The Supreme Court ruled that the President has implied residual powers from the Constitution to protect national security and promote public welfare. This allows the President to bar the return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines despite their rights as citizens, as their return could destabilize the government and threaten national security. However, four Justices dissented, arguing that Marcos' return was not proved to be an actual threat, that denying a citizen's right to return and be buried in their homeland violates the Constitution, and that the President's power to forbid entry cannot be implied from the Constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled that the President has implied residual powers from the Constitution to protect national security and promote public welfare. This allows the President to bar the return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines despite their rights as citizens, as their return could destabilize the government and threaten national security. However, four Justices dissented, arguing that Marcos' return was not proved to be an actual threat, that denying a citizen's right to return and be buried in their homeland violates the Constitution, and that the President's power to forbid entry cannot be implied from the Constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled that the President has implied residual powers from the Constitution to protect national security and promote public welfare. This allows the President to bar the return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines despite their rights as citizens, as their return could destabilize the government and threaten national security. However, four Justices dissented, arguing that Marcos' return was not proved to be an actual threat, that denying a citizen's right to return and be buried in their homeland violates the Constitution, and that the President's power to forbid entry cannot be implied from the Constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled that the President has implied residual powers from the Constitution to protect national security and promote public welfare. This allows the President to bar the return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines despite their rights as citizens, as their return could destabilize the government and threaten national security. However, four Justices dissented, arguing that Marcos' return was not proved to be an actual threat, that denying a citizen's right to return and be buried in their homeland violates the Constitution, and that the President's power to forbid entry cannot be implied from the Constitution.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
Marcos vs. Manglapus G.R. No.
88211, October 27, 1989
FACTS: After the death of former President Marcos in Honolulu, Hawaii, his family petitioned to return to the Philippines which was dismissed by the Court and denied by then President Aquino. The petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the bar to former President Marcos and his family from returning to the Philippines denies them not only the inherent right of citizens to return to their country of birth but also the protection of the Constitution and all the rights guaranteed to Filipinos.
2. Whether or not the President has power to bar a Filipino from his own country.
RULING:
The Court ruled that the President, upon whom executive power is vested, has unstated residual powers which are implied from the grant of executive power which are necessary for her to comply with her duties. One of the duties of the President under the Constitution is to protect and promote the interest and welfare of the people. The return of the Marcoses will cause destablilization and a threat to the government.
Dissenting Opinions:
Justice Cruz opined that Marcos return was not at all a threat to the national security and would not plunge the nation into paroxysms of grief.
Justice Paras argued that the former President, although already dead, was still entitled to certain rights.The alleged threats to national security, which can be easily controlled by the Armed Forces, were not yet proved. According to him, reconciliation can be swiftly attained if the return is granted and granting the petition may soften the hearts of the oppositionists ; paving the way for united citizenry.
Justice Padilla contended that the former President was a Filipino and, as such, entitled to return to, die and be buried in this country. Philippine democracy is built on the fundamental assumption that the Constitution and all its guarantees apply to all Filipinos, whatever he is as long as he is a Filipino. The right of Filipino to be buried in his country is part of a continuing right that starts from birth and ends only on the day he is finally laid to rest in his country.
Justice Sarmiento voted to grant reconsideration and pointed out that the President has no power to deny requests of Marcos relatives to bury the former President in his homeland as the President’s supposed “residual” power to forbid citizens from entering the Philippines can not be found on the Constitution, neither by direct grant or by implication. The threats to the government which may be caused by the return of the Marcoses is a mere conjecture and speculation.
