Case Summary (G.R. No. 88211)
Petitioners and Respondents
Petitioners: Ferdinand E. Marcos; immediate family members including Imelda R. Marcos, Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., Irene M. Araneta, Imee M. Manotoc, Tomas Manotoc, Gregorio Araneta, Pacifico E. Marcos, and Nicanor Yñiguez; and the Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa), represented by its president, Conrado F. Estrella.
Respondents: Executive officials—Foreign Affairs Secretary Raul Manglapus, Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig, Justice Secretary Sedfrey Ordoñez, Immigration Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago, Defense Secretary Fidel Ramos, and Armed Forces Chief of Staff Renato De Villa—acting under presidential directive.
Key Dates
Deposition of Marcos: February 1986
Ratification of the 1987 Constitution: February 1987
Honasan coup attempt: August 28, 1987
Decision in this case: September 15, 1989
Applicable Constitution and Provisions
The 1987 Constitution governs this case. Relevant provisions include:
• Article II, Sections 4–5 (State duty to serve, protect, maintain peace and general welfare)
• Article III, Sections 1 and 6 (due process, equal protection, liberty of abode, right to travel subject to national security/public safety)
• Article VII, Sections 1 and 14–23 (executive powers)
• Article VIII, Section 1 (judicial power to review grave abuse of discretion)
Issue Presented
Whether, under the 1987 Constitution, the President may bar former President Marcos and his family from returning to the Philippines and whether such prohibition, when challenged by petitioners via mandamus and prohibition, constitutes grave abuse of discretion or exceeds jurisdiction.
Petitioners’ Arguments
Petitioners contended that their right to return and liberty of abode are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (due process, equal protection, liberty of abode, right to travel) and by international instruments (UDHR Article 13; ICCPR Article 12). They argued that no statute authorizes the President to restrict reentry, that only a court may impair abode under Section 6, and that international law prohibits arbitrary deprivation of the right to enter one’s country.
Respondents’ Arguments
Respondents characterized the dispute as a non-justiciable political question resting on executive authority over national security. Citing State policies (Art II Sections 4–5) and historical precedents barring deposed dictators, they argued that determining security threats falls exclusively within presidential competence and cannot be reviewed by courts except for grave abuses.
Court’s Analytical Framework
The Court adopted a two-step framework:
- Determine whether the President has constitutional authority to bar the Marcoses’ return.
- If such authority exists, assess under Article VIII Section 1 whether the President’s action amounted to grave abuse of discretion or a lack/excess of jurisdiction.
Scope of Executive Power
Citing separation of powers (Arts VI–VIII) and precedents in U.S. and Philippine jurisprudence, the Court held that executive power extends beyond enumerated tasks to all nonlegislative, nonjudicial functions necessary to preserve and protect the State and execute constitutional duties.
Nature and Scope of Authority Invoked
The reentry ban derives from the President’s residual protective power—to maintain peace, safeguard national welfare, and preempt threats before escalation. This authority, distinct from commander-in-chief crisis powers, permits preventive measures against potential destabilization.
Standard of Judicial Review
Under Article VIII Section 1, courts may re
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 88211)
Factual Background
- In February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed by a non-violent “people power” revolution and went into exile; Corazon C. Aquino assumed the presidency under a revolutionary government.
- Subsequent challenges included the Manila Hotel coup (1986), Channel 7 takeover by rebel troops, and an attempted clandestine return of the Marcoses with mercenaries in January 1987.
- The 1987 Constitution was ratified, reinforcing the Aquino presidency yet coup attempts persisted, notably the August 28, 1987 sortie led by Col. Gregorio Honasan.
- At the same time, the communist insurgency and Mindanao secessionist movement remained active, establishing parallel governance and armed bands.
- The national economy suffered from heavy foreign debt and alleged plunder during the Marcos regime; recovery efforts and retrieval of ill-gotten wealth were largely inconclusive by 1989.
- While on his deathbed, Marcos expressed his wish to return to the Philippines. President Aquino decided to bar his return, citing threats to government stability and economic recovery.
The Petition for Mandamus and Prohibition
- Petitioners sought an order compelling respondents to issue travel documents to Marcos and his immediate family.
- They also asked the Court to prohibit implementation of the President’s decision to bar their return.
- The petition was brought as one of grave national importance, urging judicial intervention against an alleged executive overreach.
Issues Presented
- Does the President have constitutional power to bar the return of a former President and his family?
- If so, is this determination a non-justiciable political question?
- If the President may bar return “in the interest of national security, public safety or public health”:
- Was there a formal finding of a clear and present danger?
- Were due process requirements—notice and hearing—observed, or at least adequately communicated?
- Can the Court inquire into the factual basis of that determination?
- Have respondents, in implementing the ban, acted without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion?
Petitioners’ Arguments
- The right of abode and travel is constitutionally guaranteed (Art. III, Sec. 1 & 6) and may be impaired only by court order or by law.
- No statute authorizes the President to deny return or travel; impairment absent legislation violates due process and equal protection.
- International law (UDHR Art. 13; ICCPR Art. 12) guarantees the right to leave one’s country and to return, with restrictions a