Today is Friday, November 03, 2017

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

RANETA, IMEE MANOTOC, TOMAS MANOTOC, GREGORIO ARANETA, PACIFICO E. MARCOS, NICANOR YÑIGUEZ and PH

DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, FIDEL RAMOS, RENATO DE VILLA, in their capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Executive Sec

s are involved, the Court's decision in this case would undeniably have a profound effect on the political, economic and other aspects

non-violent "people power" revolution and forced into exile. In his stead, Corazon C. Aquino was declared President of the Republic u
eover of television station Channel 7 by rebel troops led by Col. Canlas with the support of "Marcos loyalists" and the unseccessful p
nation to the capacity of the Marcoses to stir trouble even from afar and to the fanaticism and blind loyalty of their followers in the coun
stop bloody challenges to the government. On August 28, 1987, Col. Gregorio Honasan, one of the major players in the February Re
same — a split in the ranks of the military establishment that thraetened civilian supremacy over military and brought to the fore the r

rabid followers of Mr. Marcos. There are also the communist insurgency and the seccessionist movement in Mindanao which gained
e to move about in armed bands. There has been no let up on this groups' determination to wrest power from the govermnent. Not on

of the nation attributed to Mr. Marcos and his cronies left the economy devastated. The efforts at economic recovery, three years afte

Mrs. Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of government is threatened fro

e and into exile after causing twenty years of political, economic and social havoc in the country and who within the short space of thr
vel documents to Mr. Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to enjoin the implementation of the President's decision to

onstitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.

owing issues:

s and family to the Philippines?

d his family from returning to the Philippines, in the interest of "national security, public safety or public health

nd his family to the Philippines is a clear and present danger to national security, public safety or public health?

making such finding?

the President's decision, including the grounds upon which it was based, been made known to petitioners so that they may controve

his family to the Philippines is a clear and present danger to national security, public safety, or public health a political question?

ent Marcos and his family is a clear and present danger to national security, public safety, or public health, have respondents establis

ar the return of former President Marcos and his family, acted and would be acting without jurisdiction, or in excess of jurisdiction, or
tioners, pp. 5-7; Rollo, pp. 234-236.1

Philippines is guaranteed under the following provisions of the Bill of Rights, to wit:

cess of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

bed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the intere

arcoses because only a court may do so "within the limits prescribed by law." Nor may the President impair their right to travel becau
.

o return to the Philippines is guaranteed.

in the borders of each state.

o his country.

Philippines, provides:

he right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

e which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (order public), public health or morals or the righ

olitical question which is non-justiciable. According to the Solicitor General:

Ferdinand E. Marcos and his family have the right to travel and liberty of abode. Petitioners invoke these constitutional rights in vacuo

tioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family have the right to return to the Philippines and reside here at this time in the face of the determ

al question as it involves merely a determination of what the law provides on the matter and application thereof to petitioners Ferdinan
d transcendental right of the State to security and safety of its nationals, the question becomes political and this Honorable Court can

ppines and reestablish their residence here? This is clearly a justiciable question which this Honorable Court can decide.

lippines and reestablish their residence here even if their return and residence here will endanger national security and public safety?

arcos and family shall return to the Philippines and establish their residence here? This is now a political question which this Honorab
297-299.]

hts. In support thereof, they cite Article II of the Constitution, to wit:

The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under cond

property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.

Philippines for reasons of national security and public safety has international precedents. Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, A
Venezuela were among the deposed dictators whose return to their homelands was prevented by their governments. [See Statemen

and its limits. We, however, view this issue in a different light. Although we give due weight to the parties' formulation of the issues, w
o travel and the import of the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in the leading cases of Kent v. Dulles [357 U.S. 116, 78 SCt 1113,

es to other countries or within the Philippines. These are what the right to travel would normally connote. Essentially, the right involve
ns Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treat the right to freedom of movement and abode within the ter
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."
ng his own." [Art. 12(2)] which rights may be restricted by such laws as "are necessary to protect national security, public order, publ
country in the same context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to travel.

ghts, 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 c
rom the right to travel and enjoys a different protection under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, i.e., against bein

ose of effectively exercising the right to travel are not determinative of this case and are only tangentially material insofar as they rela

mitations on the right to travel in the absence of legislation to that effect is rendered unnecessary. An appropriate case for its resolutio

for its resolution. Our resolution of the issue will involve a two-tiered approach. We shall first resolve whether or not the President has
VIII, Section 1, whether or not the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdictio

government. To recall the words of Justice Laurel in Angara v. Electoral Commission [63 Phil. 139 (1936)], "the Constitution has block
des that "[the legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines" Art VI, Sec. 11, "[t]he executive power shall beves
ese provisions not only establish a separation of powers by actual division [Angara v. Electoral Commission, supra] but also confer p
"a grant of the legislative power means a grant of all legislative power; and a grant of the judicial power means a grant of all the judici
two hundred members and of the judicial power which is vested in a hierarchy of courts, it can equally be said of the executive powe

ident of the Philippines." [Art. VII, Sec. 1]. However, it does not define what is meant by executive power" although in the same article
r, the powers under the commander-in-chief clause, the power to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, the power to grant amn
ess, and the power to address Congress [Art. VII, Sec. 14-23].

ers of the Constitution intend that the President shall exercise those specific powers and no other? Are these se enumerated powers
The President has enumerated powers, and what is not enumerated is impliedly denied to her. Inclusion unius est exclusio alterius[M

problem. He said:

k that a constitution ought to settle everything beforehand it should be a nightmare; by the same token, to those who think that constit

e power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." . . .. [The President: Office and Powers, 17871957, pp. 3-4.]

ld the office from Washington to the early 1900's, and the swing from the presidency by commission to Lincoln's dictatorship, he conc

course, an agency of government subject to unvarying demands and duties no remained, of cas President. But, more than most agen
is habits, expectations, Idiosyncrasies, compulsions, phobias recast the WhiteHouse and pervaded the entire government. The execu
 al order, therefore altered from President to President. Above all, the way each President understood it as his personal obligation to
weakened the constitutional order. [At 212- 213.]

at the consideration of tradition and the development of presidential power under the different constitutions are essential for a comple
n the U.S. President. The 1973 Constitution attempted to modify the system of government into the parliamentary type, with the Pres
ever, brought back the presidential system of government and restored the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers by

s, for the President is head of state as well as head of government and whatever powers inhere in such positions pertain to the office
r powers that do not involve the execution of any provision of law, e.g., his power over the country's foreign relations.

he exercise of specific powers of the President, it maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within the scope of "executive p
specific powers so enumerated,

or judicial has to be executive. Thus, in the landmark decision of Springer v. Government of the Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189 (192
pany and the Philippine National Bank, the U.S. Supreme Court, in upholding the power of the Governor-General to do so, said:

d "committee" respectively, are not charged with the performance of any legislative functions or with the doing of anything which is in
ganic Act in the Governor-General, it is clear that they are not legislative in character, and still more clear that they are not judicial. Th
ers of government are divided ....[At 202-203; Emphasis supplied.]

ind reinforcement for the view that it would indeed be a folly to construe the powers of a branch of government to embrace only what

k and white. Even the more specific of them are found to terminate in a penumbra shading gradually from one extreme to the other. ..

eiling words we do not and cannot carry out the distinction between legislative and executive action with mathematical precision and

s to serve and protect the people" and that "[t]he maintenance of peace and order,the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the

tion of life, liberty and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essentially ideals to guide governmental action. But suc
her point of view, in making any decision as President of the Republic, the President has to consider these principles, among other th

Philippines, the President is, under the Constitution, constrained to consider these basic principles in arriving at a decision. More than
must be borne in mind that the Constitution, aside from being an allocation of power is also a social contract whereby the people hav
people become rulers, the Constitution reminds everyone that "[s]overeignty resides in the people and all government authority eman

untry are the deposed dictator and his family at whose door the travails of the country are laid and from whom billions of dollars believ
d ofexpression, although couched in absolute terms, admits of limits and must be adjusted to the requirements of equally important pu

inst the exercise of rights of certain individuals. The power involved is the President's residual power to protect the general welfare of
forbidden by the Constitution or the laws that the needs of the nation demand [See Corwin, supra, at 153]. It is a power borne by the
American President, where the author advances the view that an allowance of discretionary power is unavoidable in any government

ace. Rossiter The American Presidency].The power of the President to keep the peace is not limited merely to exercising the comman
mergency, but is also tasked with attending to the day-to-day problems of maintaining peace and order and ensuring domestic tranqu
 ant of an emergency specified in the commander-in-chief provision. For in making the President commander-in-chief the enumeratio
beas corpus or declaring martial law, in order to keep the peace, and maintain public order and security.

been recognized by memembers of the Legislature, and is manifested by the Resolution proposed in the House of Representatives a
of of our collective adherence to uncompromising respect for human rights under the Constitution and our laws." [House Resolution N
sion to allow a man to come home to die in his country.

rn to the Philippines cannot be considered in the light solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and the righ
ately addressed to those residual unstated powers of the President which are implicit in and correlative to the paramount duty residin
rmine whether it must be granted or denied.

en a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Governm

judicial inquiry into areas which the Court, under previous constitutions, would have normally left to the political departments to decid
cite or referendum. We cannot, for example, question the President's recognition of a foreign government, no matter how premature
Constitution under the guise of resolving a dispute brought before us because the power is reserved to the people.

estion doctrine. The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission cited by petitioners show that the framers intended to widen the s
hether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the official whose a
the latter alone to decide. In this light, it would appear clear that the second paragraph of Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution, d
vernment, incorporates in the fundamental law the ruling in Lansang v. Garcia [G.R. No. L-33964, December 11, 1971, 42 SCRA 448

the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under specified conditions. Pursuant to the principle of separation of powers underlying our
es hand in hand with the system of checks and balances, under which the Executive is supreme, as regards the suspension of the pri
partment, which, in this respect, is, in turn, constitutionally supreme. In the exercise of such authority, the function of the Court is mer
d in him or to determine the wisdom of his act [At 479-480.]

r the President to conclude that it was in the national interest to bar the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines. If such postulates d

aled during the briefing in chambers by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the National Security Adviser, wh

rom within by a well-organized communist insurgency, a separatist movement in Mindanao, rightist conspiracies to grab power, urba
destabilize the country, as earlier narrated in this ponencia bolsters the conclusion that the return of the Marcoses at this time would

blishment has given assurances that it could handle the threats posed by particular groups. But it is the catalytic effect of the return o
ly and whimsically in determining that the return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat to the national interest and welfare and in pr

of violence against the State, that would be the time for the President to step in and exercise the commander-in-chief powers grante
hough still nascent they are perceived as apt to become serious and direct. Protection of the people is the essence of the duty of gove
aithful execution the laws, cannot shirk from that responsibility.

ardships brought about by the plunder of the economy attributed to the Marcoses and their close associates and relatives, many of w
ed away by the Marcoses in foreign jurisdictions. Then, We cannot ignore the continually increasing burden imposed on the economy
sulting precarious state of our economy is of common knowledge and is easily within the ambit of judicial notice.
 ld wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years and lead to total economic collapse. Given what is within our individual an

or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of former President Marcos and his family at the present time and unde

simmering separatist movement, a restive studentry, widespread labor disputes, militant farmer groups. . . . Each of these threats is

go E. Gutierrez, Jr. But they express eloquently the basis of my full concurrence to the exhaustive and well-written ponencia of Mme.

a particular constitutional clause or article or from an express statutory grant. Their limits are likely to depend on the imperatives of e
ers in times of crisis or grave and imperative national emergency. Many terms are applied to these powers: "residual," "inherent," 44
t effectively and efficiently. It is in this context that the power of the President to allow or disallow the Marcoses to return to the Philipp
o decide.

nd present danger to public order and safety. One needs only to recall the series of destabilizing actions attempted by the so-called M
barely five (5) months after the People's Power Revolution. Around 10,000 Marcos supporters, backed by 300 loyalist soldiers led by B
sorder and peril to life and limb of the citizens engendered by this event subsided only upon the eventual surrender of the loyalist sold

s. Military rebels waged simultaneous offensives in different parts of Metro Manila and Sangley Point in Cavite. A hundred rebel soldie
ng commander and his deputy hostage. Troops on board several vehicles attempted to enter Gate I of Camp Aguinaldo even as ano

way through Gate 1 of Fort Bonifacio. They stormed into the army stockade but having failed to convince their incarcerated members

ment? Launched not by Marcos loyalists, but by another ultra-rightist group in the military led by Col. Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan who

s and ammunition from the Camp Crame Armory during a raid conducted in June 1988. Most of the group members were, however, c

COR to mobilize civilians from nearby provinces to act as blockading forces at different Metro Manila areas for the projected link-up o
here the members were arrested or forced to turn back.

e militates heavily against the wisdom of allowing the Marcoses' return. Not only will the Marcoses' presence embolden their follower
m secessionists and extreme rightists of the RAM, to wage an offensive against the government. Certainly, the state through its execu

pines is one factor, which albeit, at first blush appears to be extra legal, constitutes a valid justification for disallowing the requested re
eoples power" revolution. Millions of our people braved military tanks and firepower, kept vigil, prayed, and in countless manner and
o people; and the installation of the present administration, a realization of and obedience to the people's Will.
mpathy, compassion and even Filipino tradition. The political and economic gains we have achieved during the past three years are ho
n country. Verily in the balancing of interests, the scales tilt in favor of presidential prerogative, which we do not find to have been gra

he shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequ
866])

lf-evident truth. But faced with a hard and delicate case, we now hesitate to qive substance to their meaning. The Court has permitted

freedom for both unloved and despised persons on one hand and the rest who are not so stigmatized on the other.

