(2)

Has there been prior notice to petitioners?

(3)
Has there been a hearing?
(4)
Assuming that notice and hearing may be dispensed with, has the President's
decision, including the grounds upon which it was based, been made known to petitioners so
that they may controvert the same?
c.
Is the President's determination that the return of former President Marcos
and his family to the Philippines is a clear and present danger to national security, public
safety, or public health a political question?
d.
Assuming that the Court may inquire as to whether the return of former
President Marcos and his family is a clear and present danger to national security, public
safety, or public health, have respondents established such fact?
3.
Have the respondents, therefore, in implementing the President's decision to
bar the return of former President Marcos and his family, acted and would be acting without
jurisdiction, or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in performing any
act which would effectively bar the return of former President Marcos and his family to the
Philippines? [Memorandum for Petitioners, pp. 5-7; Rollo, pp. 234-236.]
The case for petitioners is founded on the assertion that the right of the Marcoses to
return to the Philippines is guaranteed under the following provisions of the Bill of Rights, to
wit:
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.
xxx
xxx
xxx
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.
The petitioners contend that the 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. They advance the view that before the right to travel may be impaired by any authority
or agency of the government, there must be legislation to that effect. llcd
The petitioners further assert that under international law, the right of Mr. Marcos and
his family to return to the Philippines is guaranteed.
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, which had been
ratified by the Philippines, 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.
On the other hand, the respondents' principal argument is that the issue in this case
involves a political question which is non-justiciable. According to the Solicitor General: