Marcos vs. Manglapus

MARCOS vs. MANGLAPUS [GR 88211, Sept. 15, 1989]

Facts:

Ferdinand E. Marcos who was deposed from his seat through the EDSA people power revolution was forced into exile in 1986 and Corazon C. Aquino was declared President of the Republic under a revolutionary government. When Marcos was dying, he wished to return to the country along with his family but Pres. Aquino stood in his way and contended that Marcos cannot return to the country considering that his return would be a threat to the stability of the government and the country’s economy.

The Marcoses assert that their right to return to the country is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution and that under international law, the right of Marcos and his family to return to the Philippines is guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Issue:

Are the Marcoses correct in asserting their right to return to the country?

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the president, as part of her residual power, can ban the return of Marcos and his family to the country considering the consequences which could pose a serious threat to national interest and welfare of the country. The Universal Declaration of Humans 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 a country, and the right to enter one's country as separate and distinct rights. The Declaration speaks of the "right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state" [Art. 13(l)] separately from the "right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." [Art. 13(2).] On the other hand, the Covenant guarantees the "right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence" [Art. 12(l)] and the right to "be free to leave any country, including his own." [Art. 12(2)] which rights may be restricted by such laws as "are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or enter qqqs own country" of which one cannot be "arbitrarily deprived." [Art. 12(4).] It would therefore be inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right to return to one's country in the same context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to travel.

The present Constitution limits resort to the political question doctrine and broadens the scope of judicial inquiry into areas which the Court, under previous constitutions, would have normally left to the political departments to decide. But nonetheless there remain issues beyond the Court's jurisdiction the determination of which is exclusively for the President, for Congress or for the people themselves through a plebiscite or referendum. We cannot, for example, question the President's recognition of a foreign government, no matter how premature or improvident such action may appear. We cannot set aside a presidential pardon though it may appear to us that the beneficiary is totally undeserving of the grant. Nor can we amend the Constitution under the guise of resolving a dispute brought before us because the power is reserved to the people.