We are interpreting the Constitution for only one person and constituting him into a class by himself. The Constitution is a law for all c

and not of power. Mr. Marcos is insensate and would not live if separated from the machines which have taken over the functions of
the power to arrest and punish him. But does it have the power to deny him his right to come home and die among familiar surround

d 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 o

ty and public safety which is hauntingly familiar because it was pleaded so often by petitioner Ferdinand E. Marcos to justify his acts u
nd order, the more serious of which were totally unrelated to Mr. Marcos and which the military was able to readily quell, the responde
.

isdiction to consider. They contend that the decision to ban former President Marcos, and his family on grounds of national security a
nclusive on the Court.

e judiciary, except to the extent that power to deal with such questions has been conferred on the courts by express constitutional or
questions that he outside the scope of the judicial power. More properly, however, it means those questions which, under the constitu
of the government.

ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. In other words, in the language of Corpus Juris Secundum (supra), it refers to 'those
he Legislature or executive branch of the Government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a parti

, who penned the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr(369 US 186,82, S. Ct. 691, L. Ed. 2d. 663 [1962]). Th
 s in which the questions arise may describe a political question, which identifies it as essentially a function of the separation of power
artment; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initia
ordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or potentialit

e President or Congress, the exercise of which the court should not examine or prohibit. A claim of plenary or inherent power against
everything which to them represents evil. The entire Government is bound by the rule of law.

e determination of the question raised to us solely in the President.

en enacted specifying the circumstances when the right may be impaired in the interest of national security or public safety. The pow

the commander-in-chief clause which allows the President to call out the armed forces in case of lawless violence, invasion or rebelli

e engaging in rebellion or that he is in a position to lead them. Neither is it claimed that there is a need to suspend the privilege of the
to resort to a doctrine of non- justiceability and to ignore a plea for the enforcement of an express Bill of Rights guarantee.

t." The constant insinuations that the "loyalist" group is heavily funded by Mr. Marcos and his cronies and that the "loyalists" engagin
ew in number that they could not possibly destabilize the government, much less mount a serious attempt to overthrow it.

e best of Filipino customs and traditions to allow a dying person to return to his home and breath his last in his native surroundings. O
o many Filipinos who believe that in the spirit of national unity and reconciliation Mr. Marcos and his family should be permitted to ret

constitutional guarantee of liberty of abode and the citizen's right to travel as against the respondents' contention that national securit

sident, there is likewise no dearth of decisional data, no unmanageable standards which stand in the way of a judicial determination.

me 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 th
onal security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

er or from the Philippines to a foreign country or from a foreign country to the Philippines. The laws cited by the Solicitor General imm
howing how any of these statutes and regulations could serve as a basis to bar their coming home.

mply be applying the Constitution, in the preservation and defense of which all of us in Government, the President and Congress inclu

political question doctrine by government lawyers. (See Morales, Jr. .v Ponce Enrile, 121 SCRA 538 [1983]).

the judiciary criticized this Court for using what they felt was a doctrine of convenience, expediency, utility or subservience. Every ma
mies of the State" without charges being filed against them, the dissolution of Congress and the exercise by the President of legislativ
on stations and other forms of media, the proposals to amend the Constitution, etc. was invariably met by an invocation that the petiti
family. Unfortunately, the Court should not and is not allowed to indulge in such a persiflage. We are bound by the Constitution.

oad definition of judicial power was added to the vesting in the Supreme Court and statutory courts of said power.
ies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of

as a means to avoid having to make decisions simply because they are too controversial, displeasing to the President or Congress, in

d the Court during the Marcos years to fall back on prudence, institutional difficulties, complexity of issues, momentousness of conse
e respondents and their counsel were among the most vigorous critics of Mr. Marcos (the main petitioner) and his use of the political q
estion doctrine. We are compelled to decide what would have been non-justiceable under our decisions interpreting earlier fundamen

There are still some political questionswhich only the President, Congress, or a plebiscite may decide. Definitely, the issue before us

f discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction."

of national security do not readily lend themselves to the presentation of proof before a court of justice. The vital information essentia
urt was faced with a similar situation. It posed a rhetorical question. If after investigating conditions in the Archipelago or any part ther
conditions exist?

1, Article VIII of the Constitution, the court granted the Solicitor General's offer that the military give us a closed door factual briefing w

s, Jr. v. Enrile, (121 SCRA 538, 592 [19831):

her or not the president acted arbitrarily in suspending the writ when, in the truth words of Montenegro, with its very limited machinery
ust rely on the Executive Branch which has the appropriate civil and military machinery for the facts. This was the method which had t
branch of the government whose act was in question to obtain the facts. And as should be expected the Executive Branch supplied in
s Court to determine whether or not the President acted arbitrarily in suspending the writ was a useless and futile exercise.

nd refrain from giving the seal of approval to the act of the Executive Branch. For it is possible that the suspension of the writ lacks po
o it by the Executive Branch) it in effect participates in the decision-making process. It assumes a task which it is not equipped to han

only basis for determining the clear and present danger to national security and public safety. The majority of the Court has taken jud
ems are totally unrelated to the Marcos of today and, in fact, are led by people who have always opposed him. If we use the problem

scertain whether or not the respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion. Nor are we forced to fall back upon judicial notice of the

nt danger to national security and public safety will arise if Mr. Marcos and his family are allowed to return to the Philippines. It was on
mits the reason for the ban Marcos policy to — (1) national welfare and interest and (2) the continuing need to preserve the gains ach
as been quoted as stating that the vast majority of Filipinos support her position. (The Journal, front page, January 24,1989) We cann
osition "that it is not in the interest of the nation that Marcos be allowed to return at this time" has not changed. (Manila Times, front p
nd political gains of the past three years" in justifying her firm refusal to allow the return of Mr. Marcos despite his failing health. (Daily
too generic and sweeping to serve as grounds for the denial of a constitutional right. The Bill of Rights commands that the right to tra
The constitutional command cannot be negated by mere generalizations.

