MARCOS VS.
MANGLAPUS
G.R. No. 88211, October 27, 1989
FACTS:
The Supreme Court En Banc voted 8-7 against the petition of the Marcos family to allow their
return to the Philippines along with the remains of former President Ferdinand Marcos from
Honolulu, Hawaii. According to the Supreme Court, President Corazon Aquino did not act
arbitrarily 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 pose a threat to
national interest and welfare, which in effect affirmed the constitutionality of President Aquino's
prior refusal, fearing the instability and security issues that may arise once the remains of
former President Marcos were brought back to the Philippines.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the right to return to one’s country is an inherent right of citizens protected
by the Constitution.
2. Whether or not the President has the power under the Constitution to bar the Marcoses from
returning to the Philippines.
3. Whether or not the issue constitutes a political question which is beyond the jurisdiction of
the Court to decide.
RULING:
1. No. The right to return to one’s country is not among the rights specifically
guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, which treats only of the liberty of abode and the
right to travel, though it may well be considered as a generally accepted principle of
international law which is part of the law of the land (Art. II, Sec. 2 of the 1987
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.
2. Yes. 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 only to the specific
powers enumerated in the Constitution. Executive power is more than the sum of
specific powers so enumerated.
This is so, 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 power of the
President, particularly those relating to the commander-in-chief clause, but not a
diminution of the general grant of executive power. Among the duties of the
President under the Constitution, in compliance with his (or her) oath of office, is to protect
and promote the interest and welfare of the people. Her decision to bar the return of
the Marcoses and subsequently, the remains of Mr. Marcos at the present time and under
present circumstances is in compliance with this bounden duty.
3. No. 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
Khristian Damielle A. Jamer – 4th Year, Block A
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government (Art.
VIII, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution). The present Constitution limits resort to the political
question doctrine and broadens the scope of judicial inquiry into areas which the Court,
under previous constitutions, would have normally left to the political departments to decide.
But nonetheless there remain issues beyond the Court’s jurisdiction the determination of
which is exclusively for the President, for Congress or for the people themselves through a
plebiscite or referendum. The function of the Court is merely to check, not to supplant
the Executive. However, though the framers intended to widen the scope of judicial review,
they did not intend courts of justice to settle all actual controversies before them. 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. If grave abuse is not established,
the Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the official concerned and
decide a matter which by its nature or by law is for the latter alone to decide.
Khristian Damielle A. Jamer – 4th Year, Block A
