Marcos v. Manglapus (1989)

Marcos v. Manglapus

Sept. 15, 1989 | Justice Cortes| Executive Power – Presidential Power and Limits

PETITIONER: Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, et. al

RESPONDENTS: Hon. Raul Manglapus, et. al (in his capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs)

SUMMARY: After being deposed from a twenty-year rule via “people power,” Marcos was exiled to Hawaii where he had been staying for three years. Now in his death bed, Marcos wishes to die in the Philippines and is thus filing a petition for mandamus asking the Court to order the respondents to issue travel documents to him and his immediate family, and a petition for prohibition to enjoin the implementation of Pres. Aquino’s decision to bar their return to the Philippines.

DOCTRINE: EXECUTIVE POWER – 1987 Constitution fully restored the separation of powers and provides that the “executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines (Art. VII, Sec. 1). The traditions and developments of presidential power under different constitutions (1935 and 1973) are essential for a complete understanding of the extent and limitations to the President’s powers under the 1987 Constitution. The Constitution does not limit the powers of the President to merely the execution of laws but also grants other powers such as his power over the country’s foreign relations. Thus, the powers of the President cannot be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. (See Angara v. Electoral Commission, Springer v. Government of the PH Islands)

FACTS:

1. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent “people power” in February 1986 and was exiled to Hawaii.
2. Despite his ouster, many of his supports are still seeking to derail the new Presidency. The current government under President Aquino is faced with mounting economic, political and social problems rooted during the Martial Law regime under Marcos.
3. Petitioners assert that the right of the Marcoses to return to the PH is guaranteed under Secs. 1 and 6 of the Bill of Rights; Art. 13 (1 and 2) of the UDHR; and certain provisions under the ICCPR.
4. Furthermore, petitioners assert that the President has no power to impair their right to travel because no law has authorized her to do so, that only an agency/authority of the government through a legislation may do so
5. Petitioners argue that the President’s powers are limited to those specifically enumerated in the 1987 Constitution. (Inclusio unius est exclusion alterius)
6. Respondents assert that the issue in this case involves a political question which is non-justiciable and argue for the primacy of the right of the State to national security over individual rights (Article II Sec. 4 of the Constitution).
7. Respondents also cited international precedents regarding the decision of several countries to ban the return of their deposed dictators to their homelands.

ISSUES:

1. MAIN ISSUE: W/N Pres. Aquino has the power to bar the return of Marcos and his family to the Philippines. YES.

a.     W/N this constitutes a political question, if so, can the Court take cognizance of this case? YES.

2.     Assuming Pres. Aquino has the power to bar the Marcos’ return to the Philippines by reason of national security, public safety or public health—has she made the finding that the return of the Marcos’ is a clear and present danger to national security, public safety or public health. YES.

RATIO:

• House Resolution No. 1342: 103 members of the HoR urged the President to allow Mr. Marcos to return to the country as a “genuine unselfish gesture for true national reconciliation” but does not question the President’s power to bar the same from returning to the PH. Therefore, the President has the power under the Constitution to bar such return as manifested by the Resolution adopted by the legislature.

a.      The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission show that the framers intended to widen the scope of judicial review. “The Court cannot close its eyes to the present realities” and pretend that the country is not besieged from several efforts of the Marcoses and their followers to destabilize the country. The State, acting through the Government is not precluded from taking pre-emptive action against threats to its existence. (For Political Questions, see Tanada v. Cuenco)

Events that transpired after Marcos’ ouster and Aquino’s ascension to the Presidency: (1) failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by political leaders of Marcos; (2) the Channel 7 takeover by rebel groups led by Col. Canlas with the support of “Marcos Loyalists,” (3) the unsuccessful plot of the Marcos spouses to return from Hawaii with mercenaries aboard an aircraft chartered by a Lebanese arms dealers; (4) the February Revolution on August 28, 1987 with Col. Honasan; (5) the communist insurgency and secessionist movement in Mindanao.

a.      Constitutional guiding principle: “The prime duty of the Gov’t is to serve and protect the people” and “the maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.” (Art II, Sec. 4&5)

b.     The exercise of presidential functions in drawing a plan and implementing actions for the government, or from another point of view, in making any decision as the President, has to consider these principles and adhere to them.

• The President has the obligation under the Constitution to protect the people, promote their welfare and advance their national interest. To the president, this problem is of balancing the general welfare and common good against the exercise of rights of certain individuals. The President’s power is not only limited to his/her power as the commander-in-chief in times of emergency but is also tasked with attending the day-to-day problems of maintaining peace and order and ensuring domestic tranquillity. The President is a protector of the peace and a steward of the people. 

• DECISION: Instant petition is DISMISSED. Pres. Aquino did NOT arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in barring the return of the Marcoses.

• SEPARATE OPINIONS:
  CONCURRING:
  ·       CJ Ferran – “Presidential powers and prerogatives are NOT FIXED but FLUCTUATE. They are not derived solely from a particular constitutional clause/article; they depend on the imperatives of events rather than on abstract theories of law.” The return of the deposed President and his family WILL pose a clear and present danger to public order and safety.
  
  
  DISSENTING:
  ·       Justice Gutierrez – “The entire government is bound by the rule of law. Herein respondents have not pointed to any provision of the Constitution which commits or vests the determination of the question raised to us solely in the President.”
  ·       Justice Sarmiento – “While the Chief Executive exercises powers not found expressly in the Charter, but has them by constitutional implication, the latter MUST YIELD TO THE PARAMOUNTCY of the Bill of Rights.” The President has been divested of the implied power to impair the right to travel. Admittedly, the Chief Executive is the ‘sole judge’ of all matters affecting national security and foreign affairs, but the BILL OF RIGHTS (a form of check against the excesses of officialdom) is a formidable barrier against Presidential action.