does on injustice, ignorance, poverty, and other aspects at under-development, the Communist rebellion is the clearest and most pre
ountry because of "peoples' power." Yet, there is no move to arrest and exile the leaders of student groups, teachers' organizations,
to see how Mr. Marcos could be a greater danger.
core loyalists, and other dissatisfied elements would suddenly unite to overthrow the Republic should a dying Marcos come home is t
ng of Mr. Marcos.

alone sustains the claim of danger to national security is fraught with perilous implications. Any difficult problem or any troublesome
ged by any critic or any serious problem, the Government can state that the situation threatens a confluence of rebel forces and proce
ghts may be violated. Yesterday, the right to travel of Senators Benigno Aquino, Jr. and Jovito Salonga was curtailed. Today, it is the
s of disturbing possibilities.

onally assured the Court that a rebellion of the above combined groups will not succeed and that the military is on top of the situation.
according to General de Villa. There would be set-backs in the expected eradication of the Communist threat. There would be other s
ng of the Bill of Rights.

meters of the right to travel and to freely choose one's abode has constrained the President to fill in the vacuum, is too reminiscent of
o act adequately on any matter for any reason that in his judgment required immediate action. When the Bill of Rights provides that a
rejudiced or require protection, the inaction of Congress does not give reason for the respondents to assume the grounds for its impa

us from ruling against an unconstitutional assertion of power by Philippine officials. Let the United States apply its laws. We have to b

hile hooked up to machines which have taken over the functions of his heart, lungs, and kidneys may hasten his death. The physical c
ere he is. But he invokes a constitutional right. We have no power to deny it to him.

un counter to a constitutional guarantee. Besides, the petitioners are not asking for passports and nothing else. Any travel documents

ot 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 r
Salonga, and scores of other "undesirables" and "threats to national security" during that unfortunate period which led the framers of
egime. I regret that the Court's decision in this case sets back the gains that our country has achieved in terms of human rights, espe

ctators who were barred by their successors from returning to their respective countries. There is no showing that the countries involv
er is it shown that the successors of the listed dictators are as deeply committed to democratic principles and as observant of constitu

sow discord and to divide the nation. Opposition to the government no matter how odious or disgusting is, however, insufficient grou

ess to defend itself against a threat to national security? Does the President have to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpu

ernment has more than ample powers under eixisting law to deal with a person who transgresses the peace and imperils public safety

and die — in his own country. I say this with a heavy heart but say it nonetheless. That conviction is not diminished one whit simply be

resolve it. The question we must answer is whether or not, assuming that Marcos is permitted to leave Hawaii (which may depend o

but could not, that the petitioner's return would prejudice the security of the State.
government was prepared to prove the justification for opposing the herein petition, i.e. that it had not acted arbitrarily. He said it was.
military appeared for the respondents, together with former Senator Arturo M. Tolentino, representing the petitioners.

ead or alive would pose a threat to the national security as it had alleged. The fears expressed by its representatives were based on

he President's decision" to bar Marcos's return. That is not my recollection of the impressions of the Court after that hearing.

wers granted by the Constitution, the Court is taking a great leap backward and reinstating the discredited doctrine announced in Plan
o the excesses of the past dictatorship.

it was true that the President had been granted the totality of executive power, "it is difficult to see why our forefathers bothered to ad
esidential office of the generic powers thereafter stated."

arcos is perhaps the most detested man in the entire history of our country. But we are not concerned here with popularity and person
nt as a member of this Court, I must cast all personal feelings aside.

cts and the applicable law and not of wounds that still fester and scars that have not healed. And not even of fear, for fear is a phanto

or of Constitutional Law. These principles have not changed simply because I am now on the Court or a new administration is in pow

hibitions of the government then, Marcos is entitled to the same right to travel and the liberty of abode that his adversary invoked. Th
pe.

called a society without compassion?

n to the Philippines may be resolved by answering two simple questions: Does he have the right to return to his own country and shou

l Declaration of Human Rights and the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, he has the right to return to his own country except only i

y can rely on is sheer speculation. True, there is some danger but there is no showing as to the extent.

y by popular will, can arouse an entire country to rise in morbid sympathy for the cause he once espoused.

dent should be allowed to return to our country under the conditions that he and the members of his family be under house arrest in h
10) days from date.

nal discipline, and for human compassion.

he right of a Filipino, Ferdinand E. Marcos, to return to the Philippines, and the right of the Philippine Government to bar such return
s nature more than explain why the 1986 Constitutional Commission, led by the illustrious former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion,

ies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of

vel which, in the language of the Constitution, shall not be impaired "except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public
s hardly disputable. Short of all such components, the right to travel is meaningless. The real question arises in the interpretation of th

o not agree. It is my view that, with or without restricting legislation, the interest of national security, public safety or public health can
stitutional leave or permission for Congress to enact laws that may restrict the right to travel in the interest of national security, public
hen such restriction is demanded by national security, public safety or public health, The power of the State, in particular cases, to res
eatest number of people.

strict travel, even if founded on police power, cannot be absolute and unlimited under all circumstances, much less, can it be arbitrary

, i.e., the right to return to the country. 1 Have the respondents presented sufficient evidence to offset or override the exercise of this r
safety in negating the right to return invoked by Mr. Marcos?

e "briefing" given the Court by the highest military authorities of the land last 28 July 1989. 1 have searched, but in vain, for convincin
including those conveyed through the military, do not, with all due respect, escalate to proportions of national security or public safet
by said military authorities, given the resources and facilities at the command of government. But, above all, the Filipino people them
t, should not accept respondents' general apprehensions, concerns and perceptions at face value, in the light of a countervailing and

pretext to justify derogation of human rights. 2

g the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, (Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution), the Philippine
return to his country. This guarantee is reiterated in Art. XII, par. 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which st
ng to protect an individual against unexpected, irresponsible or excessive encroachment on his rights by the state based on national t

ve raised the argument of "national security" and "public safety," it is the duty of this Court to unquestioningly yield thereto, thus castin
r that it cannot be overshadowed, much less, nullified by simplistic generalities; worse, the Court neglects its duty under the Constitut

d the right of former Senator Benigno S. Aquino, Jr., a Filipino, to return to the Philippines in 1983 and, at the same time, credibly den
rama today is the same drama in 1983 with the only difference that the actors are in opposite roles, which really makes one hope, in t

erwise, the following are the cogent and decisive propositions in this case —

his country;

right as a Filipino to return should be denied him. All we have are general conclusions of "national security" and "public safety" in avo

ay, requires of all members of the Court, in what appears to be an extended political contest, the "cold neutrality of an impartial judge
anted by the Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines." 1 I therefore take exception to al
to stir trouble" is concerned), have overstepped the bounds of judicial restraint, or even worse, convicted them without trial.

