Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 88211 October 27, 1989
FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS. JR., IRENE M. ARANETA,
IMEE M. MANOTOC, TOMAS MANOTOC, GREGORIO ARANETA, PACIFICO E. MARCOS, NICANOR
!IGUE" #$% P&ILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION 'P&ILCONSA(, re)re*e$te% b+ ,t* Pre*,%e$t,
CONRADO F. ESTRELLA, petitioners,
vs.
&ONORA-LE RAUL MANGLAPUS, CATALINO MACARAIG, SEDFRE ORDO!E", MIRIAM DEFENSOR
SANTIAGO, FIDEL RAMOS, RENATO DE .ILLA, ,$ t/e,r c#)#c,t+ #* Secret#r+ o0 Fore,1$ A00#,r*,
E2ec3t,4e Secret#r+, Secret#r+ o0 J3*t,ce, I55,1r#t,o$ Co55,**,o$er, Secret#r+ o0 N#t,o$#6 De0e$*e
#$% C/,e0 o0 St#00, re*)ect,4e6+, respondents.
R E S O L ! " O N

EN -ANC7
"n its decision dated Septe#ber $%,$&'&, the Court, b( a vote of ei)ht *'+ to seven *,+, dis#issed the petition,
after findin) that the President did not act arbitraril( or -ith )rave abuse of discretion in deter#inin) that the
return of for#er President Marcos and his fa#il( at the present ti#e and under present circu#stances pose a
threat to national interest and -elfare and in prohibitin) their return to the Philippines. On Septe#ber .', $&'&,
for#er President Marcos died in /onolulu, /a-aii. "n a state#ent, President A0uino said1
"n the interest of the safet( of those -ho -ill ta2e the death of Mr. Marcos in -idel( and
passionatel( conflictin) -a(s, and for the tran0uilit( of the state and order of societ(, the
re#ains of 3erdinand E. Marcos -ill not be allo-ed to be brou)ht to our countr( until such ti#e
as the )overn#ent, be it under this ad#inistration or the succeedin) one, shall other-ise
decide. 4Motion for Reconsideration, p. $5 Rollo, p, 667.8
On October ., $&'&, a Motion for Reconsideration -as filed b( petitioners, raisin) the follo-in) #a9or
ar)u#ents1
$. to bar for#er President Marcos and his fa#il( fro# returnin) to the Philippines is to den( the# not onl( the
inherent ri)ht of citi:ens to return to their countr( of birth but also the protection of the Constitution and all of the
ri)hts )uaranteed to 3ilipinos under the Constitution5
.. the President has no po-er to bar a 3ilipino fro# his o-n countr(5 if she has, she had e;ercised it arbitraril(5
and
7. there is no basis for barrin) the return of the fa#il( of for#er President Marcos. !hus, petitioners pra(ed that
the Court reconsider its decision, order respondents to issue the necessar( travel docu#ents to enable Mrs.
"#elda R. Marcos, 3erdinand R. Marcos, <r., "rene M. Araneta, "#ee M. Manotoc, !o##( Manotoc and =re)orio
Araneta to return to the Philippines, and en9oin respondents fro# i#ple#entin) President A0uino>s decision to
bar the return of the re#ains of Mr. Marcos, and the other petitioners, to the Philippines.
Co##entin) on the #otion for reconsideration, the Solicitor =eneral ar)ued that the #otion for reconsideration
is #oot and acade#ic as to the deceased Mr. Marcos. Moreover, he asserts that ?the >for#al> ri)hts bein)
invo2ed b( the Marcoses under the label >ri)ht to return>, includin) the label >return of Marcos> re#ains, is in
realit( or substance a >ri)ht> to destabili:e the countr(, a >ri)ht> to hide the Marcoses> incessant shado-(
orchestrated efforts at destabili:ation.? 4Co##ent, p. .&.8 !hus, he pra(s that the Motion for Reconsideration be
denied for lac2 of #erit.
@e den( the #otion for reconsideration.
$. "t #ust be e#phasi:ed that as in all #otions for reconsideration, the burden is upon the #ovants, petitioner
herein, to sho- that there are co#pellin) reasons to reconsider the decision of the Court.
.. After a thorou)h consideration of the #atters raised in the #otion for reconsideration, the Court is of the vie-
that no co#pellin) reasons have been established b( petitioners to -arrant a reconsideration of the Court>s
decision.
1
!he death of Mr. Marcos, althou)h it #a( be vie-ed as a supervenin) event, has not chan)ed the factual
scenario under -hich the Court>s decision -as rendered. !he threats to the )overn#ent, to -hich the return of
the Marcoses has been vie-ed to provide a catal(tic effect, have not been sho-n to have ceased. On the
contrar(, instead of erasin) fears as to the destabili:ation that -ill be caused b( the return of the Marcoses, Mrs.
