MARCOS V.

MANGLAPUS
G. R. No. 88211 September 15, 1989

people. The Government may call upon

the people to defend the State and, in
the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may
be required, under conditions provided
by law, to render personal, military, or
civil service.

Eight (8) Concur

Fernan, C.J.,
Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gancayco, Grio-Aquino,
Medialdea and Regalado, JJ.,

Section 5. The maintenance of peace

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

Seven (7) Dissent

Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, Cruz, Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento,
Feliciano, JJ.,

J. Cortes
FACTS:
On February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed
from the presidency via the non-violent "people power"
revolution and forced into exile in Hawaii. In his stead,
Corazon C. Aquino was declared President of the
Republic under a revolutionary government. Then, the
1987 Constitution was ratified, however, this did not stop
bloody challenges to the government. Marcos loyalists
took over the television station Channel 7; a failed coup
dtat was led by Gringo Honasan; communist
insurgency and the secessionist movement in Mindanao.
Now, Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish
to return to the Philippines to die. But Mrs. Aquino,
considering the dire consequences to the nation of his
return at a time when the stability of government is
threatened from various directions and the economy is
just beginning to rise and move forward, has stood firmly
on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his
family.
Marcoses seek relief from the Supreme Court in a
petition for mandamus and prohibition asking the Court
to order the respondents to issue travel documents to
Mr. Marcos and immediate family members and to enjoin
the implementation of President Aquinos decision to bar
their return to the Philippines.
The Marcoses assert that President Aquino acted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in barring their return to the country, and that
their right to return to the Philippines is guaranteed not
only in our Constitution, but also in the international law,
under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
On the contrary, respondents argue for the
primacy of the right to State to national security over
individual rights. In support thereof, they cite Article II of
the Constitution, to wit:
Section 4. The prime duty of the
Government is to serve and protect the

ISSUE:
WON the presidents decision barring the return of the
Marcoses is valid.
HELD:
The Supreme Court held that the right to return to ones
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. The right to travel connotes the
right to travel from the Philippines to other countries or
within the Philippines. The right to return is independent
although related to the right to travel under the
international law. 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
therefore be inappropriate to construe the limitations to
the right to return to ones country in the same context
as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and right to
travel. But it is the courts 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.
The Supreme Court further ruled that, the Constitution
declares among the guiding principles that "the prime
duty of the Government is to serve and protect the
people" and that "the maintenance of peace and order,
the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the
promotion of the general welfare are essential for the
enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of
democracy."
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. It
is not only the power of the President but also his duty to
do anything not forbidden by the Constitution or the laws
that the needs of the nation demand. 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.
RONULO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G. R. No. 182438 July 02, 2014

ISSUE: WON the State is precluded from qualifying the

blessing as a marriage ceremony.
HELD: The Supreme Court, through Justice Brion held
that the State is not precluded from such qualification.

J. Brion
FACTS: Joey Umadac and Claire Bingayen were
schedule to marry each other sometime on March 2003
in a catholic church at San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte.
However, the supposed officiating priest refused to
solemnize the marriage upon learning that the couple
failed to secure a marriage license. As a recourse, the
couple proceeded to the petitioner, an Aglipayan Priest,
and requested him to perform a ceremony to which the
latter agreed despite having been informed by the
couple that they had no marriage certificate. Then,
Ronulo was charged with the violation of Art. 352 of the
RPC for allegedly performing an illegal marriage
ceremony.
The MTC found him guilty. The RTC and CA affirmed the
decision of the MTC. Hence, the petition to the Supreme
Court.
On his defense, petitioner contends ceremony he
conducted is merely a blessing and would not therefore
tantamount to into a marriage ceremony, and under the
principle of the separation of the Church and the State,
the State cannot qualify an act of blessing into a
marriage ceremony.

Article 15 of the Constitution recognizes marriage as an

inviolable social institution and that our family law is
based on the policy that marriage is not a mere contract,
but a social institution in which the State is vitally
interested. The State has paramount interest in the
enforcement of its constitutional policies and the
preservation of the sanctity of marriage. To this end, it is
within its power to enact laws and regulations, such as
Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, which penalize the
commission of acts resulting in the disintegration and
mockery of marriage.
From these perspectives, it is clear that the petitioner
conducted a marriage ceremony, as the minimum
requirements set by law were complied with. While the
petitioner may view this merely as a blessing, the
presence of the requirements of the law constitutive of a
marriage ceremony qualified this blessing into a
marriage ceremony as contemplated by Article 3 (3) of
the FC and Article 352 of the RPC.

OPLE v. TORRES
G.R. No. 127685. July 23, 1998