right to return to one's country," pitted against "the right of travel and freedom of abode", and their supposed distinctions under intern
within one's own country, or to another, and the right to return thereto. The Constitution itself makes no distinctions; let then, no one m

wer to deny a citizen his right to travel (back to the country or to another)? It is a question that, in essence, involves the application, an

d 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 o

f the power, thus:

s limitations on the exercise of specific powers of the President, it maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within the scope
wer is more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated. 5

o return to the Philippines, the President is, under the Constitution, constrained to consider these basic principles in arriving at a deci
advance the national interest. It must be borne in mind that the Constitution, aside from being an allocation of power is also a social c
delegated by the people forget and the servants of the people become rulers, the Constitution reminds everyone that "sovereignty re

mmon good against the exercise of rights of certain individuals. The power involved is the President's residual power to protect the ge
also his duty to do anything not forbidden by the Constitution or the laws that the needs of the nation demanded [See Corwin, supra, a
e laws are faithfully executed [See Hyman, The American President, where the author advances the view that an allowance of discre

m by constitutional implication* the latter must yield to the paramountcy of the Bill of Rights. According to Fernando: "A regime of con
t is the birthright of every human being is duly safeguarded. To be true to its primordial aim a constitution must lay down the boundari

t mandate of the fundamental law. It will not suffice, so I submit, to say that the President's plenitude of powers, as provided in the Co
nt ... rests ... not upon the text of the (Constitution] ... but upon a mere inference therefrom." 9 For if it were, indeed, the intent of the C
aw" 10 or "upon lawful order of the court" 11the Charter could have specifically declared so. As it is, the lone deterrents to the right in qu
e the Constitution, as far as limits to the said right are concerned, come full circle: Limits by legislative, judicial, and executive proces

try; neither is there any court decree banishing him from Philippine territory.

l order of the court, or when necessary in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health. 12

ary in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health. 13 Arguably, the provision enabled the Chief Executive (Marcos) to
r. And, as it so appears, the right may be impaired only "within the limits provided by law .15 The President is out of the picture.

oreign affairs; 17 the Bill of Rights precisely, a form of check against excesses of officialdom is, in this case, a formidable barrier agains

s: Has it been proved that Marcos, or his return, will, in fact, interpose a threat to the national security , public safety, or public health?
ss during the lengthy closed-door hearing on July 25, 1989, that "this Government will not fall" should the former first family in exile ste

. The Court itself must be content that the threat is not only clear, but more so, present.18

gation open to no doubt. But the question, and so I ask again and again, is: From whom? If we say "from Marcos," we unravel chinks

ntors of martial law, and pathetic parasites of the ex-first couple are, in fact, in the Government, in the comfort of its offices, and or at

ies. 20 As I indicated, not one shred of evidence, let alone solid evidence, other than surmises of possibilities, has been shown to justi

wer as protector of peace. 21

ule. It also means that we are no better than he has.

ander-in-chief powers in times of emergency or to leading the State against external and internal threats to its existence" 22is a bigger
er-in-chief clause of the 1987 Charter, a Charter that has perceptibly reduced the Executive's powers vis-a-vis its 1973 counterpart. 23

ecause of Marcos, the writer of it's dissent lost a son His son's only "offense" was that he openly and unabatedly criticized the dictato
ommunicado a greater part of the time, in the military stockade of Camp Crame. In his last week in detention, he was, grudgingly, ho
artyr on the altar of the martial law apparatus.

ugust 14, 1979, he was, along with former President Diosdado Macapagal, and Congressmen Rogaciano Mercado and Manuel Con
Philippines), a book extremely critical of martial rule, published by him and former Congressman Concordia, authored by President M
military officers named in the "condemned" book as having violated the human rights of dissenters, and for other crimes, in the office
th him. Ditto's death or my arrest are scores that can not be settled.

npunished for his crimes to country and countrymen. If punishment is due, let this leadership inflict it. But let him stand trial and accor

ment and the liberty of abode. 25 We would have betrayed our own Ideals if we denied Marcos his rights. It is his constitutional right, a
o more of human rights violations be repeated against any one, friend or foe. In a democratic framework, there is no this as getting ev

sent Constitution and existing laws, does not have it. Mandamus, I submit, lies.
 simmering separatist movement, a restive studentry, widespread labor disputes, militant farmer groups. . . . Each of these threats is

go E. Gutierrez, Jr. But they express eloquently the basis of my full concurrence to the exhaustive and well-written ponencia of Mme.

a particular constitutional clause or article or from an express statutory grant. Their limits are likely to depend on the imperatives of e
ers in times of crisis or grave and imperative national emergency. Many terms are applied to these powers: "residual," "inherent," 44
t effectively and efficiently. It is in this context that the power of the President to allow or disallow the Marcoses to return to the Philipp
o decide.

nd present danger to public order and safety. One needs only to recall the series of destabilizing actions attempted by the so-called M
barely five (5) months after the People's Power Revolution. Around 10,000 Marcos supporters, backed by 300 loyalist soldiers led by B
sorder and peril to life and limb of the citizens engendered by this event subsided only upon the eventual surrender of the loyalist sold

s. Military rebels waged simultaneous offensives in different parts of Metro Manila and Sangley Point in Cavite. A hundred rebel soldie
ng commander and his deputy hostage. Troops on board several vehicles attempted to enter Gate I of Camp Aguinaldo even as ano

way through Gate 1 of Fort Bonifacio. They stormed into the army stockade but having failed to convince their incarcerated members

ment? Launched not by Marcos loyalists, but by another ultra-rightist group in the military led by Col. Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan who

s and ammunition from the Camp Crame Armory during a raid conducted in June 1988. Most of the group members were, however, c

COR to mobilize civilians from nearby provinces to act as blockading forces at different Metro Manila areas for the projected link-up o
here the members were arrested or forced to turn back.

