Marcos v.

Manglapuz 177 scra 668

Facts: This case involves a petition of mandamus and prohibition asking the court to order the respondents Secretary of
Foreign Affairs, etc. To issue a travel documents to former Pres. Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to
enjoin the implementation of the President's decision to bar their return to the Philippines. Petitioners assert that the right of
the Marcoses to return in the Philippines is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, specifically Sections 1 and 6. They contended that
Pres. Aquino 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 the President impair their right to travel because no law has authorized her to do so.

They further assert that under international law, their right to return to the Philippines is guaranteed particularly by the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has been ratified by
the Philippines.

Issue: Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the constitution, the President (Aquino) may prohibit the
Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.

Held: "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. These are what the right to travel would normally connote. Essentially, the right involved in this case
at bar is the right to return to one's country, a distinct right under international law, independent from although related to the
right to travel. Thus, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
treat the right to freedom of movement and abode within the territory of a state, the right to leave the country, and the right
to enter one's country as separate and distinct rights. What the Declaration speaks of is the "right to freedom of movement
and residence within the borders of each state". On the other hand, the Covenant guarantees the right to liberty of movement
and freedom to choose his residence and the right to be free to leave any country, including his own. Such rights may only be
restricted by laws protecting the national security, public order, public health or morals or the separate rights of others.
However, right to enter one's country cannot be arbitrarily deprived. It would be therefore inappropriate to construe the
limitations to the right to return to ones country in the same context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right
to travel.

The Bill of rights treats only the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is a well considered view that the right to return
may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of International Law and under our Constitution as part of the law of the
land.

The court held that President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of the
Former Pres. Marcos and his family poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare. President Aquino has determined
that the destabilization caused by the return of the Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years
after the Marcos regime.

The return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat and therefore prohibiting their return to the Philippines, the instant petition
is hereby DISMISSED.