Marcos v. Manglapus
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
1. The Antecedents: Following the "people power" revolution in February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency and forced into exile. The subsequent years saw several challenges to the new government, including coup attempts and ongoing insurgencies. The nation's economy was also devastated by accumulated foreign debt and alleged plunder during the Marcos regime. Amidst these circumstances, Ferdinand E. Marcos, while on his deathbed, expressed a wish to return to the Philippines. 2. Procedural History: The President of the Philippines, Corazon C. Aquino, decided to prohibit the return of Ferdinand E. Marcos and his family, citing concerns for national stability and economic recovery. This decision was challenged by the Marcoses and their supporters through a petition filed with the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition, seeking to compel the respondents (government officials) to issue travel documents for the Marcos family and to enjoin the implementation of the President's decision to bar their return. They argued that the right to return to one's country is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and international law, and that the President lacked the authority to prohibit their return without a specific law providing for such a restriction. The petition also questioned whether the President's decision was made with due process and whether it constituted a political question beyond the Court's review.
Issue(s)
Whether the President has the power to prohibit the return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines. Whether the President's determination that the return of the Marcoses poses a threat to national security, public safety, or public health is a political question beyond the Court's jurisdiction. Whether the President acted with grave abuse of discretion in barring the return of the Marcoses.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Court held that the President has the residual power to protect the general welfare of the people, which includes the authority to prohibit the return of individuals whose presence may pose a threat to national security and public safety. The Court found that there were factual bases for the President's decision and that she did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
On the President's Power to Bar Return: The Court affirmed that the President possesses residual powers, beyond those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, to protect the general welfare and national interest. This power is founded on the duty to preserve and defend the Constitution and to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. The Court reasoned that while the 1987 Constitution restored the separation of powers, it did not limit executive power to only enumerated powers. The President's duty to protect the people and the State necessitates the consideration of potential threats, even if not explicitly defined by statute. The Court reiterated that executive power is not limited to the sum of specifically enumerated powers. It encompasses traditional executive functions and residual powers necessary to protect the general welfare. The Court cited historical precedents and scholarly views to support the expansive nature of executive power, emphasizing that the President's role as steward of the people requires decisive action when the nation's needs demand it, provided such actions are not forbidden by the Constitution or laws. On the Political Question Doctrine and Judicial Review: The Court clarified that while the issue of whether the return of the Marcoses poses a threat to national security might involve political considerations, the Court's role is to determine if the President acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The 1987 Constitution expanded judicial review to include such determination. However, if factual bases exist for the President's decision, the Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the President. On the Existence of Factual Bases for the President's Decision and the Right to Return vs. National Security: The Court found that sufficient factual bases existed for the President's decision to bar the Marcoses' return. These included the documented history of destabilization attempts by Marcos loyalists and other groups, the ongoing communist insurgency, separatist movements, and the precarious state of the economy attributed to the Marcos regime. The Court concluded that the return of the Marcoses could exacerbate violence and chaos, thereby posing a serious threat to national interest and welfare. The Court distinguished the right to return to one's country from the right to travel and liberty of abode. While acknowledging the right to return as a generally accepted principle of international law and part of the law of the land, it is not absolute. The Court held that in balancing the general welfare and common good against individual rights, the President's broader discretion to safeguard the nation's interests must prevail, especially when faced with threats to national security and public order.
Main Doctrine
The President has the residual power to protect the general welfare of the people, which includes the power to prohibit the return of individuals whose presence may pose a threat to national security and public safety, even if such prohibition impacts the right to travel or liberty of abode. The Court's review of such a decision is limited to determining if there was grave abuse of discretion.