Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., IRENE M.

ARANETA, IMEE M. MANOTOC, TOMAS MANOTOC, GREGORIO ARANETA, PACIFICO E.


MARCOS, NICANOR YÑIGUEZ and PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION
(PHILCONSA), represented by its President, CONRADO F.
ESTRELLA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS, CATALINO MACARAIG,
SEDFREY ORDOÑEZ, MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, FIDEL RAMOS, RENATO DE VILLA,
in their capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Executive Secretary, Secretary of Justice,
Immigration Commissioner, Secretary of National Defense and Chief of Staff,
respectively, respondents.

G.R. No.88211 DATE: September 15, 1989

PONENTE: CORTES, J TOPIC:

FACTS OF THE CASE: We recall that in February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was
deposed from the presidency via the non-violent "people power" revolution and forced
into exile. In his stead, Corazon C. Aquino was declared President of the Republic
under a revolutionary government. 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.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:This petition for mandamus and prohibition asks the Court 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.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE/S: whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the
Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.

HOLDING:

Yes, The President has the power under the Constitution to bar the Marcoses from
returning has been recognized by members of the Legislature, and is manifested by the
Resolution proposed in the House of Representatives and signed by 103 of its members
urging the President to allow Mr. Marcos to return to the Philippines "as a genuine
unselfish gesture for true national reconciliation and as irrevocable proof of our
1
collective adherence to uncompromising respect for human rights under the
Constitution and our laws." [House Resolution No. 1342, Rollo, p. 321.] The Resolution
does not question the President's power to bar the Marcoses from returning to the
Philippines, rather, it appeals to the President's sense of compassion to allow a man to
come home to die in his country.
The request or demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the
Philippines cannot be considered in the light solely of the constitutional provisions
guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel, subject to certain exceptions, or
of case law which clearly never contemplated situations even remotely similar to the
present one. It must be treated as a matter that is appropriately addressed to those
residual unstated powers of the President which are implicit in and correlative to the
paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard and protect general welfare. In that
context, such request or demand should submit to the exercise of a broader discretion
on the part of the President to determine whether it must be granted or denied. The
llcd

President has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the
Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years and lead to
total economic collapse. Given what is within our individual and common knowledge
of the state of the economy, we cannot argue with that determination.
WHEREFORE, and it being our well-considered opinion that 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 instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.

Notes, if any: