Marcos v.
Manglapus the same; right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public
G.R. No. 88211
Sept. 15, 1989
DOCTRINE: Separation of Powers; Executive Powers; The grant of executive power means a grant of all
executive powers:
 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 official—the President.
The President; The powers granted to the President are not limited to those powers specifically
enumerated in the Constitution
 It would not be accurate, however, to state that “executive power” is the power to enforce
the laws, for the President is head of state as well as head of government and whatever
powers inhere in such positions pertain to the office unless the Constitution itself
withholds it.
 Furthermore, the Constitution itself provides that 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 execu-tion of any provision of law, e.g.,his power over the country’s foreign relations.
 On these premises, we hold the view that although the 1987 Constitution imposes
limitations on the exercise of specificpowers 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 specific powers enumerated in the
Constitution. In other words, executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so
enumerated.
Commander-In-Chief Powers: The President can exercise Commander-In-Chief powers in order to keep
the peace and maintain public order and security even in the absence of an emergency
The President has the power under the Constitution to bar the Marcoses from returning to our country.
FACTS: After the “People Power” Revolution, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the
presidencyvand forced into exile. In his stead, Corazon C. Aquino was declared President of the
Republic under a revolutionary government.
There were armed threats to the Government were not only found in misguided elements
in the military establishment and among rabid followers of Mr. Marcos There were also the
communist insurgency and the secessionist movement in Mindanao which gained ground during the
rule of Mr. Marcos, to the extent that the communists have set up a parallel government of their own
in the areas they effectively control while the separatists are virtually free to move about in armed
bands.
Now, 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 at a time
when the stability of government is threatened from various directions and the economy is just
beginning to rise and move forward, has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos
and his family.
ISSUE: WON the President have the power to bar the return of former President Marcos and
his family to the Philippines. - YES
HELD:
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: right of the Marcoses to return to the Philippines is guaranteed by the Bill
of Rights: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property; and Liberty of abode and of changing
health, as may be provided by law.
 Marcos: 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.”
o Nor may the President impair their right to travel because no law has authorized
her to do so.
o right to travel may be impaired by any authority or agency of the government,
there must be legislation to that effect.
 Also cited UDHR and ICCPR
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION: the issue is a POLITICAL QUESTION
 It is in the face of the determination by the President that such return and residence will
endanger national security and public safety
 whether the two rights claimed by petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family collide with
the more primordial and transcendental right of the State to security and safety of its
nationals, the question becomes political and SC cannot consider it
 REPSPONDENT ARGUES THE PRIMIACY OF THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO NATIONAL
SECUIRTY OVER INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
o Citing ART. II:
 Sec. 4: .The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the
people.
 Sec. 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
 RESPONDENT: the DECISION to BAN the MARCOSES from returning to PH for reasons of
NATIONAL SECURITY and PUBLIC SAFETY has INTERNATIONAL PRECEDENTS
o Where dictators whose return to their homelands was prevented by their
governments
SC: It must be emphasized that the individual right involved is not the right to travel from the Philippines
to other countries or within the Philippines. Essentially, the right involved is the right to return to one’s
country, a totally distinct right under international law, independent from although related to the right
to travel
 It is inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right to return to one’s country in the
same context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to travel
 The right to return to one’s country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the
Bill of Rights, which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel.
EXECUTIVE POWER
 1987 Constitution provides the separation of powers of the three great branches of
government.
o “[t]he legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines” [Art.
VI, Sec. 1], “[t]he executive power shall be 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.]
 CONSTI: Executive Power shall be vested in THE President of the Philippines
o HOWEVER, it does not define “ executive power” ,although in the same article it
touches on the exercise of certain powers by the President, such as:
 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  The Demand of the Marcoses to return should submit to the exercise of a broader
reprieves commutations and pardons, the power to grant amnesty discretion on the part of the President to determine whether it must be granted or denied
with the concurrence of Congress, the power to contract or
guarantee foreign loans, the power to enter into treaties or DOES FACTUAL BASIS EXISTS FOR THE PRESIDENT TO CONCLUDE THAT IT WAS IN THE NATIONAL
international agreements, the power to submit the budget to INTEREST TO BAR THE RETURN OF THE MARCOSES
Congress, and the power to address Congress  Based on the briefing by the Chief of Staff of AFP and National Security Adviser: there
 exist factual bases for the President’s decision
ARE THESE ENUMERATED POWERS THE BREADTH AND SCOPE OF “EXECUTIVE POWER”? o communist insurgency, a separatist movement in Mindanao, rightist
 Petitioner Marcos: President’s powers are limited to those enumerated by Constitution conspiracies to grab power, urban terrorism, the murder with impunity of
 SC: consideration of tradition and the development of presidential power under the military men, police officers and civilian officials
different constitutions are essential for a complete understanding of the extent of o documented history of the efforts of the Marcoses and their followers to
and limitations to the President’s powers under the 1987 Constitution destabilize the country
o It would not be accurate, however, to state that “executive power” is the power o CONCLUSION; the return of the Marcoses at this time would only exacerbate
to enforce the laws, for the President is head of state as well as head of and intensify the violence directed against the State and instigate more chaos
government and whatever powers inhere in such positions pertain to the office  catalytic effect of the return of the Marcoses
unless the Constitution itself withholds it.  The President did not act arbitrarily and capriciously and whimsically
 The execution of the laws is only one of the powers of the President. o It will not do that if the return of the Marcoses will cause the escalation of
 It also grants the President other powers that do not violence, that would be the time for the President to step in
involve the execution of any provision of law, e.g.,his o THE STATE IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM TAKING PRE-EMPTIVE ACTION
power over the country’s foreign relations. AGAINST THREATS
 Although the constitution imposes limits on the exercise of specific power of  The Philippines is only beginning to recover from hardships brought about by the
president, it maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within the scope plunder of the economy attributed to the Marcoses
of “executive power.” o Then, We cannot ignore the continually increasing burden imposed on the
o powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers economy by the excessive foreign borrowing during the Marcos regime, which
enumerated in the Constitution stifles and stagnates development and is one of the root causes of widespread
 executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so poverty and all its attendant ills
enumerate o 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
POWER INVOLVED and lead to total economic collapse
 Issue in this case is whether the time is right to allow the Marcoses to return to the
Philippines. the President is constrained to consider these basic principles in arriving at a DISPOSITION: the President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining
decision that the return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and in
o The President has the obligation under the Constitution to protect the people, prohibiting their return to the Philippines. PEITION IS DISMISSSED
promote their welfare and advance the national interest
 To the President, the problem is one of balancing the general welfare and the common
good against the exercise of rights of certain individuals
o 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
o President’s duty to preserve and defend the Constitution.
 More particularly, this case calls for the exercise of the President’s powers as protector of
the peace
o The Power to Keep the Peace is NOT LIMITED to EXERCISING THE
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF 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 in
times when no foreign foe appears on the horizon.
 Barring the Return of the Marcos has been recognized by the Legislature, and manifested
by Resolution
o does not question the President’s power to bar the Marcoses from returning to
the Philippines, rather, it appeals to the President’s sense of compassion to
allow a man to come home to die in his country