TITLE: MARCOS vs. MANGLAPUS, G.R. No.

88211 September 15, 1989

CAPTION: FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., IRENE M. ARANETA, IMEE MANOTOC,
TOMAS MANOTOC, GREGORIO ARANETA, PACIFICO E. MARCOS, NICANOR YIGUEZ and PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), represented by its President, CONRADO F. ESTRELLA, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS, CATALINO MACARAIG, SEDFREY ORDOEZ, MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, FIDEL RAMOS,
RENATO DE VILLA, in their capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Executive Secretary, Secretary of Justice, Immigration
Commissioner, Secretary of National Defense and Chief of Staff, respectively, respondents.
PONENTE: CORTES, J.:
FACTS:
In February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from precidency via the non-violent people power revolution and forced
into exice.
Corazon Aquino was declared President of the Republic under a revolutionary government.
Her ascension to and consolidation of power have not been unchallenged. The failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by political
leaders of Mr. Marcos, the takeover of television station Channel 7 by rebel troops with the support of Marcos loyalists and
the unsuccessful plot of the Marcos spouse to return from Hawaii awakened the nation to the capacity of the Marcoses to stir
trouble even from afar and to the fanatism and blind loyalty of their followers in the country.
Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die.
President Aquino, considering the dire consequence to the nation of his return, has stood firmly on the decision to bar the
return of Marcos and his family.
ISSUE: Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses
from retyrning to the Philippines.
RULING:
The right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which treats only of the
liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is our well-considered view that the right to return may be considered, as a
generally accepted principle of international law and, under our Constitution, is part of the law of the land [Art. II, Sec. 2 of the
Constitution.] However, it is distinct and separate from the right to travel and enjoys a different protection under the
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, i.e., against being "arbitrarily deprived" thereof [Art. 12 (4).]
Faced with the problem of whether or not the time is right to allow the Marcoses to return to the Philippines, the President is,
under the Constitution, constrained to consider these basic principles in arriving at a decision. More than that, having sworn to
defend and uphold the Constitution, the President has the obligation under the Constitution to protect the people, promote
their welfare and advance the national interest. It must be borne in mind that the Constitution, aside from being an allocation of
power is also a social contract whereby the people have surrendered their sovereign powers to the State for the common good.
Hence, lest the officers of the Government exercising the powers delegated by the people forget and the servants of the people
become rulers, the Constitution reminds everyone that "[s]overeignty resides in the people and all government authority
emanates from them." [Art. II, Sec. 1.]
The Court cannot close its eyes to present realities and pretend that the country is not besieged from within by a well-
organized communist insurgency, a separatist movement in Mindanao, rightist conspiracies to grab power, urban terrorism,
the murder with impunity of military men, police officers and civilian officials, to mention only a few. The documented history
of the efforts of the Marcose's and their followers to destabilize the country, as earlier narrated in this ponencia bolsters the

conclusion that the return of the Marcoses at this time would only exacerbate and intensify the violence directed against the
State and instigate more chaos.
The President has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the Marcoses would wipe away the gains
achieved during the past few years and lead to total economic collapse. Given what is within our individual and common
knowledge of the state of the economy, we cannot argue with that determination.
WHEREFORE, and it being our well-considered opinion that the President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of
discretion in determining that the return of former President Marcos and his family at the present time and under present
circumstances poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines, the
instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.