G.R. No. 88211 September 15, 1989
FERDINAND E. MARCOS, et al., petitioners, vs. HON. RAUL MANGLAPUS, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The case arose from the decision of President Corazon C. Aquino to bar former President Ferdinand E. Marcos and his immediate family from returning to the Philippines. Marcos, who was deposed in 1986 and living in exile, expressed a wish to return to die in his homeland. The petitioners, including Marcos, his family, and the Philippine Constitution Association, filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition. They sought to compel the respondents, various executive officials, to issue travel documents and to enjoin the enforcement of the President’s ban. The petitioners anchored their claim on the constitutional right to travel and the liberty of abode, arguing that the executive branch acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in imposing the prohibition.
The respondents, representing the executive department, justified the ban as a necessary exercise of the President’s residual powers to protect national security and public safety. They presented a context of severe national instability: ongoing communist insurgency and secessionist movements, repeated coup attempts by elements loyal to Marcos (such as the 1986 Manila Hotel coup and the 1987 Honasan-led coup), a fragile economic recovery from the Marcos-era plunder, and the persistent threat of destabilization from Marcos loyalists. The government argued that Marcos’s return would exacerbate these threats and constitute a clear and present danger to the state.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether the President of the Philippines has the power to prohibit the return of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos and his family to the country.

RULING

The Supreme Court, voting 8-7, dismissed the petition and upheld the President’s authority to bar the Marcoses’ return. The Court ruled that the issue was not a political question beyond judicial review, as it involved the constitutional limits of executive power versus individual rights. The Court acknowledged that the right to travel and liberty of abode, as guaranteed under Section 6, Article III of the Constitution , are not absolute and may be impaired in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health.
The legal logic centered on the scope of presidential power. The Court held that the President’s powers are not limited to those expressly enumerated in the Constitution. In times of grave national peril, the Chief Executive possesses residual or “implied” powers necessary to carry out the core executive function of ensuring the survival of the state and the government. The government successfully demonstrated that the nation faced a clear and present danger from persistent armed threats and political instability. Marcos’s return was rationally viewed as a catalyst that could reignite violence and overthrow attempts by his loyalists, thereby threatening the very existence of the republican government. The exercise of this power was subject to judicial review, and the Court found a factual basis for the President’s determination. Consequently, the ban was a valid and prudent exercise of executive power to protect the paramount interests of national security and public safety, which justified the temporary impairment of the Marcoses’ individual rights.