Marcos Vs.

Manglapus Case Digest

Marcos Vs. Manglapus
177 SCRA 668
G.R. No. 88211
September 15, 1989
Facts: This case involves a petition of mandamus and prohibition asking the court to order the
respondents Secretary of Foreign Affairs, etc. To issue a travel documents to former Pres. 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. Petitioners assert that the right of the Marcoses to
return in the Philippines is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, specifically Sections 1 and 6. They
contended that Pres. Aquino 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 the President impair their right to
travel because no law has authorized her to do so.
They further assert that under international law, their right to return to the Philippines is guaranteed
particularly by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, which has been ratified by the Philippines.
Issue: Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the constitution, the President
(Aquino) may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.
Held: "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 in this case at bar is the right to return to one's
country, a distinct right under international law, independent from although related to the right to
travel. Thus, the Universal Declaration of Human 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 the country, and the right to enter one's country as separate and distinct rights. What
the Declaration speaks of is the "right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of
each state". On the other hand, the Covenant guarantees the right to liberty of movement and
freedom to choose his residence and the right to be free to leave any country, including his own.
Such rights may only be restricted by laws protecting the national security, public order, public health
or morals or the separate rights of others. However, right to enter one's country cannot be arbitrarily
deprived. It would be therefore inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right to return to ones
country in the same context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to travel.
The Bill of rights treats only the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is a well considered view
that the right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of International Law and
under our Constitution as part of the law of the land.
The court held that President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining
that the return of the Former Pres. Marcos and his family poses a serious threat to national interest
and welfare. President Aquino has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the
Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years after the Marcos regime.
The return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat and therefore prohibiting their return to the
Philippines, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.