Marcos v. Manglapus (Main case)
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement
FACTS:
After the People Power Revolution, the presidency of Cory
Aquino was met with problems that besieged her such as the
failed Manila Hotel Coup by political leaders of Mr. Marcos;
takeover of Channel 7 by Marcos loyalists; military coup
attempt by Honasan; and the communist insurgency.
Now, Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to
return to the Philippines to die. But Mrs. Aquino has stood
firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his
family. Petitioners believe that the right of Marcos to return
is guaranteed by the BILL O F RIGHTS
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.
The petitioners further assert that under international law,
the right of Mr. Marcos and his family to return to the
Philippines is guaranteed. The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights provides:
Article 13.
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.
Likewise, the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, which had been ratified by the
Philippines, provides:
Article 12
(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.
(2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including
his own.
(3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any
restrictions except those which are provided by law, are
necessary to protect national security, public order (order
public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms
of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized
in the present Covenant.
(4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter
his own country.
The petitioners finally contend 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." Nor may the President impair their right to travel
because no law has authorized her to do so. They advance
the view that before the right to travel may be impaired
by any authority or agency of the government, there must
be legislation to that effect.
Respondents on the other hand argue for the primacy of the
right of the State to national security over individual rights.
In support thereof, they cite Article II, §§4-5 of the
Constitution.
Respondents also point out that the decision to ban Mr.
Marcos and family from returning to the Philippines for
reasons of national security and public safety has
international precedents. Other dictators such as Rafael
Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Anastacio Somoza Jr.
of Nicaragua, Jorge Ubico of Guatemala, etc. Finally, the
respondents believe that 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, but it is our well-considered view that the right to
return may be considered, as a generally accepted
principle of international law and, under our
Constitution, is part of the law of the land [Art. II, Sec. 2
of the Constitution.] However, it is 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" thereof [Art.
12 (4).]
ISSUE:
Does the President have the power to bar the return of
former President Marcos and family to the Philippines?
HELD:
Yes. Before going into other matters, the right to return
and right to travel are two separate and distinct things.
The right to return is covered by territorial rules covered by
the country’s respective border laws and is bound to
limitations of national security. The right to travel is one that
pertains to freedom of movement. In this case, Marcos has
the right to travel to any country however his right to return
to Philippines is prohibited.
The residual powers of the President is in Art. VII, §1.
However, it does not define what is meant by executive
power. Although in other Articles it is admitted that there
are samples of what the President’s power is, it seems that
the Constitution did not specify what the powers of the
President are. The court believes that we could not narrowly
construed the President to someone who simply executes
laws and neither can we also limit his power to the ones
enumerated within the Constitution. In other words,
executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so
enumerated by the Constitution.
Additionally, it seems that whatever power inherent in the
government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to
be executive. In the case of Springer v. Government of
Philippine Islands, when the issue of determining members
of the legislature who constitute a majority of the "board" and
"committee" but are not doing their legislative performance
it was held that:
…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.
In exercising the said executive power, the President is
guided by the Constitution. In the present case, Article II
Section 4 and 5 seem applicable wherein it collectively
states that:
"[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."
The issue at hand requires that the President balance 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. It could also be construed to mean the President's
duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. Also,
as the Commander-in-Chief, the President is bestowed with
the duty to protect the peace. The power of the President to
keep the peace is 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. The President is not only clothed with
