Marcos et al v Manglapus et al

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/7/2019 Marcos et al v Manglapus et al

    1/2

    MARCOS ET AL. v. MANGLAPUS ET AL.

    FACTS: In its decision dated September 15,1989, the Court, by a vote of 8

    to 7, dismissed the petition, after finding that the President didnot act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determiningthat the return of former President Marcos and his family.

    On September 28, 1989, former President Marcos died inHonolulu, Hawaii. In a statement, President Aquino said: In theinterest of the safety of those who will take the death of Mr.Marcos in widely and passionately conflicting ways, and for thetranquility of the state and order of society, the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos will not be allowed to be brought to ourcountry until such time as the government, be it under thisadministration or the succeeding one, shall otherwise decide.

    On October 2, 1989, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed bypetitioners, raising the following major arguments:1. to bar is todeny them not only the inherent right of citizens to return to their

    country of birth but also the protection of the Constitution;2. thePresident has no power to bar a Filipino from his own country; if she has, she had exercised it arbitrarily; and 3. there is no basisfor barring the return of the family of former President Marcos.

    The Solicitor General argued that the motion for reconsideration ismoot and academic as to the deceased Mr. Marcos. Moreover, heasserts that "the 'formal' rights being invoked by the Marcosesunder the label 'right to return', including the label 'return of Marcos' remains, is in reality or substance a 'right' to destabilizethe country, a 'right' to hide the Marcoses' incessant shadowyorchestrated efforts at destabilization." Thus, he prays that theMotion for Reconsideration be denied.

    Petitioners prayed that the Court reconsider its decision, orderrespondents to issue the necessary travel documents and enjoinrespondents from implementing President Aquino's decision to barthe return of the remains of Mr. Marcos, and the other petitioners,to the Philippines.

    ISSUE(S)/HELD:Whether the President has the power to bar the return of theMarcoses and subsequently the remains of Mr. Marcos? YES.

    RATIO: Contrary to petitioners' view, it cannot be denied that the

    President, upon whom executive power is vested, hasunstated residual powers which are implied from the grantof executive power and which are necessary for her tocomply with her duties under the Constitution. The powers of the President are not limited to what are expressly enumerated inthe article on the Executive Department and in scatteredprovisions of the Constitution. This is so, notwithstanding theavowed intent of the members of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 to limit the powers of the President as a reaction to theabuses under the regime of Mr. Marcos, for the result was alimitation of specific power of the President, particularly thoserelating to the commander-in-chief clause, but not a diminution of the general grant of executive power.

    And neither can we subscribe to the view that a recognition of thePresident's implied or residual powers is tantamount to setting thestage for another dictatorship. Despite petitioners' strainedanalogy, the residual powers of the President under theConstitution should not be confused with the power of the

    President under the 1973 Constitution.

    The death of Mr. Marcos, although it may be viewed as asupervening event, has not changed the factual scenario underwhich the Court's decision was rendered. The threats to thegovernment, to which the return of the Marcoses has been viewedto provide a catalytic effect, have not been shown to have ceased.On the contrary, instead of erasing fears as to the destabilizationthat will be caused by the return of the Marcoses, Mrs. Marcosreinforced the basis for the decision to bar their return when shecalled President Aquino "illegal," claiming that it is Mr. Marcos, notMrs. Aquino, who is the "legal" President of the Philippines, anddeclared that the matter "should be brought to all the courts of the world."

    Among the duties of the President under the Constitution,in compliance with his (or her) oath of office, is to protectand promote the interest and welfare of the people. Herdecision to bar the return of the Marcoses andsubsequently, the remains of Mr. Marcos at the presenttime and under present circumstances is in compliancewith this bounden duty. In the absence of a clear showing thatshe had acted with arbitrariness or with grave abuse of discretionin arriving at this decision, the Court will not enjoin theimplementation of this decision.

    Nadine Teston BalanConstitutional LawPowers of the President

  • 8/7/2019 Marcos et al v Manglapus et al

    2/2

    No discussion on RTC, and CA.SC: respondents

    Nadine Teston BalanConstitutional LawPowers of the President