Marcos vs.

Manglapus

Facts:

Former President Ferdinand Marcos was deposed from presidency through the people power revolution and
was forced into exile. Near death, he wish to return to the Philippines. President Corazon Aquino, considering the dire
consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of the government is threatened from various
directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move forward, firmly stood on the decision to bar the return
of Marcos and his family.
Marcos filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition asks the Court to order the respondents to issue travel
documents to Mr. 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.
The case for petitioners is founded on the assertion that the right of the Marcoses to return to the Philippines
is guaranteed under the following provisions of the Bill of Rights, to wit:

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws.
Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired
except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national
security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

The petitioners contend that the President 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 may the President impair their right to travel because
no law has authorized her to do so. They advance the view that before the right to travel may be impaired by any
authority or agency of the government, there must be legislation to that effect. The petitioners further assert that
under international law, the right of Mr. Marcos and his family to return to the Philippines is guaranteed.

Issue:
1. WON the power of the President is limited to those powers provided in the Constitution.
2. WON in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses
from returning to the Philippines and whether such
3. What power of the President is involved in this case?

Resolution:

1. No. Although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise of specific powers of the President, it
maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within the scope of "executive power." Corollarily, the powers
of the President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. In other
words, executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated.

2. Yes. The request or demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines cannot be considered in
the light solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel, subject to
certain exceptions, or of case law which clearly never contemplated situations even remotely similar to the
present one. It must be treated as a matter that is appropriately addressed to those residual unstated powers of
the President which are implicit in and correlative to the paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard and
protect general welfare. In that context, such request or demand should submit to the exercise of a broader
discretion on the part of the President to determine whether it must be granted or denied.

3. The power involved is the President’s residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. It is founded
on the duty of the President, as steward of the people. To paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt, it is not only the
power of the President but also his duty to do anything not forbidden by the Constitution or the laws that the
needs of the nation demand. The President is not only clothed with extraordinary powers in times of emergency,
but is also tasked with attending to the day-to-day problems of maintaining peace and order and ensuring
domestic tranquillity in times when no foreign foe appears on the horizon. Wide discretion, within the bounds of
law, in fulfilling presidential duties in times of peace is not in any way diminished by the relative want of an
emergency specified in the commander-in-chief provision.