extraordinary powers in times of emergency, but is also
tasked with attending to the day-to-day problems of
maintaining peace and order.
The President indeed has the power to bar the Marcoses from
returning to the Philippines. This was exemplified even
further by the fact that despite the Congress did not insist to
pass its resolution, which was signed by 103 of its members,
to allow the Marcoses to return to the Philippines in order to
exemplify “Philippines’ collective adherence to
uncompromising respect for human rights under the
Constitution and…laws.” The Resolution 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.
The power to bar the Marcoses from returning to the
Philippine should 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. In that context,
such request or demand should submit to the exercise of a
broader discretion on the part of the President.
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.
SEP OPINION
FERNAN, C.J., Concurring Opinion
Branch is to be carried out effectively and efficiently. It is in this
context that the power of the President to allow or disallow the
Marcoses to return to the Philippines should be viewed. By
reason of its impact on national peace and order in these
admittedly critical times, said question cannot be withdrawn
from the competence of the Executive Branch to decide. Return
of the deposed President, his wife and children cannot but pose
a clear and present danger to public order and safety. The public
disorder and peril to life and limb of the citizens engendered by
this event subsided only upon the eventual surrender of the
loyalist soldiers to the authorities.
While not all incidents may be traced directly to the Marcoses,
their occurrence militates heavily against the wisdom of
allowing the Marcoses return. Not only will the Marcoses
presence embolden their followers toward similar actions, but
any such action would be seized upon as an opportunity by other
enemies of the State, such as the Communist Party of the
Philippines and the NPA’s, the Muslim secessionists and
extreme rightists of the RAM, to wage an offensive against the
government. Certainly, the state through its executive branch has
the power, nay, the responsibility and obligation, to prevent a
grave and serious threat to its safety from arising. The removal
of the Marcoses from the Philippines was a moral victory for the
Filipino people; and the installation of the present
administration, a realization of and obedience to the people’s
will. Verily in the balancing of interests, the scales tilt in favor
of presidential prerogative, which we do not find to have been
gravely abused or arbitrarily exercised, to ban the Marcoses
from returning to the Philippines.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J., Dissenting Opinion
I am, therefore, disturbed by the majority ruling which declares
that it should not be a precedent. We are interpreting the
Constitution for only one person and constituting him into a
class by himself. The Constitution is a law for all classes of men
at all times. To have a person as one class by himself smacks of
unequal protection of the laws. With all due respect for the
majority in the Court, I believe that the issue before us is one of
rights and not of power. Mr. Marcos is insensate and would not
live if separated from the machines which have taken over the
functions of his kidneys and other organs. To treat him at this
point as one with full panoply of power against whom the forces
of Government should be marshalled is totally unrealistic.
The authority implied in Section 6 of the Bill of Rights itself
does not exist because no law has been enacted specifying the
circumstances when the right may be impaired in the interest of
national security or public safety. The power is in Congress, not
the Executive.
 Not every person who would allow Mr. Marcos
to come home can be tagged a “loyalist” It is in the best of
Filipino customs and traditions to allow a dying person to return
to his home and breath his last in his native surroundings.
The Court, however, should view the return of Mr. Marcos and
his family solely in the light of the constitutional guarantee of
liberty of abode and the citizen’s right to travel as against the
respondents’ contention that national security and public safety
would be endangered by a grant of the petition. Apart from the
absence of any text in the Constitution committing the issue
exclusively to the President, there is likewise no dearth of
decisional data, no unmanageable standards which stand in the
way of a judicial determination.
Section 6 of the Bill of Rights states categorically that the liberty
of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed
by law may be impaired only upon a lawful order of a court. Not
by an executive officer. Not even by the President. Section 6
further provides that the right to travel, and this obviously
includes the right to travel out of or back into the Philippines,
cannot be impaired except in the interest of national security,
public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. There
is no law setting the limits on a citizen’s right to move from one
part of the country to another or from the Philippines to a foreign
country or from a foreign country to the Philippines.
The fear that Communist rebels, Bangsa Moro secessionists, the
Honasan ex-soldiers, the hard core loyalists, and other
dissatisfied elements would suddenly unite to overthrow the
Republic should a dying Marcos come home is too speculative
and unsubstantial a ground for denying a constitutional right. It
is not shown how extremists from the right and the left who
loathe each other could find a rallying point in the coming of Mr.
Marcos. The “confluence theory” of the Solicitor General or
what the majority calls “catalytic effect” which alone sustains
the claim of danger to national security is fraught with perilous
implications. I must emphasize that General Renato de Villa, the
Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, has personally assured the
Court that a rebellion of the above combined groups will not
succeed and that the military is on top of the situation.
I must stress that no reference was made to a clear and present
danger to national security as would allow an overriding of the
Bill of Rights. When the Bill of Rights provides that a right may
not be impaired except in the interest of national security, public
safety, or public health and further requires that a law must
provide when such specifically defined interests are prejudiced
or require protection, the inaction of Congress does not give
reason for the respondents to assume the grounds for its
impairment.
For his own good, it might be preferable to stay where he is. But
he invokes a constitutional right. We have no power to deny it
to him. With all due respect for the majority opinion, I disagree
with its dictum on the right to travel. I do not think we should
differentiate the right to return home from the right to go abroad
or to move around in the Philippines. If at all, the right to come
home must be more preferred than any other aspect of the right
to travel.
The Government can act. It can have Mr. Marcos arrested and
tried in court. The Government has more than ample powers
under existing law to deal with a person who transgresses the
peace and imperils public safety. But the denial of travel papers
is not one of those powers because the Bill of Rights says so.
There is no law prescribing exile in a foreign land as the penalty
for hurting the Nation.
CRUZ, J., Dissenting Opinion
It is my belief that the petitioner, as a citizen of the Philippines,
is entitled to return to and live and die in his own country. The
question we must answer is whether or not, assuming that
Marcos is permitted to leave Hawaii (which may depend on the
action we take today), the respondents have acted with grave
abuse of discretion in barring him from his own country.
My reluctant conclusion is that they have, absent the proof they
said they were prepared to offer, but could not, that the
petitioner’s return would prejudice the security of the State The
fears expressed by its representatives were based on mere
conjectures of political and economic destabilization without
any single piece of concrete evidence to back up their
apprehensions.
Like the martyred Ninoy Aquino who also wanted to come back
to the Philippines against the prohibitions of the government
then, Marcos is entitled to the same right to travel and the liberty
of abode that his adversary invoked. These rights are guaranteed
by the Constitution to all individuals, including the patriot and
the homesick and the prodigal son returning, and tyrants and
charlatans and scoundrels of every stripe.
PARAS, J., Dissenting Opinion
There is no dispute that the former President is still a Filipino
citizen and both under the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, he has the
right to return to his own country except only if prevented by the
demands of national safety and national security. Our Armed
Forces have failed to prove this danger. They are bereft of hard
evidence, and all they can rely on is sheer speculation. True,
there is some danger but there is no showing as to the extent.
The former President should be allowed to return to our country
under the conditions that he and the members of his family be
under house arrest in his hometown in Ilocos Norte, and should
President Marcos or any member of his family die, the body
should not be taken out of the municipality of confinement and
should be buried within ten (10) days from date.
PADILLA, J., Dissenting Opinion
Mr. Marcos is a Filipino and, as such, entitled to return to, die
and be buried in this country; respondents have not shown any
“hard evidence” or convincing proof why his right as a Filipino
to return should be denied him. All we have are general
conclusions of ”national security” and “public safety” in
avoidance of a specific demandable and enforceable
constitutional and basic human right to return. The issue of
Marcos’ return to the Philippines, perhaps more than any issue
today, requires of all members of the Court, in what appears to
be an extended political contest, the “cold neutrality of an
impartial judge”. It is only thus that we fortify the independence
of this Court, with fidelity, not to any person, party or group but
to the Constitution and only to the Constitution. 

SARMIENTO, J., Dissenting Opinion
First: While the Chief Executive exercises powers not found
expressly in the Charter, but has them by constitutional
implication, the latter must yield to the paramountcy of the Bill
of Rights. My brethren have not demonstrated, to my
satisfaction, how the President may override the direct mandate
of the fundamental law.
The intent of the Charter to create an exception, that is, by
Presidential action, to the right of travel or liberty of abode and
of changing the sam’e ·other than what it explicitly says already
“limits prescribed by law the Charter could have specifically
declared so. As it is, the lone deterrents to the right in question
are:
(1) decree of statute, or
(2) lawful judicial mandate.
Obviously, none of the twin legal bars exist. There is no law
banning the Marcoses from the country; neither is there any
court decree banishing him from Philippine territory.

What appears in the records are vehement insistences that

Marcos does pose a threat to the national good·and yet, at the
same time, we have persistent claims, made by the military top
brass during the lengthy closed-door hearing on July 25, 1989,
that ”this Government will not fall” should the former first
family in exile step on Philippine soil. Which is which?

At any rate, it is my opinion that we cannot leave that

determination solely to the Chief Executive. The Court itself
must be content that the threat is not only clear, but more so,
present.

Third: The problem is not of balancing the general welfare

against the exercise of individual liberties. As I indicated, not
one shred of evidence, let alone solid evidence, other than
surmises of possibilities, has been shown to justify the
“balancing act” referred to.

I have staunchly and consistently advocated the human right of

travel and movement and the liberty of abode. We would have
betrayed our own ideals if we denied Marcos his rights. It is his
constitutional right, a right that cannot be abridged by personal
hatred, fear, founded or unfounded, and by speculations of the
man’s “capacity” “to stir trouble”

MARCOS V. MANLAPUS (MR)
On October 2, 1989, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed
by petitioners, raising the following major argument:
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. Thus, petitioners prayed that the Court
reconsider its decision, order respondents to issue the necessary
travel documents to enable Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, Ferdinand
R. Marcos, Jr., Irene M. Araneta, Imee M. Manotoc, Tommy
Manotoc and Gregorio Araneta to return to the Philippines, and
enjoin respondents from implementing President Aquino's
decision to bar the return of the remains of Mr. Marcos, and the
other petitioners, to the Philippines.
Commenting on the motion for reconsideration, the Solicitor
General argued that the motion for reconsideration is moot and
academic as to the deceased Mr. Marcos. Moreover, he asserts
that "the 'formal' rights being invoked by the Marcoses under the
label 'right to return', including the label 'return of Marcos'
remains, is in reality or substance a 'right' to destabilize the
country, a 'right' to hide the Marcoses' incessant shadowy
orchestrated efforts at destabilization." Thus, he prays that the
Motion for Reconsideration be denied for lack of merit.
No. The President 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. The powers of the President are not limited
to what are expressly enumerated in the article on the
Executive Department and in scattered provisions of the
Constitution.
Neither can we subscribe to the view that a recognition of
the President's implied or residual powers is tantamount to
setting the stage for another dictatorship. Despite petitioners'
strained analogy, the residual powers of the President under
the Constitution should not be confused with the power of
the President under the 1973 Constitution to legislate
pursuant to Amendment No. 6. Amendment No. 6 refers to
a grant to the President of the specific power of legislation.
Thus, it cannot be said that the residual powers of the
President cannot be used to legislate and as a form of abuse.