e militates heavily against the wisdom of allowing the Marcoses' return. Not only will the Marcoses' presence embolden their follower
m secessionists and extreme rightists of the RAM, to wage an offensive against the government. Certainly, the state through its execu

pines is one factor, which albeit, at first blush appears to be extra legal, constitutes a valid justification for disallowing the requested re
eoples power" revolution. Millions of our people braved military tanks and firepower, kept vigil, prayed, and in countless manner and
o people; and the installation of the present administration, a realization of and obedience to the people's Will.

mpathy, compassion and even Filipino tradition. The political and economic gains we have achieved during the past three years are ho
n country. Verily in the balancing of interests, the scales tilt in favor of presidential prerogative, which we do not find to have been gra

he shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequ
866])
lf-evident truth. But faced with a hard and delicate case, we now hesitate to qive substance to their meaning. The Court has permitted

freedom for both unloved and despised persons on one hand and the rest who are not so stigmatized on the other.

We are interpreting the Constitution for only one person and constituting him into a class by himself. The Constitution is a law for all c

and not of power. Mr. Marcos is insensate and would not live if separated from the machines which have taken over the functions of
the power to arrest and punish him. But does it have the power to deny him his right to come home and die among familiar surround

d 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 o

ty and public safety which is hauntingly familiar because it was pleaded so often by petitioner Ferdinand E. Marcos to justify his acts u
nd order, the more serious of which were totally unrelated to Mr. Marcos and which the military was able to readily quell, the responde
.

isdiction to consider. They contend that the decision to ban former President Marcos, and his family on grounds of national security a
nclusive on the Court.

e judiciary, except to the extent that power to deal with such questions has been conferred on the courts by express constitutional or
questions that he outside the scope of the judicial power. More properly, however, it means those questions which, under the constitu
of the government.

ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. In other words, in the language of Corpus Juris Secundum (supra), it refers to 'those
he Legislature or executive branch of the Government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a parti

, who penned the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr(369 US 186,82, S. Ct. 691, L. Ed. 2d. 663 [1962]). Th

s in which the questions arise may describe a political question, which Identifies it as essentially a function of the separation of power
artment; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initia
ordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or potentialit

e President or Congress, the exercise of which the court should not examine or prohibit. A claim of plenary or inherent power against
everything which to them represents evil. The entire Govern ment is bound by the rule of law.

e determination of the question raised to us solely in the President.

 en enacted specifying the circumstances when the right may be impaired in the interest of national security or public safety. The pow

the commander-in-chief clause which allows the President to call out the armed forces in case of lawless violence, invasion or rebelli

e engaging in rebellion or that he is in a position to lead them. Neither is it claimed that there is a need to suspend the privilege of the
to resort to a doctrine of non- justiceability and to ignore a plea for the enforcement of an express Bill of Rights guarantee.

t." The constant insinuations that the "loyalist" group is heavily funded by Mr. Marcos and his cronies and that the "loyalists" engagin
ew in number that they could not possibly destabilize the government, much less mount a serious attempt to overthrow it.

e best of Filipino customs and traditions to allow a dying person to return to his home and breath his last in his native surroundings. O
o many Filipinos who believe that in the spirit of national unity and reconciliation Mr. Marcos and his family should be permitted to ret

constitutional guarantee of liberty of abode and the citizen's right to travel as against the respondents' contention that national securit

sident, there is likewise no dearth of decisional data, no unmanageable standards which stand in the way of a judicial determination.

me 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 th
onal security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

er or from the Philippines to a foreign country or from a foreign country to the Philippines. The laws cited by the Solicitor General imm
howing how any of these statutes and regulations could serve as a basis to bar their coming home.

mply be applying the Constitution, in the preservation and defense of which all of us in Government, the President and Congress inclu

political question doctrine by government lawyers. (See Morales, Jr. .v Ponce Enrile, 121 SCRA 538 [1983]).

the judiciary criticized this Court for using what they felt was a doctrine of convenience, expediency, utility or subservience. Every ma
mies of the State" without charges being filed against them, the dissolution of Congress and the exercise by the President of legislativ
on stations and other forms of media, the proposals to amend the Constitution, etc. was invariably met by an invocation that the petiti
family. Unfortunately, the Court should not and is not allowed to indulge in such a persiflage. We are bound by the Constitution.

oad definition of judicial power was added to the vesting in the Supreme Court and statutory courts of said power.

ies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of

as a means to avoid having to make decisions simply because they are too controversial, displeasing to the President or Congress, in

d the Court during the Marcos years to fall back on prudence, institutional difficulties, complexity of issues, momentousness of conse
e respondents and their counsel were among the most vigorous critics of Mr. Marcos (the main petitioner) and his use of the political q
estion doctrine. We are compelled to decide what would have been non-justiceable under our decisions interpreting earlier fundamen

There are still some political questionswhich only the President, Congress, or a plebiscite may decide. Definitely, the issue before us
 f discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction."

of national security do not readily lend themselves to the presentation of proof before a court of justice. The vital information essentia
urt was faced with a similar situation. It posed a rhetorical question. If after investigating conditions in the Archipelago or any part ther
conditions exist?

1, Article VIII of the Constitution, the court granted the Solicitor General's offer that the military give us a closed door factual briefing w

s, Jr. v. Enrile, (121 SCRA 538, 592 [19831):

her or not the president acted arbitrarily in suspending the writ when, in the truth words of Montenegro, with its very limited machinery
ust rely on the Executive Branch which has the appropriate civil and military machinery for the facts. This was the method which had t
branch of the government whose act was in question to obtain the facts. And as should be expected the Executive Branch supplied in
s Court to determine whether or not the President acted arbitrarily in suspending the writ was a useless and futile exercise.

nd refrain from giving the seal of approval to the act of the Executive Branch. For it is possible that the suspension of the writ lacks po
o it by the Executive Branch) it in effect participates in the decision-making process. It assumes a task which it is not equipped to han

only basis for determining the clear and present danger to national security and public safety. The majority of the Court has taken jud
ems are totally unrelated to the Marcos of today and, in fact, are led by people who have always opposed him. If we use the problem

scertain whether or not the respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion. Nor are we forced to fall back upon judicial notice of the

nt danger to national security and public safety will arise if Mr. Marcos and his family are allowed to return to the Philippines. It was on
mits the reason for the ban Marcos policy to-41) national welfare and interest and (2) the continuing need to preserve the gains achie
n quoted as stating that the vast majority of Filipinos support her position. (The Journal, front page, January 24,1989) We cannot valid
it is not in the interest of the nation that Marcos be allowed to return at this time" has not changed. (Manila Times, front page, Februa
of the past three years" in justifying her firm refusal to allow the return of Mr. Marcos despite his failing health. (Daily Globe, front pag
d sweeping to serve as grounds for the denial of a constitutional right. The Bill of Rights commands that the right to travel may not be
al command cannot be negated by mere generalizations.

