Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 168 views

    Marcos vs. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668, September 15, 1989 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ella Kriziana Cruz
    1) After being deposed from the presidency in 1986, former President Marcos requested to return to the Philippines while on his deathbed. However, current President Aquino rejected this request due to concerns over threats to national security, public safety, and public health from Marcos supporters still engaged in coup attempts and from ongoing communist and separatist insurgencies. 2) The issue is whether President Aquino's rejection of Marcos's request to return violates his constitutional right to travel and liberty of abode. 3) The court ruled that the right to return is not specifically guaranteed, and the president has broad discretion to determine whether such requests should be granted or denied in order to safeguard public welfare

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Marcos vs. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668, September 15, 1989 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ella Kriziana Cruz
    168 views2 pages
    1) After being deposed from the presidency in 1986, former President Marcos requested to return to the Philippines while on his deathbed. However, current President Aquino rejected this request due to concerns over threats to national security, public safety, and public health from Marcos supporters still engaged in coup attempts and from ongoing communist and separatist insurgencies. 2) The issue is whether President Aquino's rejection of Marcos's request to return violates his constitutional right to travel and liberty of abode. 3) The court ruled that the right to return is not specifically guaranteed, and the president has broad discretion to determine whether such requests should be granted or denied in order to safeguard public welfare

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) After being deposed from the presidency in 1986, former President Marcos requested to return to the Philippines while on his deathbed. However, current President Aquino rejected this request due to concerns over threats to national security, public safety, and public health from Marcos supporters still engaged in coup attempts and from ongoing communist and separatist insurgencies. 2) The issue is whether President Aquino's rejection of Marcos's request to return violates his constitutional right to travel and liberty of abode. 3) The court ruled that the right to return is not specifically guaranteed, and the president has broad discretion to determine whether such requests should be granted or denied in order to safeguard public welfare

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    168 views2 pages

    Marcos vs. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668, September 15, 1989 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ella Kriziana Cruz
    1) After being deposed from the presidency in 1986, former President Marcos requested to return to the Philippines while on his deathbed. However, current President Aquino rejected this request due to concerns over threats to national security, public safety, and public health from Marcos supporters still engaged in coup attempts and from ongoing communist and separatist insurgencies. 2) The issue is whether President Aquino's rejection of Marcos's request to return violates his constitutional right to travel and liberty of abode. 3) The court ruled that the right to return is not specifically guaranteed, and the president has broad discretion to determine whether such requests should be granted or denied in order to safeguard public welfare

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Marcos vs.

    Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668, September 15, 1989

    Facts:

    Considering the history, where the dictatorship had prevailed over


    democracy, the rampant silencing of those who opposed the Marcos
    administration, a new hope sprouted in February 1986 when Ferdinand E.
    Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent “people
    power” revolution and forced into exile. However, after late President
    Aquino took over the position, Marcos supporters was still engaging
    coup. Thus, his overthrow from being presidency did not stop bloody
    challenges to the government. The record shows that the armed threats to
    the Government were not only found in misguided elements in the
    military establishment and among rabid followers of Mr. Marcos. There
    were also the communist insurgency and the secessionist 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
    in the areas they effectively control while the separatists are virtually free
    to move about in armed bands.

    In his deathbed, Marcos signified his wish to return to the Philippines


    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 in the interest of national security, public safety or public
    health.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the rejection of late President Aquino of the late President
    Marcos request to return to our country violates Sec. 6 of the Article III
    of the Constitution.

    Ruling:

    No. 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. 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 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.

    You might also like