Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
*
G.R. No. 88211.September 15, 1989.
_______________
* EN BANC.
669
[Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution]. However, it is distinct and separate from
the right to travel and enjoys a different protection under the International
Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, i.e.,against being arbitrarily
deprived thereof [Art. 12 (4)].
670
grant of all legislative power; and a grant of the judicial power means a
grant of all the judicial power which may be exercised under the
government. [At 631-632.] If this can be said of the legislative power
which is exercised by two chambers with a combined membership of more
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
than two hundred members and of the judicial power which is vested in a
hierarchy of courts, it can equally be said of the executive power which is
vested in one ofcialthe President.
671
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
the armed forces, or suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpusor
declaring martial law, in order to keep the peace, and maintain public order
and security.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The President has the power under the
Constitution to bar the Marcoses from returning to our country.That the
President has the power under the Constitution to bar the Marcoses from
returning has been recognized by members of the Legislature, and is
manifested by the Resolution proposed in the House of Representatives and
signed by 103 of its members urging the President to allow Mr. Marcos to
return to the Philippines as a genuine unselsh gesture for true national
reconciliation and as irrevocable proof of our collective adherence to
uncompromising respect for human rights under the Constitution and our
laws. [House Resolution No. 1342, Rollo, p. 321.] The Resolution does not
question the Presidents power to bar the Marcoses from returning to the
Philippines, rather, it appeals to the Presidents sense of compassion to
allow a man to come home to die in his country. What we are saying in
effect is that the request or demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to return
to the Philippines cannot be considered in the light solely of the
constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to
travel, subject to certain exceptions, or of case law which clearly never
contemplated situations even remotely similar to the present one. It must be
treated as a matter that is appropriately addressed to those residual unstated
powers of the President which are implicit in and correlative to the
paramount duty residing in that ofce to safeguard and protect general
welfare. In that context, such request or demand should submit to the
exercise of a broader discretion on the part of the President to determine
whether it must be granted or denied.
672
the President, for Congress or for the people themselves through a plebiscite
or referendum. We cannot, for example, question the Presidents recognition
of a foreign government, no matter how premature or improvident such
action may appear. We cannot set aside a presidential pardon though it may
appear to us that the beneciary is totally undeserving of the grant. Nor can
we amend the Constitution under the guise of resolving a dispute brought
before us because the power is reserved to the people.
673
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
Same; Same; Same; Same; The President did not act arbitrarily,
capriciously and whimsically in determining that the return of the Marcoses
poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare, and in prohibiting
their return.We nd that from the pleadings led by the parties, from their
oral arguments, and the facts revealed during the brieng 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 basis for the Presidents decision. The Court cannot close
its eyes to present realities and pretend that the country is not besieged from
within by a wellorganized communist insurgency, a separatist movement in
Mindanao, rightist conspiracies to grab power, urban terrorism, the murder
with impunity of military men, police ofcers and civilian ofcials, 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
thisponenciabolsters 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 nal straw that would break the camels 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.
674
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
675
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
Same; Same; Bill of Rights; Liberty of Abode; The liberty of abode and
of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law may be impaired
only upon a lawful order of the court, not of an executive ofcer, not even
the President.Section 6 of the Bill of Rights states categorically that the
liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by
law may be impaired only upon a lawful order of a court. Not by an
executive ofcer. Not even by the President. Section 6 further provides that
the right to travel, and this obviously includes the right to travel out of or
back into the Philippines, cannot be impaired except in the interest of
national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The Court has the last word when it comes
to Constitutional liberties.There is also no disrespect for a Presidential
determination if we grant the petition. We would simply be applying the
Constitution, in the preservation and defense of which all of us in
Government, the President and Congress included, are sworn to participate.
Signicantly, the President herself has stated that the Court has the last word
when it comes to constitutional liberties and that she would abide by our
decision.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
676
critics of Mr. Marcos (the main petitioner) and his use of the political
question doctrine. The Constitution was accordingly amended. We are now
precluded by its mandate from refusing to invalidate a political use of power
through a convenient resort to the political question doctrine. We are
compelled to decide what would have been non-justiceable under our
decisions interpreting earlier fundamental charters. This is not to state that
there can be no more political questions which we may refuse to resolve.
