MARCOS ET AL. v. MANGLAPUS ET AL.
President, upon whom executive power is vested, has
FACTS:
• In its decision dated September 15,1989, the Court, by a vote of 8
to 7, 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.
• On September 28, 1989, former President Marcos died in
Honolulu, Hawaii. In a statement, President Aquino said: In the
interest of the safety of those who will take the death of Mr.
Marcos in widely and passionately conflicting ways, and for the
tranquility of the state and order of society, the remains of
Ferdinand E. Marcos will not be allowed to be brought to our
country until such time as the government, be it under this
administration or the succeeding one, shall otherwise decide.
• On October 2, 1989, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed by
petitioners, raising the following major arguments:1. to bar 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;2. the
President has no power to bar a Filipino from his own country; if
she has, she had exercised it arbitrarily; and 3. there is no basis
for barring the return of the family of former President Marcos.
• The Solicitor General argued that the motion for reconsideration is
moot and academic as to the deceased Mr. Marcos. Moreover, he
asserts that "the 'formal' rights being invoked by the Marcoses
under the label 'right to return', including the label 'return of
Marcos' remains, is in reality or substance a 'right' to destabilize
the country, a 'right' to hide the Marcoses' incessant shadowy
orchestrated efforts at destabilization." Thus, he prays that the
Motion for Reconsideration be denied.
• Petitioners prayed that the Court reconsider its decision, order
respondents to issue the necessary travel documents and enjoin
respondents from implementing President Aquino's decision to bar
the return of the remains of Mr. Marcos, and the other petitioners,
to the Philippines.
ISSUE(S)/HELD:
Whether the President has the power to bar the return of the
Marcoses and subsequently the remains of Mr. Marcos? YES.
RATIO:
• Contrary to petitioners' view, it cannot be denied that the
Nadine Teston Balan
Constitutional Law
Powers of the President
unstated residual powers which are implied from the grant
of executive power and which are necessary for her to
comply with her duties under the Constitution. The powers of
the President are not limited to what are expressly enumerated in
the article on the Executive Department and in scattered
provisions of the Constitution. This is so, notwithstanding the
avowed intent of the members of the Constitutional Commission of
1986 to limit the powers of the President as a reaction to the
abuses under the regime of Mr. Marcos, for the result was a
limitation of specific power of the President, particularly those
relating to the commander-in-chief clause, but not a diminution of
the general grant of executive power.
• And neither can we subscribe to the view that a recognition of the
President's implied or residual powers is tantamount to setting the
stage for another dictatorship. Despite petitioners' strained
analogy, the residual powers of the President under the
Constitution should not be confused with the power of the
President under the 1973 Constitution.
• 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.
On the contrary, instead of erasing fears as to the destabilization
that will be caused by the return of the Marcoses, Mrs. Marcos
reinforced the basis for the decision to bar their return when she
called President Aquino "illegal," claiming that it is Mr. Marcos, not
Mrs. Aquino, who is the "legal" President of the Philippines, and
declared that the matter "should be brought to all the courts of
the world."
• 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.
No discussion on RTC, and CA.
SC: respondents

Nadine Teston Balan

Constitutional Law
Powers of the President