Case Digest (G.R. No. 88211)
Facts:
Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., Irene M. Araneta, Imee M. Manotoc, Tomas Manotoc, Gregorio Araneta, Pacifico E. Marcos, Nicanor Yniguez and Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa), represented by its President, Conrado F. Estrella v. Hon. Raul Manglapus, Catalino Macaraig, Sedfrey Ordonez, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Fidel Ramos, Renato de Villa, G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989, Supreme Court En Banc, Cortes, J., writing for the Court.After the February 1986 “people power” revolution, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed and went into exile. The petitioners (Marcos and members of his family and Philconsa) sought writs of mandamus and prohibition requiring the respondents (Executive officials including the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Immigration Commissioner and others) to issue travel documents and to enjoin enforcement of the President’s decision to bar the Marcoses’ return to the Philippines. The petitioners invoked constitutional guarantees (Art. III, Sec. 1 and 6) and international instruments (UDHR and the ICCPR) protecting the right to return.
No lower court rulings are reported because the case was brought directly to the Supreme Court as an original petition for mandamus and prohibition. During the proceedings the Court adopted a two-tiered methodology: first to decide whether the President has constitutional power to bar the Marcoses’ return and whether that question is justiciable, and second to determine under Article VIII, Section 1 whether the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion. The Court received factual briefings, including a chambe...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the controversy justiciable or a non‑justiciable political question?
- Does the President have constitutional power to bar the return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines?
- Did the President act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in determining that the Marcoses’ return at this time would threat...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)