There are still some political questions which only the President, Congress,
or a plebiscite may decide. Denitely, the issue before us is not one of them.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Denial of travel papers is not among the
powers granted to the government; There is no law prescribing exile to a
foreign land as a penalty for hurting the nation.Of course, the
Government can act. It can have Mr. Marcos arrested and tried in court. The
Government has more than ample powers under existing law to deal with a
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
person who transgresses the peace and imperils public safety. But the denial
of travel papers is not one of those powers
677
because the Bill of Rights says so. There is no law prescribing exile in a
foreign land as the penalty for hurting the Nation.
Same; Same; Same; The government failed dismally to show that the
return of Marcos, dead or alive, would pose a threat to national security.
In about two hours of brieng, the government failed dismally to show that
the return of Marcos dead or alive would pose a threat to the national
security as it had alleged. The fears expressed by its representatives were
based on mere conjectures of political and economic destabilization without
any single piece of concrete evidence to back up their apprehensions.
Amazingly, however, the majority has come to the conclusion that there
exist factual bases for the Presidents decision to bar Marcoss return.
That is not my recollection of the impressions of the Court after that
hearing.
Same; Same; Same; Marcos is entitled to the same right to travel and
liberty of abode that Aquino then invoked.Like the martyred Ninoy
Aquino who also wanted to come back to the Philippines against the
prohibitions of the government then, Marcos is entitled to the same right to
travel and the liberty of abode that his adversary invoked. These rights are
guaranteed by the Constitution to allindividuals, including the patriot and
the homesick and the prodigal son returning, and tyrants and charlatans and
scoundrels of every stripe.
678
of national safety and national security. Our Armed Forces have failed to
prove this danger. They are bereft of hard evidence, and all they can rely on
is sheer speculation. True, there is some danger but there is no showing as to
the extent.
the land last 28 July 1989. I have searched, but in vain, for convincing
evidence that would defeat and overcome the right of Mr. Marcos as a
Filipino to return to this country. It appears to me that the apprehensions
entertained and expressed by the respondents, including those conveyed
through the military, do not, with all due respect, escalate to proportions of
national security or public safety. They appear to be more speculative than
real, obsessive rather
679
Same; The President; Bill of Rights; While the President may exercise
powers not expressly granted by the Constitution but may necessarily be
implied therefrom, the latter must yield to the paramountcy of the Bill of
Rights.While the Chief Executive exercises powers not found expressly in
the Charter, but has them by constitutional implication, the latter must yield
to the paramountcy of the Bill of Rights. According to Fernando: A regime
of constitutionalism is thus unthinkable without an assurance of the primacy
of a bill of rights. Precisely a constitution exists to assure that in the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
680
titan in the eld of public law, this argument . . . rests . . . not upon the text
of the [Constitution] . . . but upon a mere inference therefrom, For if it
were, indeed, the intent of the Charter to create an exception, that is, by
Presidential action, to the right of travel or liberty of abode and of changing
the sameother than what it explicitly says already (limits prescribed by
law or upon lawful order of the court)the Charter could have
specically declared so. As it is, the lone deterrents to the right in question
are: (1) decree of statute, or (2) lawful judicial mandate. Had the
Constitution intended a third exception, that is, by Presidential initiative, it
could have so averred. It would also have made the Constitution, as far as
limits to the said right are concerned, come full circle: Limits by legislative,
judicial, and executive processes.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Under the new Constitution, the
right to travel may be impaired only within the limits provided by law; The
President has been divested of the implied power to impair the right to
travel.Obviously, none of the twin legal bars exist. There is no law
banning the Marcoses from the country; neither is there any court decree
banishing him from Philippine territory. It is to be noted that under the 1973
Constitution, the right to travel is worded as follows: Sec. 5. The liberty of
abode and of travel shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the
court, or when necessary in the interest of national security, public safety, or
public health. Under this provision, the right may be abated: (1) upon a
lawful court order, or (2) when necessary in the interest of national
security, public safety, or public health. Arguably, the provision enabled the
Chief Executive (Marcos) to moderate movement of citizens, which, Bernas
says, justied such practices as hamletting, forced relocations, or the
establishment of free-re zones. The new Constitution, however, so it
clearly appears, has divested the Executives implied power. And, as it so
appears, the right may be impaired only within the limits provided by law.
