Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

Marcos v Manglapus – G.R. No.

88211 October 27, 1989

1.) President Corazon Aquino barred the return of former President Marcos
and his family to the Philippines after the latter was exiled in Hawaii.
Later, Marcos died and President Aquino did not allow the return of
Marcos’ remain to the country “for tranquillity of the state and order of
2.) Petitioners, the Marcos family, argued that their ban to return to the
Philippines is not in accordance with the Constitution specifically stating
that President Aquino has no power to bar a Filipino from his own
country and that there is no basis for barring their return. They filed for
Motion for Reconsideration to reverse the decision of the Court that
President Aquino did not act arbitrarily in banning the Marcoses’ return.
1.) Whether or not President Aquino’s power to bar the Marcoses’ return to
the Philippines is granted by the Constitution under the Executive Power.
1.) Yes. Though not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, the
President has “unstated” residual powers which are implied from the
grant of the executive power. Despite the intent of the framers of the
Constitution to limit the specific powers of the President as a reaction to
the abuses under the Marcos regime, the general grant of executive power
is not at all diminished. In relation to the principles in Statutory
Construction, if it is not expressly limited by the Constitution, “authority
is implied.” Not all the powers in the Constitution are enumerated. In this
case, President Aquino’s power to ban the Marcoses may not be
expressly included in her executive powers but may be considered as an
implied residual power which is necessary for her to comply with her
duties under the Constitution. Among those duties is to protect and
promote the interest and welfare of the people. Her decision to bar the
return of the Marcoses and the remains of former President Marcos is
part of that duty.
The Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.