Marcos vs Manglapus
Download Marcos vs Manglapus...
MARCOS vs. MANGLAPUS (Sept. 15, 1989) Petitioners: Ferdinand Marcos, Imelda Marcos, Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., Irene Araneta, Imee Manotoc, Tomas Manotoc, Gregorio Araneta, Pacifico Marcos, Nicanor Yñiguez & PHILCONSA Respondents: Hon. Raul Manglapus (DFA Sec.), Catalino Macaraig (Exec. Sec.), Sedfrey Ordoñez (DOJ Sec.), Miriam Defensor-Santiago (Immigration Commissioner), Fidel Ramos (DND Sec.), Renato de Villa (Chief of Staff) Substantive Facts: Feb. 1986 – Marcos was deposed from presidency by means of the People Power. He was forced into exile in Hawaii. After 3 years, Marcos, now dying, prays that he and his family be allowed to return to the country. Aquino – barred Marcoses from returning due to possible threats & following supervening events: 1. failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by Marcos leaders 2. channel 7 taken over by rebels & loyalists 3. plan of Marcoses to return w/ mercenaries aboard a chartered plane of a Lebanese arms dealer *proof that they can stir trouble from afar & fanaticism & blind loyalty of followers 4. Honasan’s failed coup 5. Communist insurgency movements 6. secessionist movements in Mindanao (setting up own gov’t w/aim to overthrow current gov’t thru arms or propaganda 7. devastated economy due to a. accumulated foreign debt b. plunder of nation by Marcos & cronies Procedural Facts (Petitioners): 1. Filed a petition for mandamus & prohibition to order respondents to issue them travel documents & prevent implementation of President’s decision to bar Marcoses from returning. 2. They question: a. President’s power to bar return of Marcoses. They ask if such is a political question. b. President’s claim that such decisions may be made in the interest of national security, public safety and health. Questions: a)clear & present danger b) was due process observed c) were petitioners notified d) was there proper hearing of the case e) were petitioners notified of the decision. They ask if such is a political question & if such fact has been established. c. President’s capacity to bar return of Marcoses. They claim that she acts outside/in excess of her jurisdiction. 3. Petitioners claim that: a. Such act deprives them of their rt. To life, liberty, property w/o due process & equal protection of the laws. b. Such act deprives them of their right to travel w/c according to law (Consti Bill of Rights, Sec. 6) may only be impaired by a court order
Even international laws provide for their right to return: a) rt to leave any country including one’s own country & return to his country (Universal Declaration of Human Rights Art. 13) and b) rt to liberty, mov’t & freedom to choose residence, free to leave any country including is own not subj to restrictions except if necessary to protect nat’l security, pub order/health/morals and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of rt to enter own country (International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights) Procedural Facts (Respondents): 1. This is a political question w/c includes the State’s rt. To security & safety, a question which only the President can determine. 2. Consider the supervening events w/c can endanger national security & public safety . 3. Art II, Consti: State has the duty to maintain peace & order & protect rts of everyone & promote gen. welfare so everyone can enjoy democracy. 4. International precedents: Trujillo of Dominican Rep., Somoza Jr. of Nicaragua, etc. are among deposed dictators banned from returning to their countries Issues: 1. WON the right to travel is similar to the right to return to one’s country. 2. WON it is w/in the President’s power to ban deposed dictators from returning to the country. 3. WON the President in banning the deposed dictator from returning is acting with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Reasoning: 1. NO. a. International laws cited distinguish right to freedom of mov’t & residence from rt. To leave any country including his own & to return to his country. b. Right to return to one’s country is not vested in the constitution but it’s only incorporated by virtue of the constitution’s adoption of international laws as part of the laws of the land (Art II, Sec. 2) 2. YES. a. Separation of power dictates that each department has exclusive powers. b. Though the constitution outlines tasks of the president, this list is not defined & exclusive. She has residual & discretionary powers not stated in the Consti w/c include the power to protect the general welfare of the people. She is obliged to protect the people, promote their welfare & advance national interest. (Art. II, Sec. 4-5 of the Consti). Residual powers dictate that the President can do anything w/c is not forbidden in the Consti (Roosevelt), inevitable to vest discretionary powers on the President (Hyman, American President) and that the president has to maintain peace during times of emergency but also on the day-to-day operation of the State. c. Any power not vested on the judicial and legislative bodies belong to the executive. (Springer vs. Gov’t of the Philippine Islands) d. Consider the fact that who is president affects & shapes the presidency. e. It’s a folly to limit governmental powers to what is in the Constitution. (Holmes Dissent) f. The rights Marcoses are invoking are not absolute. They’re flexible depending on the circumstances. TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A Marcos vs. Manglapus 1
Congress has recognized the President’s power by coming up with a resolution to urge Aquino to allow Marcoses to return. The Constitution is a social contract between the sovereign who surrenders its powers to the chosen rulers for the common good.
