Marcos v. Manglapus
G.R. No. 88211
September 15, 1989
FACTS:
In February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the nonviolent "people power" revolution and forced into exile. In his stead, Corazon C. Aquino was
declared President of the Republic under a revolutionary government. Her ascension to and
consilidation 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 led by Col. Canlas with the support of "Marcos loyalists" and the unseccessful plot of
the Marcos spouses to surreptitiously return from Hawii with mercenaries aboard an aircraft
chartered by a Lebanese arms dealer [Manila Bulletin, January 30, 1987] awakened the
nation to the capacity of the Marcoses to stir trouble even from afar and to the fanaticism and
blind loyalty of their followers in the country. The ratification of the 1987 Constitution
enshrined the victory of "people power" and also clearly reinforced the constitutional
moorings of Mrs. Aquino's presidency. This did not, however, stop bloody challenges to the
government. On August 28, 1987, Col. Gregorio Honasan, one of the major players in the
February Revolution, led a failed coup that left scores of people, both combatants and
civilians, dead. There were several other armed sorties of lesser significance, but the message
they conveyed was the same — a split in the ranks of the military establishment that
thraetened civilian supremacy over military and brought to the fore the realization that
civilian government could be at the mercy of a fractious military.
But the armed threats to the Government were not only found in misguided elements
and among rabid followers of Mr. Marcos. There are also the communist insurgency and the
seccessionist movement in Mindanao which gained ground during the rule of Mr. Marcos, to
the extent that the communists have set up a parallel government of their own on the areas
they effectively control while the separatist are virtually free to move about in armed bands.
There has been no let up on this groups' determination to wrest power from the govermnent.
Not only through resort to arms but also to through the use of propaganda have they been
successful in dreating chaos and destabilizing the country.
Nor are the woes of the Republic purely political. The accumulated foreign debt and
the plunder of the nation attributed to Mr. Marcos and his cronies left the economy
devastated. The efforts at economic recovery, three years after Mrs. Aquino assumed office,
have yet to show concrete results in alleviating the poverty of the masses, while the recovery
of the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses has remained elusive.
Now, Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philipppines
to die. But Mrs. Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a
time when the stability of government is threatened from various directions and the economy
is just beginning to rise and move forward, has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return
of Mr. 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 returning to the Philippines
RULING:
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.]
To the President, the problem is one of balancing the general welfare and the common
good against the exercise of rights of certain individuals. 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. It is a power borne by the
President's duty to preserve and defend the Constitution. It also may be viewed as a power
implicit in the President's duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
More particularly, this case calls for the exercise of the President's powers as
protector of the peace. Rossiter The American Presidency].The power of the President to
keep the peace is not limited merely to exercising the commander-in-chief powers in times of
emergency or to leading the State against external and internal threats to its existence. 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 tranquility 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-inchief provision. For in making the President commander-in-chief the enumeration of powers
that follow cannot be said to exclude the President's exercising as Commander-in- Chief
powers short of the calling of the armed forces, or suspending the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus or declaring martial law, in order to keep the peace, and maintain public
order and security.
What we are saying in effect is that 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.