CASE DIGEST MARCOS VS. MANGLAPUS [177 SCRA 668; G.R. NO.

88211; 15 SEPT 1989] Facts: This case involves a petition of mandamus and prohibition asking the cour t 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 authorize d her to do so. They further assert that under international law, their right to return to the P hilippines is guaranteed particularly by the Universal Declaration of Human Righ ts and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has been ratified by the Philippines. Issue: Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by theconstitution, the President (Aquino) may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippi nes. Held: "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. Th ese are what the right to travel would normally connote. Essentially, the right involved in this case at bar is the rightto 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 C ovenant 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 Declarati on speaks of is the "right to freedom of movement and residence within the borde rs of each state". On the other hand, the Covenant guarantees the right to liber ty of movement and freedom to choose his residence and the right to be free to l eave 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 s eparate rights of others. However, right to enter one's country cannot be arbitr arily 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 t o the liberty of abode and the right to travel. The Bill of rights treats only the liberty of abode and the right totravel, but it is a well considered view that the right to return may be considered, as a ge nerally accepted principle of International Law and under our Constitution as pa rt of the law of the land. The court held that President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of dis cretion 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 d etermined that the destabilization caused by the return of the Marcoses would wi pe 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 thei r return to the Philippines, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.