MARCOS v.

MANGLAPUS
G.R. No. 88211 September 15, 1989

DOCTRINE:

The 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise of specific powers 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.

FACTS:

Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent
“people power” revolution and was forced into exile. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his
wish to return to the Philippines to die. But President Corazon 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 Marcos and his family.

Aquino barred Marcos from returning due to possible threats & following supervening events:

1. failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by Marcos leaders

2. channel 7 taken over by rebels & loyalists
3. plan of Marcoses to return w/ mercenaries aboard a chartered plane of a Lebanese arms
dealer. This is to prove that they can stir trouble from afar
4. Honasan’s failed coup
5. Communist insurgency movements
6. secessionist movements in Mindanao
7. devastated economy because of
8. accumulated foreign debt
9. plunder of nation by Marcos & cronies
10. Marcos filed for a petition of mandamus and prohibition to order the respondents to issue
them their travel documents and prevent the implementation of President Aquino’s
decision to bar Marcos from returning in the Philippines. Petitioner questions Aquino’s
power to bar his return in the country. He also questioned the claim of the President that
the decision was made in the interest of national security, public safety and health.
Petitioner also claimed that the President acted outside her jurisdiction.

According to the Marcoses, such act deprives them of their right to life, liberty, property without
due process and equal protection of the laws. They also said that it deprives them of their right
to travel which according to Section 6, Article 3 of the constitution, may only be impaired by a
court order.
ISSUE: Whether or not the President has the power to prohibit the Marcoses from returning to
the Philippines

RULING:

According to Section 1, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, “the executive power shall
be vested in the President of the Philippines.” However, it does not define what is meant by
“executive power” although in the same article it touches on exercise of certain powers by the
President, i.e., the power of control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices, the
power to execute the laws, the appointing power to grant reprieves, commutations and
pardons… (art VII secfs. 14-23).

Although the constitution outlines tasks of the president, this list is not defined & exclusive. She
has residual & discretionary powers not stated in the Constitution which include the power to
protect the general welfare of the people.

She is obliged to protect the people, promote their welfare & advance national interest. (Art. II,
Sec. 4-5 of the Constitution). Residual powers, according to Theodore Roosevelt, dictate that the
President can do anything which is not forbidden in the Constitution (Corwin, supra at 153),
inevitable to vest discretionary powers on the President (Hyman, American President) and that
the president has to maintain peace during times of emergency but also on the day-to-day
operation of the State.

The rights Marcoses are invoking are not absolute. They’re flexible depending on the
circumstances. The request of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines cannot be
considered in the light solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and
the right to travel, subject to certain exceptions, or of case law which clearly never contemplated
situations even remotely similar to the present one. It must 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 to determine whether it must be granted or denied.

***RULING ON MR:

1. Petitioners failed to show any compelling reason to warrant reconsideration.

2. Factual scenario during the time Court rendered its decision has not changed. The 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. Imelda Marcos also called President Aquino
“illegal” claiming that it is Ferdinand Marcos who is the legal president.
3. President has unstated residual powers implied from grant of executive power. Enumerations
are merely for specifying principal articles implied in the definition; leaving the rest to flow
from general grant that power, interpreted in conformity with other parts of the Constitution
(Hamilton). Executive unlike Congress can exercise power from sources not enumerates so
 long as not forbidden by constitutional text (Myers vs. US). This does not amount to
dictatorship. Amendment No. 6 expressly granted Marcos power of legislation whereas 1987
Constitution granted Aquino with implied powers.
4. It is within Aquino’s power to protect & promote interest & welfare of the people. She bound
to comply w/ that duty and there is no proof that she acted arbitrarily