Marcos v Manglapus

G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989

TOPIC: Residual Power
Petitioners: FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., IRENE M. ARANETA, IMEE M. MANOTOC, TOMAS
MANOTOC, GREGORIO ARANETA, PACIFICO E. MARCOS, NICANOR YNIGUEZ AND PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION
(PHILCONSA), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, CONRADO F. ESTRELLA
Respondents: HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS, CATALINO MACARAIG, SEDFREY ORDONEZ, MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, FIDEL
RAMOS, RENATO DE VILLA, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SECRETARY OF JUSTICE,
IMMIGRATION COMMISSIONER, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AND CHIEF OF STAFF
Pon: Cortes, En Banc; mandamus and prohibition

FACTS
- February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent "people power" revolution and forced into
exile.
- Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die. But Mrs. Aquino, considering the dire
consequences to the nation of his return, has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family.
- petitioners cited: 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.
- 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.
- that the President 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.
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 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.
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: 1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that
territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence. 4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the
right to enter his own country.

Respondents: its a non-justiciable issue

- the president has determined that such return and residence will endanger national security and public safety.
- not a political question as it involves merely a determination of what the law provides on the matter and application thereof to
petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family.
- whether the rights claimed by Petitioners collide with the transcendental right of the State to security and safety of its nationals, the
question becomes political
- 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 fulfillment 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.
- 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.
- underlying issue is one of the scope of presidential power and its limits.

ISSUE
whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to
the Philippines.

1. Does the President have the power to bar the return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines?

a. Is this a political question?

2. Assuming that the President has the power to bar former President Marcos and his family from returning to the Philippines, in
the interest of "national security, public safety or public health" -
a. Has the President made a finding that the return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines is a clear and
present danger to national security, public safety or public health?

b. Assuming that she has made that finding, -

(1) Have the requirements of due process been complied with in making such finding?

(2) Has there been prior notice to petitioners?

(3) Has there been a hearing?

(4) Assuming that notice and hearing may be dispensed with, has the President's decision, including the grounds
upon which it was based, been made known to petitioners so that they may controvert the same?

c. Is the President's determination that the return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines is a clear and
present danger to national security, public safety, or public health a political question?

d. Assuming that the Court may inquire as to whether the return of former President Marcos and his family is a clear and
present danger to national security, public safety, or public health, have respondents established such fact?
 3. Have the respondents, therefore, in implementing the President's decision to bar the return of former President Marcos and his
family, acted and would be acting without jurisdiction, or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in performing any
act which would effectively bar the return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines? [Memorandum for Petitioners,
pp. 5-7; Rollo, pp. 234-236.]

HELD:
Yes.
WHEREFORE, and it being our well-considered opinion 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 at the present time and under present circumstances poses a
serious threat to national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines, the instant petition is hereby
DISMISSED.

RATIO
- it would not do to view the case within the confines of the right to travel: The right to return to one's country is not in the Bill of
Rights, but may be considered as a generally accepted principle of international law and under our Constitution, is part of the law of
the land -- 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"

Executive Power
- The 1987 Constitution has fully restored the separation of powers
- the Constitution provides that "[t]he executive power shall be vested in the Presidents of the Philippines." (Art. VII, Sec. 1.] However,
it does not define what is meant by "executive power"
- it touches on the exercise of certain powers by the President,
- , the power of control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices, 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
- by enumerating certain powers of the President did the framers of the Constitution intend that the President shall exercise those
specific powers and no other?
- US: what the presidency is at any particular moment depends in important measure on who is President.
- Schlesinger: The Imperial Presidency:: Each President's distinctive temperament and character, his values, standards, style, his
habits, expectations, idiosyncrasies, compulsions, phobias recast the White House and pervaded the entire government. the way
each President understood it as his personal obligation to inform and involve the Congress, to earn and hold the confidence of the
electorate and to render an accounting to the nation and posterity determined whether he strengthened or weakened the
constitutional order.

