Bejarin, Joanne Camille P. Atty.

Nashmyleen Marohomsalic
2018-80001 Legal Writing 1

Marcos vs. Manglapus

GR. No. 88211, September 15, 1989
Cortes, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner Marcos filed for a petition for mandamus and prohibition requesting
for the issuance of travel documents for him and his family members, as well as to
prohibit the implementation of the President’s decision refusing them entry to the
borders of the Philippines. The petitioners invoked the Sec. 1 and Sec. 6 of the Bill
of Rights, entitling them to life, liberty, property, due process and protection of law,
and right to travel. Petitioners also contend that under international law, such as the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, they had the freedom to chose their residence within the borders of
the state.

Respondents claim that by allowing the dictator and his family access to the
country, a catalytic effect may result. The Philippines then was just recovering from
the aftermath of the Martial Law under Marcos, and allowing them entry may erase
the efforts of the government in stabilizing the country. Furthermore, respondents
argue that the rights invoked by the petitioners are not absolute. These rights are to
be viewed in contrast with equally important public interests, such as public welfare
and national security. The President, as the head of state, is empowered and not
limited by the Constitution to determine possible threats to peace. She does not only
exercise commander-in-chief powers in times of emergencies, but is also
responsible for maintaining order in times of peace.

ISSUE:

Whether or not President Aquino may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the
Philippines in the practice of her executive powers.

HELD:

Yes, President Aquino may deny the Marcoses entry in the practice of her
executive powers.

The 1987 Constitution provided for the separation of powers between the three
branches of the government. It enumerated the specific powers of the Executive
branch but gave no exact definition of ‘executive’. The Court ruled that it is only
logical to assume that any inherent power of the government that is neither judicial
or legislative should fall within the ambit of an executive power. This included the
determination of the threats to national security and private safety, and taking
pre-emptive action if necessary.
 As the head of the government, President Aquino had a duty to protect the
welfare of the people. The President did not act arbitrarily in the pronouncement that
the return of the Marcoses may pose a catalytic effect to the Filipino people, for
making such a decision is a pre-emptive action. She need not wait for the actual and
direct effects of the Marcoses’ return to Philippine soil before deciding that they are
a threat to peace and order. The state of the country after Marcos’ iron rule, suffering
from a dilapidated economy and thousands of human rights abuses, is enough
justification for the decision.

Because of the aforementioned justifying circumstances, the Supreme Court

denied the petition.