The President is out of the picture.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
681
question that emerges is: Has it been proved that Marcos, or his return, will,
in fact, interpose a threat to the national security, public safety, or public
health? What appears in the records are vehement insistences that Marcos
does pose a threat to the national goodand yet, at the same time, we have
persistent claims, made by the military top brass during the lengthy closed-
door hearing on July 25, 1989, that this Government will not fall should
the former rst family in exile step on Philippine soil. Which is which? At
any rate, it is my opinion that we can not leave that determination solely to
the Chief Executive. The Court itself must be content that the threat is not
only clear, but more so, present.
CORTS, J.:
682
The Petition
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
This case is unique. It should not create a precedent, for the case of a
dictator forced out of ofce and into exile after causing twenty years
of political, economic and social havoc in the country and who
within the short space of three years seeks to return, is in a class by
itself.
This petition for mandamus and prohibition asks the Court to
order the respondents to issue travel documents to Mr. Marcos
683
The Issue
684
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:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
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.
685
Article 12
686
Section 4.The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the
people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and,
in the fulllment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions
provided by law, to render personal, military, or civil service.
Section 5.The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life,
liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential
for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.
Respondents also point out that the decision to ban Mr. Marcos and
his family from returning to the Philippines for reasons of national
security and public safety has international precedents. Rafael
Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Anastacio Somoza, Jr. of
Nicaragua, Jorge Ubico of Guatemala, Fulgencio Batista of Cuba,
King Farouk of Egypt, Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez of El
Salvador, and Marcos Perez Jimenez of Venezuela were among the
deposed dictators whose return to their homelands was prevented by
their governments. [See Statement of Foreign Affairs Secretary Raul
S. Manglapus, quoted in Memorandum for Respondents, pp. 26-32;
Rollo, pp. 314-319.]
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
687
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
688
Executive Power
689
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
vested in the President of the Philippines [Art. VII, Sec. 1], and
[t]he judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be established by law [Art. VIII, Sec. 1.]
These provisions not only establish a separation of powers by actual
division [Angara v. Electoral Commission, supra] but also confer
plenary legislative, executive and judicial powers subject only to
limitations provided in the Constitution. For as the Supreme Court in
Ocampo v. Cabangis [15 Phil. 626 (1910)] pointed out a grant of
the legislative power means a grant of all legislative power; and a
grant of the judicial power means a grant of all the judicial power
which may be exercised under the government. [At 631-632.] If
this can be said of the legislative power which is exercised by two
chambers with a combined membership of more than two hundred
members and of the judicial power which is vested in a hierarchy of
courts, it can equally be said of the executive power which is vested
in one ofcialthe President.
As stated above, the Constitution provides that [t]he executive
power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines. [Art. VII,
Sec. 1]. However, it does not dene what is meant by executive
power although in the same article it touches on the exercise of
certain powers by the President, i.e.,the power of control over all
executive departments, bureaus and ofces, the power to execute the
laws, the appointing power, the powers under the commander-in-
chief clause, the power to grant reprieves, commutations and
pardons, the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of
Congress, the power to contract or guarantee foreign loans, the
power to enter into treaties or international agreements, the power to
submit the budget to Congress, and the power to address Congress
[Art. VII, Secs. 14-23].
The inevitable question then arises: by enumerating certain
powers of the President did the framers of the Constitution intend
that the President shall exercise those specic powers and no other?
Are these enumerated powers the breadth and scope of executive
power? Petitioners advance the view that the Presidents powers are
limited to those specically enumerated in the 1987 Constitution.
Thus, they assert: The President has enumerated powers, and what
is not enumerated is impliedly denied to her. Inclusio unius est
exclusio alterius.
690
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
_______________
** The Philippine presidency under the 1935 Constitution was patterned in large measure
after the American presidency. But at the outset, it must be pointed out that the Philippine
government established under the constitutions of 1935, 1973 and 1987 is a unitary government
with general powers unlike that of the United States which is a federal government with limited
and enumerated powers. Even so, the powers of the president of the United States have through
the years grown, developed and taken shape as students of that presidency have demonstrated.
691
House and pervaded the entire government. The executive branch, said
Clark Clifford, was a chameleon, taking its color from the character and
personality of the President. The thrust of the ofce, its impact on the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
692
... Here the members of the legislature who constitute a majority of the
board and committee respectively, are not charged with the performance
of any legislative functions or with the doing of anything which is in aid of
performance of any such functions by the legislature. Putting aside for the
moment the question whether the duties devolved upon these members are
vested by the Organic Act in the Governor-General, it is clear that they are
not legislative in character, and still more clear that they are not judicial.
