MARCOS v. MANGLAPUS
G.R. NO. 88211, SEPTEMBER 15, 1989
CORTES, J.
RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES
FACTS: Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent
―people power revolution and forced into exile. Pres. Corazon C. Aquino was declared
President of the Phils under a revolutionary government. However, the ratification of the
1987 Constitution further strengthened the legitimacy of Mrs Aquino‘s authority. The
country was far from being stabilized, though, as continued threats from various sectors
ranging from the rebels to the followers of the Marcoses and even those that were
initiators of the people power revolution. Mr. Marcos has signified, in his deathbed, to
return to the Phils. But Mrs Aquino considering the dire consequences to the nation of his
return has stood firmly on the decision to bar the his and his family’s return.
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.
xxx xxx xxx 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: Whether or not the right of the Marcoses of the liberty of abode and the right to
travel are violated?
HELD: NO. 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. These are what the
right to travel would normally connote. Essentially, the right involved is the right to return
to one's country, a totally distinct right under international law, independent from although
related to the right to travel.
Thus, the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights and the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights treat the right to freedom of movement and abode within the territory
of a state, the right to leave a country, and the right to enter one's country as separate
and distinct rights.
The Declaration speaks of the "right to freedom of movement and residence within the
borders of each state" [Art. 13(1)] separately from the "right to leave any country, including
his own, and to return to his country." [Art. 13(2).] On the other hand, the Covenant
guarantees the "right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence" [Art.
12(1)] and the right to "be free to leave any country, including his own." [Art. 12(2)] which
rights may be restricted by such laws as "are necessary to protect national security, public
order, public health or morals or the separate rights and freedoms of others." [Art. 12(3)]
as distinguished from the "right to enter his own country" of which one cannot be
"arbitrarily deprived." [Art. 12(4).]
It would therefore be inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right to return to one's
country in the same context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to
travel.
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.