G.R. No. 88211 - Marcos vs. Manglapus

Case Summary (G.R. No. 88211)

Factual Background

Petitioners sought relief against respondents after the President declined to permit the return to the Philippines of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos and members of his family and, following his death in Honolulu, prohibited the return of his remains. The President publicly stated that "the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos will not be allowed to be brought to our country until such time as the government, be it under this administration or the succeeding one, shall otherwise decide." Petitioners challenged the executive action as violating constitutional rights of citizens to return and to receive protection under the Constitution.

Procedural History

On September 15, 1989, the Court, by a vote of eight to seven, dismissed the petition, finding that the President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of the Marcoses posed a threat to national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration on October 2, 1989, reiterating constitutional and human-rights claims and seeking orders to require respondents to issue travel documents and to enjoin enforcement of the President's decision regarding the remains.

Petitioners' Contentions in the Motion

Petitioners argued that barring former President Marcos and his family from returning denied them the inherent right of citizens to return to their country of birth and the protections of the Constitution. They contended that the President had no power to bar a Filipino from his own country and that, if such power existed, it had been exercised arbitrarily in this case. Petitioners sought issuance of necessary travel documents to enable specified family members to return and sought to enjoin respondents from preventing the return of Mr. Marcos’s remains and the other petitioners.

Solicitor General's Comment

The Solicitor General contended that the Motion for Reconsideration was moot and academic insofar as it concerned the deceased former President. He further argued that the rights invoked by the Marcoses, labeled as a "right to return" or to return the remains, were in substance a right to destabilize the country and to continue orchestrated efforts at destabilization. The Solicitor General urged denial of the motion for lack of merit.

Supreme Court's Resolution on Reconsideration

The Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. It emphasized that the movants bore the burden of showing compelling reasons to warrant reconsideration. The Court concluded that petitioners had not established such reasons. The Court found that the death of Mr. Marcos, though a supervening event, did not alter the factual scenario underlying the original decision and that the threats to government stability, which the Court had viewed as potentially catalyzed by the return of the Marcoses, had not been shown to have ceased.

Court's Assessment of Subsequent Developments

The Court noted that public statements by Mrs. Imelda Marcos, including declarations calling President Aquino "illegal" and urging that the matter be brought "to all the courts of the world," reinforced the Court's view that risks of destabilization persisted. The Court treated these statements as supportive of the executive determination that the return of the Marcoses could have a catalytic effect on threats to national interest and welfare.

Legal Basis and Reasoning on Executive Power

The Court reasoned that the President, in whom executive power is vested under the 1987 Constitution, possessed unstated residual powers implied from the general grant of executive power and necessary to fulfill constitutional duties. The Court analogized to the interpretation of Article II of the United States Constitution and quoted Alexander Hamilton’s view that the general grant of executive power implies authorities beyond enumerated specifics. The Court cited Myers v. United States for the proposition that an executive may exercise powers not enumerated so long as they are not forbidden by constitutional text. The Court clarified that recognition of implied executive powers did not equate to endorsing dictatorial authority and distinguished those implied powers from the express legislative emergency power provided by Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 Constitution.

Relation to the President's Constitutional Duties

The Court framed the President's decision to bar the return of the Marcoses and, subsequently, the remains, as an exercise of duty "to protect and promote the interest and welfare of the people." The Court held that, absent a clear showing that the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion, judicial intervention to enjoin implementation of the executive decision was inappropriate.

Disposition

Accordingly, the Court resolved to deny the Motion for Reconsideration and to affirm its earlier dismissal of the petition. Justices Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, and Bidin concurred in the denial. Four Justices filed separate dissenting opinions.

Dissent of Justice Cruz

Justice Cruz reiterated his original view that granting the petition was warranted. He observed that the death of Ferdinand E. Marcos had not generated widespread public upheaval and that any threat posed by Marcos in life had diminished upon his death. Justice Cruz characterized the controversy over the remains as disproportionate and urged that the remains be allowed to return for burial in the Philippines.

Dissent of Justice Paras

Justic

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 88211)

Parties and Procedural Posture

FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., IRENE M. ARANETA, IMEE M. MANOTOC, TOMAS MANOTOC, GREGORIO ARANETA, PACIFICO E. MARCOS, NIC ANOR YNIGUEZ AND PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), represented by its president, filed the original petition seeking relief against executive action barring the return of the Marcoses and the return of the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos.
HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS, CATALINO MACARAIG, SEDFREY ORDONEZ, MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, FIDEL RAMOS, RENATO DE VILLA were respondents in their official capacities as Secretaries and as Immigration Commissioner and Chief of Staff.
The Court, sitting en banc, rendered its decision on September 15, 1989, by a vote of eight to seven dismissing the petition.
On September 28, 1989, Ferdinand E. Marcos died in Honolulu, Hawaii, which the petitioners characterized as a supervening event.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration on October 2, 1989, seeking restoration of the right of return and an injunction against the prohibition on repatriation of the remains.
The Solicitor General filed a comment arguing that the motion was moot as to the deceased and that the asserted right of return was a cover for destabilizing activities.
The Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit and reaffirmed its earlier dismissal of the petition.

Key Factual Allegations

The President publicly stated that the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos would not be allowed to be brought to the Philippines until the government otherwise decided.
Petitioners alleged that barring the return of the Marcoses and of the remains denied Filipinos their constitutional right to return to the Philippines and other constitutional protections.
The government asserted that the return of the Marcoses posed a threat to national interest and welfare and that the return or repatriation would have a catalytic effect on destabilizing forces.
Petitioners contended that there was no factual basis for the claimed national-security threat and that the President acted arbitrarily and with grave abuse of discretion.
After the death of Ferdinand E. Marcos, petitioners maintained that the supervening event did not extinguish their claimed rights and sought issuance of travel documents and an injunction against enforcement of the prohibition on repatriation.

Issues Presented

Whether the President possessed and validly exercised power to bar the return of Filipino citizens, including the Marcos family, under the 1987 Constitution.
Whether the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in prohibiting the return of the Marcoses and in barring the repatriation of the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos.
Whether the death of Ferdinand E. Marcos rendered the Motion for Reconsideration moot or altered the factual basis of the Court's prior decision.
Whether petitioners established compelling reasons warranting reconsideration of the Court's prior dismissal.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioners argued that barring the return denied the inherent constitutional right of citizens to return to the Philippines and denied constitutional prote