The fact that they do not fall within the authority of either of these two
constitutes logical ground for concluding that they do fall within that of the
remaining one among which the powers of government are divided. . . . [At
202-203; italics supplied.]
The great ordinances of the Constitution do not establish and divide elds of
black and white. Even the more specic of them are found to terminate in a
penumbra shading gradually from one extreme to the other. x x x.
xxx
It does not seem to need argument to show that however we may
disguise it by veiling words we do not and cannot carry out the distinction
between legislative and executive action with mathematical precision and
divide the branches into watertight compartments, were it ever so desirable
to do so, which I am far from believing that it is, or that the Constitution
requires. [At 210-211.]
693
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of
democracy. [Art. II, Secs. 4 and 5.]
Admittedly, service and protection of the people, the maintenance
of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and property, and
the promotion of the general welfare are essentially ideals to guide
governmental action. But such does not mean that they are empty
words. Thus, in the exercise of presidential functions, in drawing a
plan of government, and in directing implementing action for these
plans, or from another point of view, in making any decision as
President of the Republic, the President has to consider these
principles, among other things, and adhere to them.
Faced with the problem of whether or not the time is right to
allow the Marcoses to return to the Philippines, the President is,
under the Constitution, constrained to consider these basic principles
in arriving at a decision. More than that, having sworn to defend and
uphold the Constitution, the President has the obligation under the
Constitution to protect the people, promote their welfare and
advance the national interest. It must be borne in mind that the
Constitution, aside from being an allocation of power is also a social
contract whereby the people have surrendered their sovereign
powers to the State for the common good. Hence, lest the ofcers of
the Government exercising the powers delegated by the people
forget and the servants of the people become rulers, the Constitution
reminds everyone that [s]overeignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them. [Art. II, Sec. 1.]
The resolution of the problem is made difcult because the
persons who seek to return to the country are the deposed dictator
and his family at whose door the travails of the country are laid and
from whom billions of dollars believed to be illgotten wealth are
sought to be recovered. The constitutional guarantees they invoke
are neither absolute nor inexible. For the exercise of even the
preferred freedoms of speech and of
694
695
696
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
Article VII of the [1935] Constitution vests in the Executive the power to
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under specied
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.
697
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
The Court cannot close its eyes to present realities and pretend
that the country is not besieged from within by a wellorganized
communist insurgency, a separatist movement in Mindanao, rightist
conspiracies to grab power, urban terrorism, the murder with
impunity of military men, police ofcers and civilian ofcials, 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 nal straw that would break the camels 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.
698
699
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
_______________
700
701
702
The Constitution xxx is a law for rulers and people, equally in war
and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes
of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine
involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the
wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during
any of the great exigencies of government. (Ex Parte Milligan, 4
Wall. 2; 18 L. Ed. 281 [1866])
Since our days as law students, we have proclaimed the stirring
words of Ex Parte Milligan as self-evident truth. But faced with a
hard and delicate case, we now hesitate to give substance to their
meaning. The Court has permitted a basic freedom enshrined in the
Bill of Rights to be taken away by Government.
There is only one Bill of Rights with the same interpretation of
liberty and the same guarantee of freedom for both unloved and
despised persons on one hand and the rest who are not so
703
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
Sec.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. (Italics supplied, Section 6, Art. III, Constitution)
704
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 35/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
contend that the decision to ban former President Marcos, and his
family on grounds of national security and public safety is vested by
the Constitution in the President alone. The determination should not
be questioned before this Court. The Presidents nding of danger to
the nation should be conclusive on the Court.
What is a political question?
In Vera v. Avelino (77 Phil. 192, 223 [1946], the Court stated:
x x x x x x x x x
It is a well-settled doctrine that political questions are not within the
province of the judiciary, except to the extent that power to deal with such
questions has been conferred on the courts by express constitutional or
statutory provisions. It is not so easy, however, to dene the phrase political
question, nor to determine what matters fall within its scope. It is frequently
used to designate all questions that lie outside the scope of the judicial
power. More properly, however, it means those questions which, under the
constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or
in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the
legislative or executive branch of the government.
