Marcos vs. Manglapus, G.R. no.

88211, September 15, 1989

Facts : In February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from presidency via
people power and forced into exile in Hawaii. Nearly three years after, in his
deathbed seeks return to the Philippines to die.

Thus, this petition for mandamus and prohibition asks the Court to order the
respondent to issue travel documents to Mr. Marcos and the immediate members of
his family and to enjoin the implementation of President Aquinos decision to bar
their return to the Philippines.

Petitioners contend that the right of the Marcoses to return to the Philippines is
guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. That the President is without power to impair
the liberty of abode of the Marcoses because only the court may do so within the
limits prescribed by law. The President has enumerated powers and what is not
enumerated is impliedly denied to her.

Issues : Whether or not the President has the power under the Constitution, to bar
Marcoses from returning to the Philippines

Whether or not the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction upon determining that the Marcosess
return poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and decided to bar
their return.

Held : The executive power of the President under the Constitution is more than
the sum of specific powers enumerated under the Constitution. In 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. Presidential power is a wide discretion, within the
bounds of laws and extraordinary in times of emergency.
The President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in
determining that the return of former President Marcos and his family poses a
serious threat to national interest and welfare. There exist factual bases in the
Presidents decision in the pleadings, oral arguments and facts filed by the parties
during the briefing in chambers by the Chief of Staff of the Armed of the
Philppines and National Security Adviser.

That the President has the power under the Constitution to bar the Macroses from
returning has been recognized by the members of the Legislature. Through a
Resolution proposed in the House of Representative, signed by 103 members
urging the President to allow Mr. Marcos to return to the Philippines an act of
true national reconciliation. The Resolution does not question the Presidents
power but was an appeal to allow a man to come home and to die in his country.
Such request submit to the exercise of a broader discretion on the part of the
President to determine whether it must be granted or not.

The case is not a political question and for such, the court exercised its judicial
power involving the determination whether there has been a grave abuse of
discretion on the part of any branch or instrumnetality of the government.

Petition is hereby DISMISSED.

CMC vs. Calleja, G.R. no. 85750, September 28, 1990

Facts : After the Vietnam War, the international community was confronted with a
problem on the plight of Vietnamese refugees fleeing from South Vietnam. In
response, an agreement was forged between Philippine Government and United
Nations High Commissioner for refugees to create an operating center for the
resettlement of refugees.
Under the said agreement, the International Catholic Migration Commission
(ICMC) was accredited by the Philippine Government to operate the refugee
processing center in Morong, Bataan. The ICMC was considered a non-profit
agency involved in international and humanitarian and voluntary work.

However, on July 14, 1986, the Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Service
(TUPAS) filed to the then Ministry of Labor and Employment a Petition for
Certification Election among the rank and file members employed by ICMC.

Afterwhich, while ICMCs request for recognition as a specialized agency was

still pending, Director Pura Calleja of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR)
ordered ICMC the immediate conduct of certification of election.

Subsequently, through the Department of Foreign Affairs (DEFORAF) the ICMC

was granted a status of a specialized agency with corresponding diplomatic
priveleges and immunities. ICMC then sought immediate dismissal of TUPAS
petition invoking immunities expressly granted but were twice denied by
respondent BLR director. Thus, the present Petition for Certiorari is now at bar.

Issue : Whether or not the grant of diplomatic priveleges and immunities to ICMC
extends to immunity from the application of Philippine labor laws

Held : The immunity granted being from every form of legal process except in any
particular case they have expressly waived the immunity.

Respondents claim in so far as stating that a certification of election is beyond the

scope of immunity. That such is not a suit against ICMC but mere investigation of
a non-adversary fact-finding character were all rejected.
The immunuties accorded to international organization constitute a categorical
recognition by the executive branch of the Government. Its determination is held to
be a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by
the Executive Branch. Where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized an
affirmed by the executive branch as in the case at bar, it is then the duty of the
courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion of the principal
law officer of the government or other officer acting under his direction - as for
this case the DEFORAF.

Moreover, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Department of Labor would defeat the
very purpose of immunity, which is to shield the affairs of internatinal
organizations, in accordance with international practice, from political pressure or
control by the host country and to ensure unhampered perfromance of their
functions.

Petition is GRANTED.