Marcos reinforced the basis for the decision to bar their return -hen she called President A0uino ?ille)al,?
clai#in) that it is Mr. Marcos, not Mrs. A0uino, -ho is the ?le)al? President of the Philippines, and declared that
the #atter ?should be brou)ht to all the courts of the -orld.? 4Co##ent, p. $5 Philippine Star, October 6, $&'&.8
7. Contrar( to petitioners> vie-, it cannot be denied that the President, upon -ho# e;ecutive po-er 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. !he po-ers of the President are not li#ited to -hat are e;pressl(
enu#erated in the article on the E;ecutive Aepart#ent and in scattered provisions of the Constitution. !his is
so, not-ithstandin) the avo-ed intent of the #e#bers of the Constitutional Co##ission of $&'B to li#it the
po-ers of the President as a reaction to the abuses under the re)i#e of Mr. Marcos, for the result -as a
li#itation of specific po-er of the President, particularl( those relatin) to the co##anderCinCchief clause, but not
a diminution of the general grant of executive power.
!hat the President has po-ers other than those e;pressl( stated in the Constitution is nothin) ne-. !his is
reco)ni:ed under the .S. Constitution fro# -hich -e have patterned the distribution of )overn#ental po-ers
a#on) three *7+ separate branches.
Article "", 4section8 $, provides that ?!he E;ecutive Po-er shall be vested in a President of the
nited States of A#erica.? "n Ale;ander /a#ilton>s -idel( accepted vie-, this state#ent cannot
be read as #ere shorthand for the specific e;ecutive authori:ations that follo- it in 4sections8 .
and 7. /a#ilton stressed the difference bet-een the s-eepin) lan)ua)e of article "", section $,
and the conditional lan)ua)e of article ", 4section8 $1 ?All le)islative Po-ers herein granted shall
be vested in a Con)ress of the nited States . . .? /a#ilton sub#itted that ?4t8he 4article """
enu#eration 4in sections . and 7$ ou)ht therefore to be considered, as intended #erel( to
specif( the principal articles i#plied in the definition of e;ecution po-er5 leavin) the rest to flo-
fro# the )eneral )rant of that po-er, interpreted in confo#it( -ith other parts of the
Constitution...
"n Myers v. United States, the Supre#e Court D accepted /a#ilton>s proposition, concludin)
that the federal e;ecutive, unli2e the Con)ress, could e;ercise po-er fro# sources not
enu#erated, so lon) as not forbidden b( the constitutional te;t1 the e;ecutive po-er -as )iven
in )eneral ter#s, stren)thened b( specific ter#s -here e#phasis -as re)arded as appropriate,
and -as li#ited b( direct e;pressions -here li#itation -as needed. . .? !he lan)ua)e of Chief
<ustice !aft in M(ers #a2es clear that the constitutional concept of inherent po-er is not a
s(non(# for po-er -ithout li#it5 rather, the concept su))ests onl( that not all po-ers )ranted in
the Constitution are the#selves e;hausted b( internal enu#eration, so that, -ithin a sphere
properl( re)arded as one of ?e;ecutive> po-er, authorit( is i#plied unless there or else-here
e;pressl( li#ited. 4!R"BE, AMER"CAN CONS!"!!"ONAL LA@ $%'C$%& *$&,'+.8
And neither can -e subscribe to the vie- that a reco)nition of the President>s i#plied or residual po-ers is
tanta#ount to settin) the sta)e for another dictatorship. Aespite petitioners> strained analo)(, the residual
po-ers of the President under the Constitution should not be confused -ith the po-er of the President under the
$&,7 Constitution to le)islate pursuant to A#end#ent No. B -hich provides1
@henever in the 9ud)#ent of the President *Pri#e Minister+, there e;ists a )rave e#er)enc( or
a threat or i##inence thereof, or -henever the interim Batasan) Pa#bansa or the re)ular
National Asse#bl( fails or is unable to act ade0uatel( on an( #atter for an( reason that in his
9ud)#ent re0uires i##ediate action, he #a(, in order to #eet the e;i)enc(, issue the necessar(
decrees, orders, or letters of instruction, -hich shall for# part of the la- of the land,
!here is no si#ilarit( bet-een the residual po-ers of the President under the $&', Constitution and the po-er
of the President under the $&,7 Constitution pursuant to A#end#ent No. B. 3irst of all, A#end#ent No. B refers
to an e;press )rant of po-er. "t is not i#plied. !hen, A#end#ent No. B refers to a )rant to the President of the
specific power of legislation.
6. A#on) the duties of the President under the Constitution, in co#pliance -ith his *or her+ oath of office, is to
protect and pro#ote the interest and -elfare of the people. /er decision to bar the return of the Marcoses and
subse0uentl(, the re#ains of Mr. Marcos at the present ti#e and under present circu#stances is in co#pliance
-ith this bounden dut(. "n the absence of a clear sho-in) that she had acted -ith arbitrariness or -ith )rave
abuse of discretion in arrivin) at this decision, the Court -ill not en9oin the i#ple#entation of this decision.
2
ACCORA"N=LE, the Court resolved to AENE the Motion for Reconsideration for lac2 of #erit.?
3