705
706
707
708
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 39/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
This new provision was enacted to preclude this Court from using
the political question doctrine as a means to avoid having to make
decisions simply because they are too controversial, displeasing to
the President or Congress, inordinately unpopular, or which may be
ignored and not enforced.
The framers of the Constitution believed that the free use of the
political question doctrine allowed the Court during the Marcos
years to fall back on prudence, institutional difculties, complexity
of issues, momentousness of consequences or a fear that it was
extravagantly extending judicial power in the cases where it refused
to examine and strike down an exercise of authoritarian power.
Parenthetically, at least two of the respondents and their counsel
were among the most vigorous critics of Mr. Marcos (the main
petitioner) and his use of the political question doctrine. The
Constitution was accordingly amended. We are now precluded by its
mandate from refusing to invalidate a political use of power through
a convenient resort to the political question doctrine. We are
compelled to decide what would have been non-justiceable under
our decisions interpreting earlier fundamental charters.
This is not to state that there can be no more political questions
which we may refuse to resolve. There are still some political
questions which only the President, Congress, or a plebiscite may
decide. Denitely, the issue before us is not one
709
of them.
The Constitution requires the Court to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
How do we determine a grave abuse of discretion?
The tested procedure is to require the parties to present evidence.
Unfortunately, considerations of national security do not readily lend
themselves to the presentation of proof before a court of justice. The
vital information essential to an objective determination is usually
highly classied and it cannot be rebutted by those who seek to
overthrow the government. As early as Barcelon v. Baker (5 Phil.
87, 93 [1905]), the Court was faced with a similar situation. It posed
a rhetorical question. If after investigating conditions in the
Archipelago or any part thereof, the President nds that public
safety requires the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 40/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
corpus, can the judicial department investigate the same facts and
declare that no such conditions exist?
In the effort to follow the grave abuse of discretion formula in
the second paragraph of Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution,
the court granted the Solicitor Generals offer that the military give
us a closed door factual brieng with a lawyer for the petitioners and
a lawyer for the respondents present.
The results of the brieng call to mind the concurrence of Justice
Vicente Abad Santos in Morales, Jr. v. Enrile, (121 SCRA 538, 592
[1983]):
How can this Court determine the factual basis in order that it can ascertain
whether or not the president acted arbitrarily in suspending the writ when, in
the truthful words of Montenegro, with its very limited machinery [it]
cannot be in better position [than the Executive Branch] to ascertain or
evaluate the conditions prevailing in the Archipelago? (At p. 887). The
answer is obvious. It must rely on the Executive Branch which has the
appropriate civil and military machinery for the facts. This was the method
which had to be used in Lansang. This Court relied heavily on classied
information supplied by the military. Accordingly, an incongruous situation
obtained. For this Court, relied on the very branch of the government whose
act was in question to obtain the facts. And as should be expected the
Executive Branch supplied information to support its position and this
710
Marcos of today and, in fact, are led by people who have always
opposed him. If we use the problems of Government as excuses for
denying a persons right to come home, we will never run out of
justifying reasons. These problems or others like them will always
be with us.
Signicantly, we do not have to look into the factual bases of the
ban Marcos policy in order to ascertain whether or not the
respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion. Nor are we forced
to fall back upon judicial notice of the implications of a Marcos
return to his home to buttress a conclusion.
In the rst place, there has never been a pronouncement by the
President that a clear and present danger to national security and
public safety will arise if Mr. Marcos and his family are allowed to
return to the Philippines. It was only after the present petition was
led that the alleged danger to national security and public safety
conveniently surfaced in the respondents pleadings. Secondly,
President Aquino herself limits the reason for the ban Marcos policy
to(1) national welfare and interest and (2) the continuing need to
preserve the gains achieved in terms of recovery and stability. (See
page 7,
711
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 42/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
712
713
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 44/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
With all due respect for the majority opinion, I disagree with its
dictum on the right to travel. I do not think we should differentiate
the right to return home from the right to go abroad or to move
around in the Philippines. If at all, the right to come home must be
more preferred than any other aspect of the right to travel. It was
precisely the banning by Mr. Marcos of the right to travel by
Senators Benigno Aquino, Jr., Jovito Salonga, and scores of other
undesirables and threats to national security during that
unfortunate period which led the framers
714
715
country. I say this with a heavy heart but say it nonetheless. That
conviction is not diminished one whit simply because many believe
Marcos to be beneath contempt and undeserving of the very liberties
he outed when he was the absolute ruler of this land.
