the Philippines.
A motion for Reconsideration was filed by the petitioners raising the following arguments:
1. Barring their return would deny them their inherent right as citizens to return to their country of
birth and all other rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all Filipinos.
2. The President has no power to bar a Filipino from his own country; if she has, she had exercised
it arbitrarily.
3. There is no basis for barring the return of the family of former President Marcos.
Issue:
Whether or not the motion for reconsideration that the Marcoses be allowed to return in the Philippines
be granted.
Decision:
No. The Marcoses were not allowed to return. Motion for Reconsideration denied because of lack of
merit.
Ratio:
1. Petitioners failed to show any compelling reason to warrant reconsideration.
2. Factual scenario during the time Court rendered its decision has not changed. The threats to the
government, to which the return of the Marcoses has been viewed to provide a catalytic effect,
have not been shown to have ceased. Imelda Marcos also called President Aquino illegal
claiming that it is Ferdinand Marcos who is the legal president.
3. President has unstated residual powers implied from grant of executive power. Enumerations are
merely for specifying principal articles implied in the definition; leaving the rest to flow from
general grant that power, interpreted in conformity with other parts of the Constitution
(Hamilton). Executive unlike Congress can exercise power from sources not enumerates so long
as not forbidden by constitutional text (Myers vs. US). This does not amount to dictatorship.
Amendment No. 6 expressly granted Marcos power of legislation whereas 1987 Constitution
granted Aquino with implied powers.
4. It is within Aquinos power to protect & promote interest & welfare of the people. She bound to
comply w/ that duty and there is no proof that she acted arbitrarily

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
Presidents decision to bar their return to the Philippines. This is in response to Marcoss wish to return
to the Philippines to die. The petitioners 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 welfareof 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.

G.R. No. L-14639 March 25, 1919ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL. vs. JUSTO LUKBAN, ET AL.
Issue:
The writ of Habeas Corpus was filed by the petitioner, with the prayer that the respondent produce
around 170 women whom Justo Lukban et, al deported to Davao. Liberty of abode was also raised
versus the power of the executive of the Municipality in deporting the women without their knowledge
in his capacity as Mayor.
Facts:
Justo Lukban as Manila City's Mayor together with Anton Hohmann, the city's Chief of Police, took
custody of about 170 women at the night of October 25 beyond the latters consent and knowledge and
thereafter were shipped to Mindanao specifically in Davao where they were signed as laborers. Said
women are inmates of the houses of prostitution situated in Gardenia Street, in the district of Sampaloc.
That when the petitioner filed for habeas corpus, the respondent moved to dismiss the case saying that
those women were already out of their jurisdiction and that , it should be filed in the city of Davao
instead.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner with the instructions;

For the respondents to have fulfilled the court's order, three optional courses were open: (1) They could
have produced the bodies of the persons according to the command of the writ; or (2) they could have
shown by affidavit that on account of sickness or infirmity those persons could not safely be brought
before the court; or (3) they could have presented affidavits to show that the parties in question or their
attorney waived the right to be present.
Held:
The court concluded the case by granting the parties aggrieved the sum of 400 pesos each, plus 100
pesos for nominal damage due to contempt of court. Reasoning further that if the chief executive of any
municipality in the Philippines could forcibly and illegally take a private citizen and place him beyond
the boundaries of the municipality, and then, when called upon to defend his official action, could
calmly fold his hands and claim that the person was under no restraint and that he, the official, had no
jurisdiction over this other municipality.
We believe the true principle should be that, if the respondent is within the jurisdiction of the court and
has it in his power to obey the order of the court and thus to undo the wrong that he has inflicted, he
should be compelled to do so. Even if the party to whom the writ is addressed has illegally parted with
the custody of a person before the application for the writ is no reason why the writ should not issue. If
the mayor and the chief of police, acting under no authority of law, could deport these women from the
city of Manila to Davao, the same officials must necessarily have the same means to return them from
Davao to Manila. The respondents, within the reach of process, may not be permitted to restrain a
fellow citizen of her liberty by forcing her to change her domicile and to avow the act with impunity in
the courts, while the person who has lost her birthright of liberty has no effective recourse. The great
writ of liberty may not thus be easily evaded.

Chavez v. PCGG, 299 SCRA 744

FACTS: Petitioner asks this Court to define the nature and the extent of the peoples constitutional right
to information on matters of public concern. Petitioner, invoking his constitutional right to information
and the correlative duty of the state to disclose publicly all its transactions involving the national
interest, demands that respondents make public any and all negotiations and agreements pertaining to
PCGGs
task
of
recovering
the
Marcoses
ill-gotten
wealth.
ISSUE: Are the negotiations leading to a settlement on ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses within the
scope of the constitutional guarantee of access to information?

HELD: Yes. Considering the intent of the framers of the Constitution, it is incumbent upon the PCGG and
its officers, as well as other government representatives, to disclose sufficient public information on any
proposed settlement they have decided to take up with the ostensible owners and holders of ill-gotten
wealth. Such information, though, must pertain to definite propositions of the government, not
necessarily to intra-agency or inter-agency recommendations or communications during the stage when
common assertions are still in the process of being formulated or are in the exploratory stage. There
is a need, of course, to observe the same restrictions on disclosure of information in general -- such as
on matters involving national security, diplomatic or foreign relations, intelligence and other classified
information.