Case Summary (G.R. No. 88211)
Petitioners
They argued that (1) every Filipino has an inherent right to return and to the protection of constitutional rights; (2) the President lacks authority to bar citizens from entering their homeland; (3) even if such power exists, its exercise was arbitrary and unjustified; and (4) there was no factual basis to conclude that their return threatened national interest.
Respondents
They defended the President’s determination that the presence—and prospective interment—of Marcos and his family “pose a threat to national interest and welfare.” The Solicitor General further contended that any asserted “right to return” was a subterfuge for renewed efforts at political destabilization and that Marcos’s death rendered moot part of the petition.
Key Dates
• September 15, 1989 – Original en banc decision (8–7) dismissed the petition, upholding the presidential ban.
• September 28, 1989 – Ferdinand E. Marcos died in exile.
• October 2, 1989 – Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
• October 27, 1989 – The Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
Applicable Law
1987 Philippine Constitution
• Article II, Section 1: “The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines.”
• Residual executive powers are implied to enable the President to fulfill constitutional duties, including protection of national security and public welfare.
• Distinction from the 1973 Constitution (Amendment 6) which expressly granted emergency legislative powers to the President; no such express grant exists under the 1987 Constitution.
Issues
- Does the President possess implied or residual authority under the 1987 Constitution to bar Filipino citizens—including the Marcos family and the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos—from returning?
- Has that authority been exercised arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion?
- If so, should the Court compel the issuance of travel documents and allow repatriation of remains?
Court’s Analysis
• Burden of Reconsideration. Petitioners failed to establish compelling reasons warranting reversal of the earlier decision.
• Supervening Event. Marcos’s death did not alter the factual premise—that their return was likely to catalyze destabilizing forces—and petitioners offered no evidence that the alleged threat had abated.
• Implied Executive Powers. Under Article II, Section 1, the President holds not only expressly enumerated powers but also necessary residual powers analogous to those recognized in U.S. precedents (e.g., Myers v. United States) and implied by the general grant of executive authority.
• Limitation Against Dictatorship. Recognition of implied powers under the 1987 Constitution does not equate to the broad legislative-decretal power under the 1973 Charter; rather, it ensures the President can discharge constitutional duties in protection of national security and public welfare.
• Non‐Arbitrariness. Absent a clear showing of arbitrariness or grave abuse of discretion, the Court will not enjoin implementation of the President’s policy decision.
Majority Ruling
The Court unanimously in the per curiam resolution denied the Motion for Reconsideration. It reaffirmed the earlier holding that the President acted within constitutional bounds in barring the return of the Marcos family and the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos, finding no compell
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 88211)
Procedural Background
- Court’s September 15, 1989 decision, voted 8–7, dismissed petition: found no arbitrary or grave abuse in barring return of Marcos family on national-interest grounds.
- September 28, 1989: former President Marcos died in Honolulu.
- President Aquino declared remains barred from entry “until such time as the government…shall otherwise decide.”
- October 2, 1989: petitioners filed Motion for Reconsideration raising constitutional right to return and protection under Charter.
Facts of the Case
- Petitioners: former President Marcos, his wife, children, relatives and PhilConsa.
- Respondents: Secretaries of Foreign Affairs, Justice, National Defense, Executive Secretary and Immigration Commissioner.
- Subject: Presidential order prohibiting return of Marcos family and remains.
- Core claim: right of Filipino citizens to return to country of birth and to receive constitutional protection.
- Government position: return poses threat to national interest and welfare; barring was a proper exercise of executive power.
Issues
- Can the President bar the return of a Filipino citizen, living or deceased?
- Does such a ban violate the inherent right of citizens to return and constitutional guarantees?
- Has petitioners’ supervening event (Marcos’s death) altered the factual scenario or removed the justification for the ban?
- What is the scope of the President’s implied or residual executive powers under the 1987 Constitution?
Petitioners’ Arguments
- Denial of return breaches the inherent constitutional right of citizens to re-enter their country.
- President has no power—express or implied—to bar a Filipino from the Philippines.
- If such power exists, its exercise was arbitrary and constituted grave abuse of discretion.
- No factual basis justifies barring the family’s return or the remains’ entry.
- Prayer: grant travel documents to family members; enjoin enforcement of bar on remains.
Respondents’ Arguments
- Motion for Reconsideration is moot and academic as to the deceased Marcos.
- The “formal” rights to return or of remains actually mask a right to destabilize the country.
- Retu