The right of the United States government to detain him is not
the question before us, nor can we resolve it. The question we must
answer is whether or not, assuming that Marcos is permitted to leave
Hawaii (which may depend on the action we take today), the
respondents have acted with grave abuse of discretion in barring him
from his own country.
My reluctant conclusion is that they have, absent the proof they
said they were prepared to offer, but could not, that the petitioners
return would prejudice the security of the State.
I was the one who, in the open hearing held on June 27, 1989,
asked the Solicitor General if the government was prepared to prove
the justication for opposing the herein petition, i.e., that it had not
acted arbitrarily. He said it was. Accordingly, the Court, appreciating
the classied nature of the information expected, scheduled a closed-
door hearing on July 25, 1988. The Solicitor General and three
representatives from the military appeared for the respondents,
together with former Senator Arturo M. Tolentino, representing the
petitioners.
In about two hours of brieng, the government failed dismally to
show that the return of Marcos dead or alive would pose a threat to
the national security as it had alleged. The fears expressed by its
representatives were based on mere conjectures of political and
economic destabilization without any single piece of concrete
evidence to back up their apprehensions.
Amazingly, however, the majority has come to the conclusion
that there exist factual bases for the Presidents decision to bar
Marcoss return. That is not my recollection of the impressions of
the Court after that hearing.
In holding that the President of the Philippines has residual
powers in addition to the specic powers granted by the
Constitution, the Court is taking a great leap backward and
reinstating the discredited doctrine announced in Planas v. Gil (67
Phil. 62). This does not square with the announced policy of the
Constitutional Commission, which was precisely to limit
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 46/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
716
717
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 47/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
I dissent. As I see it, the core issue in this case is, which right will
prevail in the conict between the right of a Filipino, Ferdinand E.
Marcos, to return to the Philippines, and the right
718
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 48/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable,and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the Government. Article VIII, Section 1, par.
2; (italics supplied)
719
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 49/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
_______________
720
_______________
721
really makes one hope, in the national interest, that the mistake in
1983 should not be made to persist in 1989.
To one who owes Mr. Marcos, his wife and followers absolutely
nothing, personal, political or otherwise, the following are the
cogent and decisive propositions in this case
5
1. Mr. Marcos is a Filipino and, as such, entitled to return to,
die and be buried in this country;
2. respondents have not shown any hard evidence or
convincing proof why his right as a Filipino to return
should be denied him. All we have are general conclusions
of national security and public safety in avoidance of a
specic demandable and enforceable constitutional and
basic human right to return;
3. the issue of Marcos return to the Philippines, perhaps more
than any issue today, requires of all members of the Court,
in what appears to be an extended political contest, the
cold neutrality of an impartial judge. It is only thus that
we fortify the independence of this Court, with delity, not
to any person, party or group but to the Constitution and
only to the Constitution.
_______________
5 As to whether the U.S. Federal Government will allow Mr. Marcos to leave the
United States, is beyond the issues in this case; similarly, as to how the Philippine
government should deal with Mr. Marcos upon his return is also outside of the issues
in this case.
722
Sec. 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
4
national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
_______________
1 Decision, 4.
2 Seesupra,1-4.
3 Supra,2.
4 CONST., art. III, sec. 6.
723
The majority says, with ample help from American precedents, that
the President is possessed of the power, thus:
On these premises, we hold the view that although the 1987
Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise of specic powers
of the President, it maintains intact what is traditionally considered
as within the scope of executive power. Corollarily, the powers of
the President cannot be said to be limited only to the specic powers
enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, executive power is
5
more than the sum of specic powers so enumerated.
So also:
Faced with the problem of whether or not the time is right to allow the
Marcoses to return to the Philippines, the President is, under the
Constitution, constrained to consider these basic principles in arriving at a
decision. More than that, having sworn to defend and uphold the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 53/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
And nally:
To the President, the problem is one of balancing the general welfare and
the common good against the exercise of rights of certain individuals. The
power involved is the Presidents residual power to protect the general
welfare of the people. It is founded on the duty of the President, as steward
of the people. To paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt, it is not only the power of
the President but also his duty to do anything not forbiden by the
Constitution or the laws that the needs of the nation demanded [See Corwin,
supra,at 153]. It is a power borne by the Presidents duty to preserve and
defend the
_______________
724
I am not persuaded.
