MARCOS VS.

BAGATSING ▪ Right to leave any country, including his own, and

to return to his country [Article 13 (2), Universal
Topics: right of liberty of abode, executive powers, justiciable or political Declaration of Human Rights]
question ▪ Right to liberty of movement & freedom to
choose residence [Int’l Covenant on Civil &
FACTS:
Political Rights, Article 12 (1)]
● 1986 People Power revolution removed dictator Ferdinand E. ▪ Right to leave any country, including his own
Marcos from power, ending his 21-year presidential rule.1 [Int’l Covenant on Civil & Political Rights,
● Mr. Marcos, his family, and his closest allies were exiled to Article 12 (2)]
o President Cory Aquino’s ban on the return of the
Hawaii, USA on February 26, 1986.2
Marcoses is an act considered a grave abuse of jurisdiction
● Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the
▪ Act is not among the powers mentioned in the
Philippines to die in his hometown. 3
1987 Constitution, and thus, is outside the scope
● President Cory Aquino stood firmly on the decision to bar the
of the executive powers of the president
return of Mr. Marcos and his family.
▪ The President has enumerated powers, and what is
o Return of Mr. Marcos to the PH has “dire consequences”
not enumerated is impliedly denied to her.
to the nation; government stability is currently threatened
● inclusion unius est exclusio alterius
by
● Respondents argue that
▪ military coup
o Issue in this case involves a political question which is
▪ communist insurgency
non-justiciable
▪ secession movement in Mindanao
▪ since the two rights claimed (allowing the return
o the economy is just beginning to rise and move forward4
of Mr. Marcos and his family) collides with the
● Petitioners contend that
more primordial and transcendental right of the
o Marcoses have the right to return to the PH guaranteed
State to security and safety of its nationals
under the 1987 Constitution and international law
o Right of the state to national security is prime over
▪ Right to due process & equal protection of the
individual rights
laws [Article III, Sec. 1]
▪ Prime duty of government is to serve and protect
▪ Right to liberty of abode [Article III, Sec. 6]
the people [Article II, Sec. 4, 1987 Constitution]
▪ Right to freedom of movement and residence
▪ Maintennance of peace and order, and protection
within the borders of each state [Article 13 (1),
of life, liberty, and property [Article II, Sec. 5,
Universal Declaration of Human Rights]
1987 Constitution]

1 3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Power_Revolution#Marcos'_departure Marcos vs. Bagatsing
2 4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Marcos#Exile_in_Hawaii Ibid.
 ▪ President’s ban is within the ambit of her
executive powers to assure peace and order and
protection of the people
ISSUE/S (according to SC):
1. WON the President has the power under the Constitution, to bar
the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.
2. WON the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she
determined that the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines poses
a serious threat to national interest and welfare and decided to bar
their return.
RULING:
Ruling on Issue 1: Yes, she does have that power under the Constitution.
Ruling on Issue 2: No, she did not act with grave abuse of discretion.
SC dismisses petition.
RATIO:
I. Majority
Clarification re Right to Travel
Long story short: “An appropriate case for its resolution [regarding issue
on right to travel] will have to be awaited.”
“It must be emphasized that the individual right involved [in this case] is
not the right to travel from the Philippines to other countries or within the
Philippines. These are what the right to travel would normally connote.
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.”
The [Universal] Declaration [of Human Rights] speaks of the "right to
freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state" [Art.
13(l)] separately from the "right to leave any country, including his own,
and to return to his country." [Art. 13(2).]
On the other hand, the [International] Covenant [on Civil and Political
Rights] guarantees the "right to liberty of movement and freedom to
choose his residence" [Art. 12(l)] and the right to "be free to leave any
country, including his own." [Art. 12(2)] which rights may be restricted by
such laws as "are necessary to protect national security, public order,
public health or morals or enter his own country" of which one cannot be
"arbitrarily deprived." [Art. 12(4).] It would therefore be 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, 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).]
Consequently, resolution by the Court of the well-debated issue of whether
or not there can be limitations on the right to travel in the absence of
legislation to that effect is rendered unnecessary. An appropriate case for
its resolution will have to be awaited.
Re: Executive Power of President
Long story short: Yes, she has the PAWA. Although not explicitly stated
in the Constitution, it is inherent in the office of the President.
“[W]e hold the view that although the 1987 Constitution imposes
limitations on the exercise of specific powers of the President [see Articles
VII, Section 14-23] 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.”
“It has been advanced that whatever power inherent in the
government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive.”
“What we are saying in effect is that the request or demand 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.”
Re: Justiciable or Political Question
Short answer: The case involves a justiciable question. The SC deemed
that President’s act to ban return of Marcoses is in the national interest and
is within the powers of her office.
Under the Constitution, judicial power includes the duty to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality
of the Government." [Art. VIII, Sec. 1]
There is nothing in the case before us that precludes our determination
thereof on the political question doctrine…When political questions are
involved, the Constitution limits the determination to whether or not there
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of the official whose action is being questioned.
Accordingly, the question for the Court to determine is whether or not
there exist factual bases for the President to conclude that it was in the
national interest to bar the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines.
If such postulates do exist, it cannot be said that she has acted, or acts,
arbitrarily or that she has gravely abused her discretion in deciding to bar
their return.
We find that from the pleadings filed by the parties, from their oral
arguments, and the facts revealed during the briefing in chambers by the
Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the National
Security Adviser, wherein petitioners and respondents were represented,
there exist factual bases for the President's decision.
The Court cannot close its eyes to present realities and pretend that the
country is not besieged from within by a well-organized communist
insurgency, a separatist movement in Mindanao, rightist conspiracies to
grab power, urban terrorism, the murder with impunity of military men,
police officers and civilian officials, to mention only a few. The
documented history of the efforts of the Marcoses and their followers to
destabilize the country, as earlier narrated in this ponencia bolsters the
conclusion that the return of the Marcoses at this time would only
exacerbate and intensify the violence directed against the State and
instigate more chaos.
 II. Dissenting Opinion

Justice Gutierrez:

“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.”

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.