Marcos vs Manglapus

177 SCRA 668

G.R. No. 88211 September 15, 1989

Petitioners:
FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., IRENE M. ARANETA, IMEE
MANOTOC, TOMAS MANOTOC, GREGORIO ARANETA, PACIFICO E. MARCOS, NICANOR YIGUEZ and
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), represented by its President, CONRADO F.
ESTRELLA

Respondents:
HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS, CATALINO MACARAIG, SEDFREY ORDOEZ, MIRIAM DEFENSOR
SANTIAGO, FIDEL RAMOS, RENATO DE VILLA

Facts:
It is a case of Former President Marcos being forced out of office via a non-violent "people power" and
forced into exile after causing twenty years of political, economic and social havoc in the country and
who within the short space of three years seeks to return to the Philippines to die.

But President Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return has stood firmly on
the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family. Hence, this petition for mandamus and
prohibition asks the Courts to order the respondents to issue travel documents to Mr. 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.

Issue:
1 .Whether or not the ban of Mr. Marcos and family from returning to the Philippines has international
precedents?

2. Whether or not the President acted in grave abuse of discretion in determining the return of the
Marcoses?

Ruling:
Petition is Dismissed.
1. NO. 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).]

2. NO. The President did not act arbitrarily or 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
poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines.
The power involved is the President's residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. It is
founded on the duty of the President, as steward of the people.


G.R. No. 96754 June 22, 1995
CHIONGBIAN, et.al. v. ORBOS et.al.
FACTS:
Pursuant to the Constitution, Congress passed R.A 6734, the Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in
Muslim Mindanao calling for a plebiscite to create an autonomous region. The provinces of Lanao del
Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi, which voted for the creation of such region were later on known
as the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Consistent with the authority granted by Article XIX,
Section 13 of RA 6734 which authorizes the President to merge the existing regions, Presi dent
Corazon Aquino issued E.O No. 429 providing for the Reorganization of the Administrative
Regions in Mindanao. Petitioners contend that Art. XIX, Section 13 of R.A. No. 6734 is
unconstitutional because it unduly delegates legislative power to the President by authorizing
him to merge by administrative determination the existing regions or at any rate provides no
standard for the exerci se of the power delegated and that the power granted is not
expressed in the title of the law. They also challenge the validity of E.O. No. 429 on the ground that the
power granted by RA 6734 to the President is only to merge regions IX and XII but not to reorganize the
entire administrative regions in Mindanao and certainly not to transfer the regional center of Region IX
from Zamboanga City to Pagadian City.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the R.A 6734 is invalid because it contains no standard to guide the Presidents
discretion.

HELD:
The petitions for certiorari and prohibition are DISMISSED for lack of merit

No, in conferring on the President the power to merge by administrative determination
the existing regions following the establishment of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao,
Congress merely followed the pattern set in previous legislation dating back to the initial organization of
administrative regions in 1972. The choice of the President as delegate is logical because the division of
the country into regions is intended to facilitate not only the administration of local governments but
also the direction of executive departments which the law requires should have regional offices.

While the power to merge administrative regi ons is not expressly provided for in the
Constitution, it is a power which has traditionally been lodged with the President to facilitate the
exercise of the power of general supervision over local governments. (Abbas v. COMELEC)
The regions themselves are not territorial and political divisions like provinces, cities, municipalities
and barangays but are "mere groupings of contiguous provinces for administrative purposes. The power
conferred on the President is similar to the power to adjust municipal boundaries which has been
described as "administrative in nature. (Pelaez v. Auditor General)Thus, the regrouping is done only
on paper. It involves no more than are definition or redrawing of the lines separating administrative
regions for the purpose of facilitating the administrative supervision of local government units by the
President and insuring the efficient delivery of essential services





CHIONGBIAN VS. ORBOS

Congress passed the ORGANIC ACT FOR ARMM, calling for a plebiscite in Mindanao.
Only 4 provinces voted for the creation of ARMM (LanaoSur, Maguindanao, Sulu, Tawi2)
The other provinces who did not vote for ARMM shall remain in the existing administrative regions,
provided that the PRESIDENT may by ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION, MERGE THE EXISTING
REGIONS.
So, President Cory issued EO 429 which reorganized those regions who did not vote for ARMM.
Petitioners are Congressmen who opposed the issuance of EO 429. They claim that President Cory had
no authority to restructure new administrative regions. They insist that the provinces should remain as
they are.

ISSUE:
Whether the Organic Act for ARMM unduly delegates legislative power to the President by allowing
Cory to merge the existing regions by mere ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION.
Whether the Organic Act provided a standard to guide President Corys discretion.

DEFENSE: The SOLGEN argues that the Act is valid and there is no undue delegation but only a POWER
TO FILL UP THE DETAILS OF LEGISLATION which was given to Cory.

SC:
LAW VALID. NO UNDUE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS TO THE PRESIDENT.
While the power to merge regions is not expressly provided for in the Constitution, it is a power
traditionally lodged with the President, in view of the POWER OF GENERAL SUPERVISION OVER LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS. Thus there is no abdication by Congress of its legislative powers in conferring on the
President the POWER TO MERGE ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONS.

As to the question of STANDARD, a legislative standard NEED NOT BE EXPRESSED. IT MAY SIMPLY BE
GATHERED OR IMPLIED. Nor need it be found in the law challenged because it may be EMBODIED IN
OTHER STATUTES ON THE SAME SUBJECT as that of the challenged legislation.

With respect to the power to merge existing administrative regions, the STANDARD IS TO BE FOUND IN
THE SAME POLICY underlying the grant of the PRESIDENT in RA 5435, THE POWER TO REORGANIZE THE
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. Under said law, the standard is to promote simplicity, economy and
efficiency in the government, to enable it to pursue programs consistent with national goals for
acceleration socio-economic development and to improve the service in the transaction of public
business.

Since the original 11 administrative regions were established with this same law/ policy, it is but logical
to suppose that in authorizing the President to merge by administrative determination, the existing
regions (following the rejection of the ARMM by some regions), the purpose of Congress in enacting the
Organic Act of ARMM was to reconstitute the original basis for the organization of administrative
regions.