NO. a. Factual bases – supervening events based on interviews w/AFP Chief of Staff & National Security Adviser. b. The President must take preemptive measures for the self-preservation of the country & protection of the people. She has to uphold the Constitution. Holding: President did not act arbitrarily or w/gadalej in barring Marcoses from returning to the country. Their return, considering present time & circumstances, would pose as a serious threat to national interest & welfare. Petition dismissed. Fernan, Concurring 1. The president’s power is not fixed. Limits would depend on the imperatives of events and not on abstract theories of law. We are undergoing a critical time and the current problem can only be answerable by the President. 2. Threat is real. Return of the Marcoses would pose a clear & present danger. Thus, it’s the executive’s responsibility & obligation to prevent a grave & serious threat to its safety from arising. 3. We can’t sacrifice public peace, order, safety & our political & economic gains to give in to Marcos’ wish to die in the country. Compassion must give way to the other state interests. Gutierrez, Dissenting 1. The issue here is one of rights & not of powers. Bill of rights must be applied equally to everyone including rulers & people. The right to travel & abode may only be impaired by a COURT ORDER and not an Executive Order such as what the President has done. And it can only be impaired in the interest of national security, public safety & public health or as may be provided by law. No proof of such. We can’t interpret the Constitution for one person only. 2. No proof of grave threat/danger. The military has been able to quell previous attacks. 3. It is not a political question. For such to exist, the Consti must provide that the power is vested exclusively in the President or Congress, prohibiting the courts to examine exercise of the power. Respondents failed to point out a Consti provision granting the President power to decide such questions. Closest provision would be commander-in-chief clause but there’s no rebellion or need to suspend writ of habeas corpus. Hardcore loyalists are few in number. 4. GADALEJ is determined by evidence. However, when president presents evidence, court is in no position to disprove them and it seems as if the executive dept participates in the decision-making process or executive itself judges the suit (Morales vs. Enrile). Another option would be to avail of judicial notice. Supervening events however are unrelated to the Marcoses. Disturbances are caused not by Marcos followers but by NPA. President has failed to pronounce that Marcos’ return would create a clear & present danger to the security & public safety. Reasons cited (nat’l welfare & interest, preserve gains of recovery & stability) are too generic & sweeping. Even military has expressed its capacity to quell opposing groups & that it’s on top of the situation.
It is Marcos’ constitutional right to be allowed to return home w/c is similar to rts to go abroad or move around the country. Rt to return home is the most impt among these rts. 6. If the President’s fears would happen once Marcos is allowed to return, President can act by arresting & trying him in court but no sense denying him his right to return. 7. Allow Marcos to return out of tradition & custom and in the interest of national unity & reconciliation. Cruz, Dissenting 1. As a citizen of this country, it is Marcos’ right to return, live & die in his own country. It is a right guaranteed by the Consti to all individuals, whether patriot, homesick, prodigal, tyrant, etc. 2. Military representatives failed to show that Marcos’ return would pose a threat to national security. Fears were mere conjectures. 3. Residual powers – but the executive’s powers were outlined to limit her powers & not expand. Paras, Dissenting 1. AFP has failed to prove danger which would allow State to impair Marcos’ right to return to the Philippines. . 2. Family can be put under house arrest & in the event that one dies, he/she should be buried w/in 10 days. Padilla, Dissenting 1. Untenable that without a legislation, right to travel is absolute & state is powerless to restrict it. It’s w/in police power of the state to restrict this right if national security, public safety/health demands that such be restricted. It can’t be absolute & unlimited all the time. It can’t be arbitrary & irrational. 2. No proof that Marcos’ return would endanger national security or public safety. Fears are speculative & military admits that it’s under control. Filipinos would know how to handle Marcos’ return. Sarmiento, Dissenting 1. Consti and international law do not distinguish between rights…only one right is involved, right to travel w/in one’s country or another & right to return. 