Case Digest (G.R. No. 88211) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Ferdinand E. Marcos et al. v. Raul Manglapus et al., G.R. No. 88211, decided on September 15, 1989 by the Supreme Court, En Banc, former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, and PhilConsa, through its president Conrado F. Estrella (petitioners), sought a writ of mandamus and prohibition to compel the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs, Justice, National Defense, the Executive Secretary, and the Immigration Commissioner (respondents) to issue passports and travel documents allowing the Marcoses to return to the Philippines. In February 1986, Marcos was deposed by the “People Power” Revolution and went into exile in Hawaii. Subsequent to his ouster, armed and political threats—ranging from coup attempts by Col. Gregorio Honasan and Marcos loyalists to ongoing communist and separatist insurgencies—continued to destabilize the new government under President Corazon C. Aquino. Petitioners invoked their constitutional right to liberty of abode and right to travel (Art. Case Digest (G.R. No. 88211) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Historical and Political Context
- February 1986 “People Power” Revolution deposed President Ferdinand E. Marcos, who went into exile in Hawaii.
- Corazon C. Aquino assumed the presidency under a provisional revolutionary government; her authority was later cemented by the 1987 Constitution.
- Multiple armed challenges followed:
- The 1986 Manila Hotel coup and the Channel 7 takeover by Marcos loyalists.
- Failed 1987 coup led by Col. Gregorio Honasan and other lesser rebellions.
- Concurrent internal threats included a strengthened communist insurgency and a secessionist movement in Mindanao.
- The economy was in dire straits owing to heavy foreign debt and alleged plunder of national wealth during the Marcos regime.
- Present Controversy and Petition
- Ferdinand E. Marcos, on his deathbed, signified his desire to return to the Philippines.
- President Aquino, citing risks to stability and the fragile economy, directed that Marcos and his immediate family be barred from reentry.
- Marcos et al. filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition to:
- Compel respondents (executive officials, including the Immigration Commissioner) to issue travel documents.
- Enjoin enforcement of the President’s directive barring their return.
- Parties’ Contentions
- Petitioners’ Arguments
- Constitutional guarantees:
- Art. III, Sec. 1 – due process and equal protection.
- Art. III, Sec. 6 – liberty of abode and right to travel, which may be impaired only for national security, public safety or health and “as may be provided by law.”
- Absence of any legislation authorizing the President to restrict travel.
- International law rights:
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 13(2) – right to return to one’s country.
- ICCPR, Art. 12(4) – protection against arbitrary deprivation of entry to one’s own country.
- Respondents’ Arguments
- The question is a non-justiciable political question because it implicates national security and public safety—the exclusive domain of the President.
- Presidential prerogative to bar return of former dictators has international precedents (e.g., Trujillo, Somoza, Batista).
- The State’s paramount duty is to protect national security and the general welfare (Art. II, Secs. 4–5).
Issues:
- Nature and Source of Presidential Power
- Does the President’s constitutional “executive power” include a residual authority to bar the return of nationals for reasons of national security and public safety?
- Are the President’s powers confined to those explicitly enumerated in the 1987 Constitution?
- Justiciability and Scope of Judicial Review
- Is the controversy a “political question” beyond judicial competence?
- Under Art. VIII, Sec. 1(2) (judicial power to check grave abuse of discretion), may the Court inquire whether the President acted arbitrarily, without or in excess of jurisdiction?
- Validity of Presidential Action in This Case
- Did the President make factual findings that the return of the Marcoses posed a clear and present danger to national security or public safety?
- If such findings were made, were they arbitrary or the result of grave abuse of discretion?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)