G.R. No. 88211 October 27, 1989
FERDINAND E. MARCOS, et al., petitioners, vs. HON. RAUL MANGLAPUS, et al., respondents.

FACTS

This case arose from a Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Marcos family and associates, seeking to overturn the Court’s earlier decision which upheld President Corazon Aquino’s authority to bar their return to the Philippines. The original petition challenged the executive order prohibiting the return of former President Ferdinand Marcos and his family, arguing it violated their constitutional right to return to their country. The Court, in a divided vote, initially dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the President’s determination that their return posed a threat to national interest.
A supervening event occurred when former President Marcos died in Honolulu on September 28, 1989. President Aquino subsequently declared that his remains would also not be allowed into the country. The petitioners, in their Motion for Reconsideration, argued that barring the return of the Marcos family and the remains of the former President constituted a denial of their inherent rights as citizens and that the President possessed no such arbitrary power. They prayed for the Court to order the issuance of travel documents for the family and to enjoin the implementation of the ban on the return of Marcos’s remains.

ISSUE

The core issue for reconsideration was whether the death of Ferdinand Marcos and the subsequent arguments presented compellingly altered the legal and factual basis of the Court’s original decision, thereby warranting a reversal and the allowance of the return of the Marcos family and his remains.

RULING

The Court En Banc denied the Motion for Reconsideration. It held that the petitioners failed to discharge their burden of showing compelling reasons to overturn the original decision. The Court reasoned that the death of Mr. Marcos, while a supervening event, did not materially change the factual scenario underpinning its ruling. The perceived threats to national security and public order, which the return of the Marcoses was deemed to catalyze, were found not to have ceased. The Court noted that statements made by Mrs. Imelda Marcos, which included challenging the legitimacy of the Aquino presidency, reinforced rather than dispelled the government’s apprehensions regarding potential destabilization.
On the legal question of executive power, the Court reaffirmed its stance that the President possesses unstated residual powers implied from the constitutional grant of executive power, necessary to fulfill her duty to protect public safety and national welfare. This power is not strictly limited to those expressly enumerated in the Constitution. The Court cited comparative jurisprudence, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Myers v. United States, to support the principle that executive power can flow from general grants, interpreted in conformity with the Constitution’s broader framework. Consequently, the President’s exercise of this residual power to bar return, based on a factual determination of a clear and present danger to the state, was sustained as a valid act within her constitutional mandate and not a grave abuse of discretion. The prohibition on the return of the remains was upheld as part of this continuing executive prerogative to safeguard national interest.