Marcos v.

Manglapus AUTHOR: Alex Jaleco

TOPIC: Civil personality of the dead NOTES: The corpse does not have civil personality

PARTIES:
Marcos Imelda Marcos, Irene Marcos
Manglapus - Secretary of Foreign Affairs
FACTS:
This case involves a petition of mandamus and prohibition asking the court to order the respondents Secretary of
Foreign Affairs, etc. to issue a travel documents to former Pres. 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. Petitioners assert
that the right of the Marcoses to return in the Philippines is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, specifically Sections
1 and 6. They contended that Pres. Aquino is without power to impair the liberty of abode of the Marcoses because
only a court may do so within the limits prescribed by law. Nor the President impair their right to travel because no
law has authorized her to do so.
They further assert that under international law, their right to return to the Philippines is guaranteed particularly by
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which
has been ratified by the Philippines.
o The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides Article 13. (2)Everyone has the right to leave any
country, including his own, and to return to his country.
o Likewise, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that No one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of the right to enter his own country.
ISSUE: Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the constitution, the President (Aquino) may prohibit the
return of Ferdinand E. Marcos body to the Philippines.
HELD: YES
RATIO:
Although not explicitly said, FEMs right to return to his country is extinguished since he does not have civil
personality.
Moreover, "it must be emphasized that the individual right involved is not the right to travel from the
Philippines to other countries or within the Philippines. These are what the right to travel would normally
connote. Essentially, the right involved in this case at bar is the right to return to one's country, a distinct right
under international law, independent from although related to the right to travel. Thus, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treat the right to
freedom of movement and abode within the territory of a state, the right to leave the country, and the right to
enter one's country as separate and distinct rights. What the Declaration speaks of is the "right to freedom of
movement and residence within the borders of each state". On the other hand, the Covenant guarantees the
right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence and the right to be free to leave any country,
including his own. Such rights may only be restricted by laws protecting the national security, public order,
public health or morals or the separate rights of others. However, right to enter one's country cannot be
arbitrarily deprived. It would be therefore 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 the right to travel.
The Bill of rights treats only the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is a well considered view that the
right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of International Law and under our
Constitution as part of the law of the land.
The court held that President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the
return of the Former Pres. Marcos and his family poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare.
President Aquino has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the Marcoses would wipe
away the gains achieved during the past few years after the Marcos regime.
The return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat and therefore prohibiting their return to the Philippines, the
instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
NCC 42 - Civil personality is extinguished by death. The effect of death upon the rights and obligations of the deceased is
determined by law, by contract and by will.

The corpse does not have civil personality

DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):