Marcos vs Manglapus GR 88211 Sept 15, 1989

Facts
Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent “people power” revolution and forced into exile. Pres. Corazon C. Aquino was declared President of the Phils under a revolutionary government. However, the ratification of the 1987 Constitution further strengthened the legitimacy of Mrs Aquino’s authority. The country was far from being stabilized, though, as continued threats from various sectors ranging from the rebels to the followers of the Marcoses and even those that were initiators of the people power revolution. The economy, too, of the country has its own challenges as it fights to relieve itself of the devastating effect of the Marcos abuse or accumulation of wealth and the accumulated foreign debt as a result of such abuses.

Mr. Marcos has signified, in his deathbed, to return to the Phils. But Mrs Aquino considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return has stood firmly on the decision to bar the his and his family’s return.

This petition is brought into by the Marcoses, asking the court to compel the responsible departments of government to grant documents for his return.

The petitioners invoke the Bill of Rights specifically the right of a person of liberty of abode and the right to travel. It has also mentioned the freedom of movement and the right to leave any country and to return to his country as provided for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The respondents, on the other hand argues that the issue in this case involves a political question which is non-justiciable. The President has decided, as an executive act, to bar the return of the Marcoses because such return and residence will endanger national security and public safety. Respondents argue for the primacy of the right of the State to national security over individual rights as provided for in the Constitution.

Issue
Whether or not Ferdinand Marcos and his family will be allowed to go back to the Philippines and whether or not Pres Aquino acted with grave abuse of discretion on the decision not to allow the Marcoses to come back.

Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that President Aquino did not act with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of former Pres Marcos and his family at the present time and under present circumstances poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return to the Phils.

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.
It would not be accurate, however, to state that "executive power" is the power to enforce the laws, for the President is head of state as well as head of government and whatever powers inhere in such positions pertain to the office unless the Constitution itself withholds it. Furthermore, the Constitution itself provides that the execution of the laws is only one of the powers of the President. It also grants the President other powers that do not involve the execution of any provision of law, e.g., his power over the country's foreign relations.
On these premises, we hold the view that although 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, It has been advanced that whatever power inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive.
Faced with the problem of whether or not the time is right to allow the Marcoses to return to the Philippines, the President is, under the Constitution, constrained to consider these basic principles in arriving at a decision. More than that, having sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution, the President has the obligation under the Constitution to protect the people, promote their welfare and advance the national interest. It must be borne in mind that the Constitution, aside from being an allocation of power is also a social contract whereby the people have surrendered their sovereign powers to the State for the common good. Hence, lest the officers of the Government exercising the powers delegated by the people forget and the servants of the people become rulers, the Constitution reminds everyone that "[s]overeignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them." [Art. II, Sec. 1.]
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] Given this wording, we cannot agree with the Solicitor General that the issue constitutes a political question which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to decide.
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. We cannot, for example, question the President's recognition of a foreign government, no matter how premature or improvident such action may appear. We cannot set aside a presidential pardon though it may appear to us that the beneficiary is totally undeserving of the grant. Nor can we amend the Constitution under the guise of resolving a dispute brought before us because the power is reserved to the people.
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..