SEPARATE OPINIONS
CRUZ, J., dissenting:
The death of Marcos has not plunged the nation into paroxysms
of grief as the so-called "loyalists" had hoped. By and large, it
has been met with only passing interest if not outright
indifference from the people. This only shows that if he was at
all a threat to the national security when he was already
moribund that feeble threat has died with him. As the
government stresses, he has been reduced to a non-person
(which makes me wonder why it is still afraid of him). His
cadaver is not even regarded as a symbol of this or that or
whatever except by his fanatical followers. It is only a dead body
waiting to be interred in this country.
PARAS, J., dissenting on the Motion for Reconsideration:
Firstly, the former President, although already dead, is still
entitled to certain rights. It is not correct to say that a dead man,
since he is no longer a human being, has ceased to have rights.
Secondly, up to now, the alleged threats to national security have
remained unproved and consequently, unpersuasive. Our Armed
Forces can easily control any possible uprising or political and
military destabilization. In fact, the converse appears to be
nearer the truth, that is, if we do not allow the remains to come,
more trouble may be expected. Thirdly, reconciliation can
proceed at a much faster pace if the petition for the return is
granted. To refuse the request can mean a hardening of
resistance against the well-intentioned aim of the administration.
Finally, the entire world will surely applaud our government's
act of mercy. Surely, compassion is the better part of
government. Remove mercy, and you remove the best reason
against civil strife, which if not abated can turn our country into
a mainstream of fiery dissent and in the end, as one great man
has put it, the question will no longer be what is right, but what
is left.
PADILLA, J., dissenting:
Respondents have succeeded in denying Mr. Marcos the first
two (2) rights, i.e. to return to and die in this country, The
remaining right of this Filipino that cries out for vindication at
this late hour is the right to be buried in this country. Those who
would deny this Filipino the only constitutional and human right
that can be accorded him now say that the constitutional and
human right to be buried in this country would apply to any
Filipino, except Mr. Marcos, because he was a dictator and he
plundered the country. This is the most irrelevant argument that
can be raised at this time. For, our democracy is built on the
fundamental assumption (so we believe) that the Constitution
and all its guarantees apply to all Filipinos, whether dictator or
pauper, learned or ignorant, religious or agnostic as long as he is
a Filipino.
It is said that to accord this Filipino the right to be buried in this
country would pose a serious threat to national security and
public safety. What threat? As pointed out in my dissenting
opinion, the second cogent and decisive proposition in this case
is that respondents have not presented any "hard evidence"
(factual bases) or convincing proof of such threat. " It is said
that, while a dead Marcos has been rendered impotent to threaten
national security, his supporters would pose that threat to
national security. This argument is untenable as it is without
merit. As I see it, Marcos' supporters pose a greater threat to
peace and order, with Marcos deprived of his right to burial in
this country. On the other hand, if the remains of Mr. Marcos are
brought to the country and allowed the burial to which he is
constitutionally and humanly entitled, Marcos' supporters would
be deprived of an otherwise potent argument—so conducive to
mass protests and even violence—that their Idol has been cruelly
denied the right to be buried in his homeland.
SARMIENTO, J., Dissenting:
I can not allow personal emotions to soften my "hardened
impartiality" and deny, as a consequence, the rights of the ex-
President's bereaved to bury his remains in his homeland, and
for them to return from exile. As I had, then, voted to grant the
petition, so do I vote to grant reconsideration.
I have gone to lengths to locate in the four comers of the
Constitution, by direct grant or by implication, the President's
supposed "residual" power to forbid citizens from entering the
motherland reiterated in the resolution of the majority. I have
found none. I am not agreed, that:
3. Contrary to petitioners view, it cannot be
denied that 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. The
powers of the President are not limited to what
are expressly enumerated in the article on the
Executive Department and in scattered
provisions of the Constitution. This,
notwithstanding the avowed intent of the
members of the Constitutional Commission of
1986 to limit the powers of the President as a
reaction to the abuses under the regime of Mr.
Marcos, for the result was a limitation of specific
powers of the President, particularly those
relating to the commander-in-chief clause, but
not a diminution of the general grant of executive
power.
For, if the Constitution has imposed limitations on specific
powers of the President, it has, a fortiori, prescribed a
diminution of executive power. The Charter says that the right
may only be restricted by: (1) a court order; or (2) by fiat of law.
Had the fundamental law intended a presidential imprimatur, it
would have said so. It would have also completed the symmetry:
judicial, congressional, and executive restraints on the right. No
amount of presumed residual executive power can amend the
Charter.
That "[t]he threats to the government, to which the return of the
Marcoses has been viewed to provide a catalytic effect, have not
been shown to have ceased" is the realm of conjecture,
speculation, and imagination. The military has shown no hard
evidence that "the return of the Marcoses" would indeed
interpose a threat to national security. And apparently, the
majority itself is not convinced. I reiterate that the President has
no power to deny requests of Marcos relatives to bury Marcos in
his homeland. As for the former, let them get their just deserts
here too. And let the matter rest.