does on injustice, ignorance, poverty, and other aspects at under-development, the Communist rebellion is the clearest and most pre
ountry because of "peoples' power." Yet, there is no move to arrest and exile the leaders of student groups, teachers' organizations,
to see how Mr. Marcos could be a greater danger.

core loyalists, and other dissatisfied elements would suddenly unite to overthrow the Republic should a dying Marcos come home is t
ng of Mr. Marcos.

alone sustains the claim of danger to national security is fraught with perilous implications. Any difficult problem or any troublesome
ged by any critic or any serious problem, the Government can state that the situation threatens a confluence of rebel forces and proc
ghts may be violated. Yesterday, the right to travel of Senators Benigno Aquino, Jr. and Jovito Salonga was curtailed. Today, it is the
s of disturbing possibilities.

onally assured the Court that a rebellion of the above combined groups will not succeed and that the military is on top of the situation.
according to General de Villa. There would be set-backs in the expected eradication of the Communist threat. There would be other s
ng of the Bill of Rights.
meters of the right to travel and to freely choose one's abode has constrained the President to fill in the vacuum, is too reminiscent of
o act adequately on any matter for any reason that in his judgment required immediate action. When the Bill of Rights provides that a
rejudiced or require protection, the inaction of Congress does not give reason for the respondents to assume the grounds for its impa

us from ruling against an unconstitutional assertion of power by Philippine officials. Let the United States apply its laws. We have to b

hile hooked up to machines which have taken over the functions of his heart, lungs, and kidneys may hasten his death. The physical c
ere he is. But he invokes a constitutional right. We have no power to deny it to him.

n counter to a constitutional guarantee. Besides, the petitioners are not asking for passports and nothing else. Any travel documents

ot 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 r
Salonga, and scores of other "undesirables" and "threats to national security" during that unfortunate period which led the framers of
egime. I regret that the Court's decision in this case sets back the gains that our country has achieved in terms of human rights, espe

ctators who were barred by their successors from returning to their respective countries. There is no showing that the countries involv
er is it shown that the successors of the listed dictators are as deeply committed to democratic principles and as observant of constitu

sow discord and to divide the nation. Opposition to the government no matter how odious or disgusting is, however, insufficient grou

ess to defend itself against a threat to national security? Does the President have to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpu

ernment has more than ample powers under eixisting law to deal with a person who transgresses the peace and imperils public safety

d die-in his own country. I say this with a heavy heart but say it nonetheless. That conviction is not diminished one whit simply becaus

resolve it. The question we must answer is whether or not, assuming that Marcos is permitted to leave Hawaii (which may depend o

but could not, that the petitioner's return would prejudice the security of the State.

government was prepared to prove the justification for opposing the herein petition, i. that it had not acted arbitrarily. He said it was. A
ilitary appeared for the respondents, together with former Senator Arturo M. Tolentino, representing the petitioners.

ead or alive would pose a threat to the national security as it had alleged. The fears expressed by its representatives were based on

he President's decision" to bar Marcos's return. That is not my recollection of the impressions of the Court after that hearing.

wers granted by the Constitution, the Court is taking a great leap backward and reinstating the discredited doctrine announced in Plan
o the excesses of the past dictatorship.
it was true that the President had been granted the totality of executive power, "it is difficult to see why our forefathers bothered to ad
esidential office of the generic powers thereafter stated."

arcos is perhaps the most detested man in the entire history of our country. But we are not concerned here with popularity and person
nt as a member of this Court, I must cast all personal feelings aside.

cts and the applicable law and not of wounds that still fester and scars that have not healed. And not even of fear, for fear is a phanto

sor of Constitutional Law. These principles have not changed simply because I am now on the Court or a new administration is in pow

hibitions of the government then, Marcos is entitled to the same right to travel and the liberty of abode that his adversary invoked. Th
pe.

called a society without compassion?

n to the Philippines may be resolved by answering two simple questions: Does he have the right to return to his own country and shou

l Declaration of Human Rights and the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, he has the right to return to his own country except only i

y can rely on is sheer speculation. True, there is some danger but there is no showing as to the extent.

y by popular will, can arouse an entire country to rise in morbid sympathy for the cause he once espoused.

dent should be allowed to return to our country under the conditions that he and the members of his family be under house arrest in h
10) days from date.

nal discipline, and for human compassion.

he right of a Filipino, Ferdinand E. Marcos, to return to the Philippines, and the right of the Philippine Government to bar such return i
s nature more than explain why the 1986 Constitutional Commission, led by the illustrious former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion,

ies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of

vel which, in the language of the Constitution, shall not be impaired "except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public
s hardly disputable. Short of all such components, the right to travel is meaningless. The real question arises in the interpretation of th

o not agree. It is my view that, with or without restricting legislation, the interest of national security, public safety or public health can
stitutional leave or permission for Congress to enact laws that may restrict the right to travel in the interest of national security, public
hen such restriction is demanded by national security, public safety or public health, The power of the State, in particular cases, to res
eatest number of people.
strict travel, even if founded on police power, cannot be absolute and unlimited under all circumstances, much less, can it be arbitrar

, i.e., the right to return to the country. 1 Have the respondents presented sufficient evidence to offset or override the exercise of this r
safety in negating the right to return invoked by Mr. Marcos?