2. Residual powers of the president must yield to the primacy of the bill of rights especially if it has not been proven why the president’s exercise of her residual powers should override the mandate of the fundamental law. Only 2 exceptions are created in impairing one’s right to travel: by statute or judicial mandate. If presidential initiative was an option, it should have been included in the Consti. As a matter of fact, present Consti has divested the Executive of that implied power to impair rights…it should always be w/in the limits of the law. 3. President’s determination that Marcos’ return would threaten national security should be agreed upon by the court. Such threat must be clear & present. MARCOS vs. MANGLAPUS II (October 27, 1989) Substantive Facts: Sept. 28, 1989 – Marcos died in Honolulu Aquino statement – remains of Marcos will not be allowed to be brought to the country in the interest of safety of those who will react conflictingly to the death of TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A Marcos vs. Manglapus 2
Marcos and for tranquility of state & order of society. This will hold until government, whether present or succeeding, decides otherwise. Petitioners Procedural Facts: 1. pray that necessary travel documents be issued to them 2. pray that respondents be enjoined from implementing Aquino’s decision to bar return of Marcos’ remain 3. MFR filed Oct. 2, 1989 w/following arguments: a. barring their return would deny them their inherent right as citizens to return to their country of birth & all other rights guaranteed by the Consti to all Filipinos b. President has no power to bar a Filipino from his own country, if she has, she acted arbitrarily c. No basis for barring their return Respondents Procedural Facts: 1. MFR is moot & academic as to deceased Marcos 2. Formal rights they’re invoking, right to return = right to destabilize the country, hide their efforts to destabilize Issue: WON Marcos’ should be allowed to return to the country - NO Reasoning: 1. Petitioners failed to show any compelling reason to warrant reconsideration. 2. Factual scenario during the time Court rendered its decision has not changed. Threats are still there. Imelda even made a comment about Marcos being the legal president. 3. President has unstated residual powers implied from grant of executive power. Enumerations are merely for specifying principal articles implied in the definition; leaving the rest to flow from general grant that power, interpreted in conformity w/other parts of the Consti (Hamilton). Executive unlike Congress can exercise power from sources not enumerates so long as not forbidden by consti’l text (Myers vs. US). This does not amount to dictatorship. Amendment No. 6 expressly granted Marcos power of legislation whereas 1987 Consti granted Aquino w/implied powers. 4. It is w/in Aquino’s power to protect & promote interest & welfare of the people. She bound to comply w/ that duty and there is no proof that she acted arbitrarily or w/gadalej. Holding: Motion denied for lack of merit.
Padilla, Dissenting 1. We have denied him his right to return & die in his country, let’s not deny him his rt to be buried here. We can’t apply Consti selectively, it should apply to all Filipinos whether dictator, pauper, learned, ignorant, religious, etc. All Filipinos have the constitutional right to be buried in his country. Government can lay down conditions if it pleases but it should recognize rt. We can’t abandon our ageless & finest tradition of respect & deference to the dead. 2. Respondents have yet to present hard evidence to prove alleged threats. All they can give are general conclusions. Live Marcos did not pose serious threat, why should a dead one be any worse? There might be a graver threat if we deprive him of his rt to be buried here. Sarmiento, Dissenting 1. Still no proof of residual powers of the president whether implied / expressly granted. See first dissent re presidential initiative etc. 2. Bill of Rights limits legislative & presidential intrusion on individual liberties. 3. Threats are conjectures, speculations & imaginations. No hard evidence. Military said they are on top of the situation & even President has expressed stability of the nation.
Cruz, Dissenting No extraordinary reaction from so-called loyalists. There was only a display of passing interest, if not outright indifference. Feeble threat has died with him. His death has reduced him to a non-person as State has admitted, no reason to be scared of him. He’s just a cadaver waiting to be interred in his country. We have bigger problems. Paras, Dissenting 1. dead still has rights – libel vs. deceased, etc. His widow & family have rights too. 2. threats are still unproven & unpersuasive. Chaos might arise if we bar him from returning. 3. Return might mean reconciliation. 4. World will applaud our act of mercy. TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A Marcos vs. Manglapus 3