Marcos v.

Manglapus (1989)

Topic: Death

1. Facts:
a. This is a petition for mandamus and prohibition asking the SC to order agencies under
the Executive Department to issue travel documents to deposed dictator Ferdinand
Marcos and his family to allow them to travel back to the Philippines.
b. Exiled Ferdinand Marcos was on his deathbed and wished to return to the Philippines
to die. President Cory Aquino barred his and his familys return as it would endanger
national security and public safety.
c. Marcoses asserted that their right to return is guaranteed under Sections 11 and 62 of
the Bill of Rights, and under international law (Art. 13 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights3 and Art. 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights4.
2. Issues: In the exercise of powers granted by the Constitution, can the President prohibit
the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines?
3. Ruling: Yes. The President has residual unstated powers which are implicit in, and
correlative to, the paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard and protect general
welfare. Any requests or demands should submit to the exercise of a broader discretion
on the part of the President to determine whether it must be granted or denied.
The SC found that factual bases existed for the President's decision to bar their return,
and thus she could not be considered to have acted arbitrarily or gravely abused her
discretion. At the time, the country was besieged from within by a well-organized
communist insurgency, a separatist movement in Mindanao, rightist conspiracies to grab
power, urban terrorism, and murder with impunity of military men, police officers and
civilian officials. The catalytic effect of the return of the Marcoses would only exacerbate
the violence directed against the State and instigate more chaos, thereby posing a serious
threat to the national interest and welfare. The State, acting through the Government, is
not precluded from taking preemptive action against threats to its existence if, though
still nascent they are perceived as apt to become serious and direct. Protection of the
people is the essence of the duty of government.
Petition dismissed.

1 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.
2 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.
3 Art. 13 (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his
country.
4 Art. 12 (4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.