I.
_______________
7 Supra,21-22.
* But see Cruz, J., Dissenting.
8 FERNANDO, THE BILL OF RIGHTS, 4 (1972 ed.).
9 Republic v. Quasha, No. L-30299, August 17, 1972, 46 SCRA 160, 169.
10 CONST.,supra.
11 Supra.
725
Sec. 5. The liberty of abode and of travel shall not be impaired except upon
lawful order of the court, or when necessary in the interest of national
12
security, public safety, or public health.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 55/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
Under this provision, the right may be abated: (1) upon a lawful
court order, or (2) when necessary in the interest of national
13
security, public safety, or public health. Arguably, the provision
enabled the Chief Executive (Marcos) to moderate movement of
citizens, which, Bernas says, justied such practices as hamletting,
14
forced relocations, or the establishment of free-re zones.
The new Constitution, however, so it clearly appears, has
divested the Executives implied power. And, as it so appears, the
15
right may be impaired only within the limits provided by law.
The President is out of the picture.
Admittedly, the Chief Executive is the sole judge of all matters
16 17
affecting national security and foreign affairs; the Bill of Rights
precisely, a form of check against excesses of
_______________
726
question, and so I ask again and again, is: From whom? If we say
from Marcos, we unravel chinks in our political armor. It also ies
in the face of claims, so condently asserted, that this Government
will not fall even if we allowed Marcos to return.
It ies, nally, in the face of the fact that a good number of the
henchmen, trusted allies, implementors of martial law, and pathetic
parasites of the ex-rst couple are, in fact, in the Government, in the
comfort of its ofces, and or at the helm of its key agencies. Let us
not, therefore, joke ourselves of moral factors warranting the
continued banishment of Marcos. Morality is the last refuge of the
self-righteous.
Third: The problem is not of balancing the general welfare
20
against the exercise of individual liberties. As I indicated, not one
shred of evidence, let alone solid evidence, other than
_______________
18 See Lansang v. Garcia, Nos. L-33964, 33965, 33973, 33982, 34004, 34013,
34039, 34265, and 34339, December 11, 1971, 42 SCRA 448, 480.
19 Decision,supra, 21.
20 Supra.
727
II.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 57/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
_______________
21 Supra.
22 Supra,22.
23 See CONST. (1987), art. VII, sec. 18, supra.
** Abraham (Ditto) Sarmiento, Jr., then Editor-in-Chief, Philippine Collegian
(1975-1976), ofcial student organ of the University of the Philippines. He was
detained in the military stockade for common criminals from January to August,
1976.
728
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 58/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
_______________
24 SPI No. 79-347 (For: Violation of Presidential Decree No. 90 and Article 142
of the Revised Penal Code, as amendedThe Judge Advocate Generals Ofce,
AFP), Special Civil Action, G.R. No. 54180, Diosdado Macapagal, Rogaciano M.
Mercado, Manuel A. Concordia, and Abraham F. Sarmiento, Petitioners, vs. The
Preliminary Investigating Panel in SPI No. 79-347 [Hamilton B. Dimaya, Brigadier
General, AFP, The Judge Advocate General, Chairman; Leon O. Ridao, Colonel,
JAGS (GSC), Deputy Judge Advocate General, Member; and Amor B. Felipe,
Colonel, JAGS (GSC) Executive Ofcer, Member], and the Minister of National
Defense, RespondentsSupreme Court.
729
25
abode. We would have betrayed our own ideals if we denied
Marcos his rights. It is his constitutional right, a right that can not be
abridged by personal hatred, fear, founded or unfounded, and by
speculations of the mans capacity to stir trouble. Now that the
shoe is on the other foot, let no more of human rights violations be
repeated against any one, friend or foe. In a democratic framework,
there is no such thing as getting even.
The majority started this inquiry on the question of power. I hold
that the President, under the present Constitution and existing laws,
does not have it. Mandamus, I submit, lies.
Petition dismissed.
o0o
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 59/60
1/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 177
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159df7946f9b5b46167003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 60/60