- the consideration of tradition and the development of presidential power under the different constitutions are essential for a
complete understanding of the extent of and limitations to the President's powers under the 1987 Constitution.
- 1935: created a strong President with explicitly broader powers than the U.S. President.
- 1973: attempted to modify the system of government into the parliamentary type, with the President as a mere figurehead, but
through numerous amendments, the President became even more powerful, to the point that he was also the de facto Legislature.
- 1987 Constitution: brought back the presidential system of government and restored the separation of legislative, executive and
judicial powers by their actual distribution among three distinct branches of government with provision for checks and balances.
- the execution of the laws is only one of the powers of the President. It also grants the President other powers that do not involve
the execution of any provision of law, e.g., his power over the country's foreign relations.
- although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise of specific powers of the President, it maintains intact what is
traditionally considered as within the scope of "executive power."
- the powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. In other words,
executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated.
- whatever power inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive.
- Springer v. Government of the Philippine Islands: who between the Governor-General of the Philippines and the Legislature may vote
the shares of stock held by the Government to elect directors in the National Coal Company and the Philippine National Bank: 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.
- Justice Holmes dissented, but it would be folly to construe the powers of a branch of government to embrace only what are
specifically mentioned in the Constitution

The power involved

- 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. ((at "[t]he prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people" and that "[t]he
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." [Art. II, Secs. 4 and 5.]))
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 President's residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. It is founded on the
duty of the President, as steward of the people.
- Theodore Roosevelt: it is not only the power of the President but also his duty to do anything not forbidden by the Constitution or
the laws that the needs of the nation demand
- Hyman, The American President: an allowance of discretionary power is unavoidable in any government and is best lodged in the
President.
- this case calls for the exercise of the President's powers as protector of the peace.
- not limited merely to exercising the commander-in-chief powers in times of emergency or to leading the State against external and
internal threats to its existence. - extraordinary powers in times of emergency, but is also tasked with attending to the day-to-day
problems of maintaining peace and order and ensuring domestic tranquility
- discretion is not diminished just because there is no threat or there is peace
- Legislature passed a resolution: urging the President to allow Mr. Marcos to return to the Philippines "as a genuine unselfish 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."
- appeals to the President's sense of compassion to allow a man to come home to die in his country.
- recognizes that the president has the power to bar the marcoses return
- 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
- 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 office to safeguard and protect general welfare.

The Extent of Review

- the issue is not a political question because judicial power includes the duty "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.
- the framers intended to widen the scope of judicial review but they did not intend courts of justice to settle all actual controversies
before them.
- 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. YES
- 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.
- 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
- the President cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily
- the state is not precluded from taking pre-emptive action against threats to its existence if, though still nascent, they are perceived
as apt to become serious and direct.
- the country is only now beginning to recover from the hardships attributed to the Marcoses the economy is in a precarious state
(excessive foreign borrowing)
- The President has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved
during the past few years and lead to total economic collapse.

RESOLUTION on the Motion for Reconsideration

PER CURIAM:
DENIED. no compelling reasons have been established by petitioners to warrant a reconsideration of the Court's decision.

- the Court, by a vote of eight (8) to seven (7), dismissed the previous petition
- September 28, 1989, former President Marcos died in Honolulu, Hawaii.
- 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.

Petitioners major arguments

1. 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;
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 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.
- government threats have not ceased
- 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."
- the President, upon whom executive power is vested, has 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.
- recognized under the U.S. Constitution from which we have patterned the distribution of governmental powers among three (3)
separate branches
- Hamilton: intended merely to specify the principal articles implied in the definition of execution power; leaving the rest to flow from
the general grant of that power, interpreted in conformity with other parts of the Constitution
- Myers v. United States: (CJ Taft) the federal executive, unlike the Congress, could exercise power from sources not enumerated, so
long as not forbidden by the constitutional text. not all powers granted in the Constitution are themselves exhausted by internal
enumeration, so that, within a sphere properly regarded as one of "executive" power, authority, is implied unless there or elsewhere
expressly limited.

- the President's implied or residual powers is NOT tantamount to setting the stage for another dictatorship. not like the power given
to the president by the 1973 constitution that allows the president to exercise legislative powers
- 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.