Marcos v.

Manglapus
No. 88211, 15 September 1989
FACTS:
Former President 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.
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 Corys decision to bar their return to the
Philippines.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the President
may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.
HELD:
YES
RATIO:
The constitutional guarantees that the petitioners invoke are neither absolute nor
inflexible. For the exercise of even the preferred freedoms of speech and of expression,
although couched in absolute terms, admits of limits and must be adjusted to the
requirements of equally important public interests.
The Court held that 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 collective adherence to uncompromising respect for human rights under the
Constitution and our laws. The Resolution does not question the Presidents power to
bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines; rather, it appeals to the Presidents
sense of compassion to allow a man to come home to die in his country. What we are
saying in effect is that 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 Court held that from the pleadings filed by the parties, from their oral arguments,
and the facts revealed during the briefing in chambers by the Chief of Staff of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines and the National Security Adviser, wherein petitioners and
respondents were represented, there exist factual basis for the Presidents decision. The
Court cannot close its eyes to present realities and pretend that the country is not
besieged from within by a well-organized communist insurgency, a separatist movement
in Mindanao, rightist conspiracies to grab power, urban terrorism, the murder with
impunity of military men, police officers and civilian officials, to mention only a few. The
documented history of the efforts of the Marcoses and their followers to destabilize the
country, as earlier narrated in this ponencia bolsters the conclusion that the return of the
Marcoses at this time would only exacerbate and intensify the violence directed against
the State and instigate more chaos. As divergent and discordant forces, the enemies of
the State may be contained. The military establishment has given assurances that it
could handle the threats posed by particular groups. But it is the catalytic effect of the
return of the Marcoses that may prove to be the proverbial final straw that would break
the camels back. With these before her, the President cannot be said to have acted
arbitrarily and capriciously and whimsically in determining that the return of the
Marcoses poses a serious threat to the national interest and welfare and in prohibiting
their return.