e "briefing" given the Court by the highest military authorities of the land last 28 July 1989. 1 have searched, but in vain, for convincin
including those conveyed through the military, do not, with all due respect, escalate to proportions of national security or public safet
by said military authorities, given the resources and facilities at the command of government. But, above all, the Filipino people them
t, should not accept respondents' general apprehensions, concerns and perceptions at face value, in the light of a countervailing and

pretext to justify derogation of human rights. 2

g the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, (Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution), the Philippine
return to his country. This guarantee is reiterated in Art. XII, par. 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which st
ng to protect an individual against unexpected, irresponsible or excessive encroachment on his rights by the state based on national t

ve raised the argument of "national security" and "public safety," it is the duty of this Court to unquestioningly yield thereto, thus castin
r that it cannot be overshadowed, much less, nullified by simplistic generalities; worse, the Court neglects its duty under the Constitut

d the right of former Senator Benigno S. Aquino, Jr., a Filipino, to return to the Philippines in 1983 and, at the same time, credibly den
rama today is the same drama in 1983 with the only difference that the actors are in opposite roles, which really makes one hope, in t

erwise, the following are the cogent and decisive propositions in this case-

his country;

s right as a Filipino to return should be denied him. All we have are general conclusions of "national security" and "public safety" in av

ay, requires of all members of the Court, in what appears to be an extended political contest, the "cold neutrality of an impartial judge

anted by the Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines." 1 I therefore take exception to al
to stir trouble" is concerned), have overstepped the bounds of judicial restraint, or even worse, convicted them without trial.

right to return to one's country," pitted against "the right of travel and freedom of abode", and their supposed distinctions under intern
within one's own country, or to another, and the right to return thereto. The Constitution itself makes no distinctions; let then, no one m

wer to deny a citizen his right to travel (back to the country or to another)? It is a question that, in essence, involves the application, an

d 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 o
 f the power, thus:

s limitations on the exercise of specific powers of the President, it maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within the scope
wer is more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated. 5

o return to the Philippines, the President is, under the Constitution, constrained to consider these basic principles in arriving at a deci
advance the national interest. It must be borne in mind that the Constitution, aside from being an allocation of power is also a social c
delegated by the people forget and the servants of the people become rulers, the Constitution reminds everyone that "sovereignty res

mmon good against the exercise of rights of certain individuals. The power involved is the President's residual power to protect the ge
also his duty to do anything not forbidden by the Constitution or the laws that the needs of the nation demanded [See Corwin, supra, a
e laws are faithfully executed [See Hyman, The American President, where the author advances the view that an allowance of discre

m by constitutional implication* the latter must yield to the paramountcy of the Bill of Rights. According to Fernando: "A regime of con
is the birthright of every human being is duly safeguarded. To be true to its primordial aim a constitution must lay down the boundari

t mandate of the fundamental law. It will not suffice, so I submit, to say that the President's plenitude of powers, as provided in the Co
nt ... rests ... not upon the text of the (Constitution] ... but upon a mere inference therefrom." 9 For if it were, indeed, the intent of the C
aw" 10 or "upon lawful order of the court" 11the Charter could have specifically declared so. As it is, the lone deterrents to the right in qu
e the Constitution, as far as limits to the said right are concerned, come full circle: Limits by legislative, judicial, and executive proces

try; neither is there any court decree banishing him from Philippine territory.

l order of the court, or when necessary in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health. 12

ary in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health. 13 Arguably, the provision enabled the Chief Executive (Marcos) to

. And, as it so appears, the right may be impaired only "within the limits provided by law .15 The President is out of the picture.

oreign affairs; 17 the Bill of Rights precisely, a form of check against excesses of officialdom is, in this case, a formidable barrier again

s: Has it been proved that Marcos, or his return, will, in fact, interpose a threat to the national security , public safety, or public health?
ss during the lengthy closed-door hearing on July 25, 1989, that "this Government will not fall" should the former first family in exile ste

. The Court itself must be content that the threat is not only clear, but more so, present.18
 igation open to no doubt. But the question, and so I ask again and again, is: From whom? If we say "from Marcos," we unravel chink

ntors of martial law, and pathetic parasites of the ex-first couple are, in fact, in the Government, in the comfort of its offices, and or at

ies. 20 As I indicated, not one shred of evidence, let alone solid evidence, other than surmises of possibilities, has been shown to justi

wer as protector of peace. 21

ule. It also means that we are no better than he has.

ander-in-chief powers in times of emergency or to leading the State against external and internal threats to its existence" 22is a bigger
er-in-chief clause of the 1987 Charter, a Charter that has perceptibly reduced the Executive's powers vis-a-vis its 1973 counterpart. 23

ecause of Marcos, the writer of it's dissent lost a son His son's only "offense" was that he openly and unabatedly criticized the dictato
ommunicado a greater part of the time, in the military stockade of Camp Crame. In his last week in detention, he was, grudgingly, ho
artyr on the altar of the martial law apparatus.

ugust 14, 1979, he was, along with former President Diosdado Macapagal, and Congressmen Rogaciano Mercado and Manuel Con
Philippines), a book extremely critical of martial rule, published by him and former Congressman Concordia, authored by President M
military officers named in the "condemned" book as having violated the human rights of dissenters, and for other crimes, in the office
th him. Ditto's death or my arrest are scores that can not be settled.

npunished for Ms crimes to country and countrymen. If punishment is due, let this leadership inflict it. But let him stand trial and accor

ment and the liberty of abode. 25 We would have betrayed our own Ideals if we denied Marcos his rights. It is his constitutional right, a
o more of human rights violations be repeated against any one, friend or foe. In a democratic framwork, there is no this as getting eve

sent Constitution and existing laws, does not have it. Mandamus, I submit, lies.

measure after the American presidency. But at the outset, it must be pointed out that the Philippine government established under the
wers. Even so, the powers of the president of the United States have through the years grown, developed and taken shape as studen

l Security, Public Safety and Public Order" delivered at the Lawasia Seminar on Human Rights, Today and Tomorrow: The Role of H
ersal Declaration ration of Human Rights. ni

tuations: Under development, Catastrophies and Armed Conflicts, The International Dimensions of Human Rights, Vol. 1 Unesco, 19

n Rights: "Illegal or Unjust", 10 Harv Int. L.J., p. 225 (1969). 4 FC Newman and IC Vasak Civil and Political Rights, The International D

f Human Rights, pp. 135-166.5as to whether the U.S. Federal Government will allow Mr. Marcos to leave the United States, is beyon

United States, is beyond the issues in this case; similarly, as to how the Philippine Government should deal with Mr. Marcos upon his

NES, 263 (1987 ED.)

17.
34039, 34265, and 34339, December 11, 1971, 42 SCRA 448, 480.

75-1976), official student organ of the University of the philippines. He was detained in the military stockade for commoncriminals fro

of the Revised Penal Code, as amended the JG.R. No. 54180, Diosdado Macapagal, Rogaciano M. Mercado, Manuel A. Concordia,
Chairman; Leon 0. Ridao Colonel, JAGS GSC Deputy Judge Advocate General, Member; and Amor B. Felipe, Colonel, JAGS (GSC)

ne 28, 1977, of which the undersigned was the counsel of the petitioner.