Case No: 22

Subtopic: The concept of the right to travel

Marcos vs Manglapus
G.R. No. 88211 October 27, 1989

Doctrine: The right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the
Bill of Rights, which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is the Court’swell-
considered view that the right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of
international law and, under our Constitution, is part of the law of the land. However, it is distinct
and separate from the right to travel and enjoys a different protection under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

FACTS:

This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Marcos et al assailing the decision of the Supreme
Court in declaring that then President Cory Aquino acted within its residual power when it did not allow the
return of President Marcos and his family to return to the country as it poses a serious threat to national
interest and welfare of the Philippines and to bar former President Marcos and his family from returning to
the Philippines is to deny them not only the inherent right of citizens to return to their country of birth but
also the protection of the Constitution and all of the rights guaranteed to Filipinos under the Constitution

Backgrounder:

Petition for Mandamus was filed by Marcos et al to compel respondent government officials to issue 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 invoking, among others,
their right to travel guaranteed by the bill of rights. 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. And further
invokes the provision stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that:

(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.

In deciding the case the court held that the individual right involved is not the right to travel contemplated
by the bills of rights because the same involves only travel from the Philippines to other countries or within
the Philippines. The Universal Declaration of Humans 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 a country, and the right to enter one's country as separate and distinct rights.

The right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which
treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is the Court’swell-considered view that the
right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of international law and, under our
Constitution, is part of the law of the land. However, it is distinct and separate from the right to travel and
enjoys a different protection under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

On the issue of whether or not there can be limitations on the right to travel in the absence of legislation to
that effect, The Court held that it is yet to be resolved as there is no appropriate case for it yet.

Ultimately, the Court held that Pres. Aquino, in the exercise of his residual power, can prohibit the return of
Marcoses as the right to return to one’s country is different from the right to travel guaranteed by the Bill of
Rights.
Issue:

Does the President has power to bar from his own country?

Ruling:

In this MR the Court affirmed its earlier ruling even after the death of President Marcos. The Court held
that compelling reasons have not been established by petitioners to warrant a reconsideration of its decision.
The death of Mr. Marcos, although it may be viewed as a supervening event, has not changed the factual
scenario under which the Court's decision was rendered. 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.
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.