Article VII of the [1935] Constitution vests in the Executive the power to suspend the

privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under specified conditions. Pursuant to the principle of
separation of powers underlying our system of government, the Executive is supreme within
his own sphere. However, the separation of powers, under the Constitution, is not absolute.
What is more, it goes hand in hand with the system of checks and balances, under which the
Executive is supreme, as regards the suspension of the privilege, but only if and when he
acts within the sphere alloted to him by the Basic Law, and the authority to determine
whether or not he has so acted is vested in the Judicial Department, which, in this respect,
is, in turn, constitutionally supreme.
In the exercise of such authority, the function of the Court is merely to check not to
supplant the Executive, or to ascertain merely whether he has gone beyond the
constitutional limits of his jurisdiction, not to exercise the power vested in him or to
determine the wisdom of his act .. [At 479-480.].
Accordingly, the question for the Court to determine is whether or not there exist
factual bases for the President to conclude that it was in the national interest to bar the
return of the Marcoses to the Philippines. If such postulates do exist, it cannot be said that
she has acted, or acts, arbitrarily or that she has gravely abused her discretion in deciding to
bar their return.
We find that from the pleadings filed by the parties, from their oral arguments, and
the facts revealed during the briefing in chambers by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines and the National Security Adviser, wherein petitioners and respondents
were represented, there exist factual bases for the President's decision.
The Court cannot close its eyes to present realities and pretend that the country is
not besieged from within by a well-organized communist insurgency, a separatist movement
in Mindanao, rightist conspiracies to grab power, urban terrorism, the murder with impunity
of military men, police officers and civilian officials, to mention only a few. The documented
history of the efforts of the Marcoses and their followers to destabilize the country, as earlier
narrated in this ponencia bolsters the conclusion that the return of the Marcoses at this time
would only exacerbate and intensify the violence directed against the State and instigate
more chaos.
As divergent and discordant forces, the enemies of the State may be contained. The
military establishment has given assurances that it could handle the threats posed by
particular groups. But it is 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.
It will not do to argue that if the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines will cause
the escalation of violence against the State, that would be the time for the President to step
in and exercise the commander-in-chief powers granted her by the