Marcos v.

Manglapus
This case involves a petition of mandamus and prohibition asking the court to order
the respondents Secretary of Foreign Affairs, etc. to issue a "travel documents "to
former Pres. Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to enjoin the
implementation of the President's decision to bar their return to the Philippines.
Petitioners assert that the right of the Marcoses "to return "in the Philippines is
guaranteed by "the Bill of Rights, specifically Sections 1 and 6. They contended that
Pres. Aquino is without power to impair the liberty of abode of the Marcoses
because only a court may do so within the limits prescribed by law. Nor the
President impair their right to travel because no law has authorized her to do so.
Petitioners further assert that under "international law, their right "to return "to the
Philippines is guaranteed particularly by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the International Covenant on "Civil "and Political Rights, which has been
ratified by the Philippines.
Issue: Whether or not the President has the power to bar the return of former
President Marcos and family to the Philippines?
Held: YES. It must be emphasized that the individual right involved is not the right
to "travel from "the Philippines to other countries or within the Philippines. The Bill
of rights "treats only the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is a wellconsidered view that the right "to return "may be considered, as a generally
accepted principle of "International Law "and under our Constitution as part of the
law of the land. These are what the right to travel would normally connote.
Essentially, the right involved in this case at bar is the right "to return "to one's
country, a distinct right under "international law, independent from although related
to the right to travel. Such rights may only be restricted by laws protecting the
"national security, public order, "public health "or morals or the separate rights of
others. It would be therefore inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right
"to return "to ones country in the same context as those pertaining to the liberty of
abode and the right to travel.
The court held that President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion
in determining that the return of the Former Pres. Marcos and his family poses a
serious threat to national interest and welfare. President Aquino has determined
that the destabilization caused by the return of the Marcoses would wipe away the
gains achieved during the past few years after the Marcos regime.
The return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat and therefore prohibiting their
return to the Philippines. Among the duties of the President under the Constitution,
in compliance with his (or her) oath of office, is to protect and promote the interest
and welfare of the people. Her decision to bar the return of the Marcoses and
subsequently, the remains of Mr. Marcos at the present time and under present
circumstances is in compliance with this bounden duty. In the absence of a clear
showing that she had acted with arbitrariness or with grave abuse of discretion in
arriving at this decision, the Court will not enjoin the implementation of this
decision.