Marcos VS.

Manglapus
G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989 (Part 1)

Facts:
Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent
“people power” revolution and was forced into exile. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to
return to the Philippines to die. But President Corazon Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the
nation of his return at a time when the stability of government is threatened from various directions and
the economy is just beginning to rise and move forward, has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return
of Marcos and his family.

Aquino barred Marcos 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.
This is to prove that they can stir trouble from afar
4. Honasan’s failed coup
5. Communist insurgency movements
6. secessionist movements in Mindanao
7. devastated economy because of accumulated foreign debt
8. plunder of nation by Marcos & cronies

Marcos filed for a petition of mandamus and prohibition to order the respondents to issue them their
travel documents and prevent the implementation of President Aquino’s decision to bar Marcos from
returning in the Philippines. Petitioner questions Aquino’s power to bar his return in the country. He also
questioned the claim of the President that the decision was made in the interest of national security,
public safety and health. Petitioner also claimed that the President acted outside her jurisdiction.
According to the Marcoses, such act deprives them of their right to life, liberty, property without due
process and equal protection of the laws. They also said that it deprives them of their right to travel which
according to Section 6, Article 3 of the constitution, may only be impaired by a court order.

Issue:

1. Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the
President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.
2. Whether or not the the liberty of abode and the right to travel is violated?

Ruling:
1. Yes. The President has the power under the Constitution to bar the Marcoses from returning
has been recognized by members of the Legislature, and is manifested by the Resolution proposed in the
House of Representatives and signed by 103 of its members urging the President to allow Mr. Marcos to
return to the Philippines “as a genuine unselfish gesture for true national reconciliation and as irrevocable
proof of our collective adherence to uncompromising respect for human rights under the Constitution and
our laws.” [House Resolution No. 1342, Rollo, p. 321.] The Resolution does not question the President’s
power to bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines, rather, it appeals to the President’s sense of
compassion to allow a man to come home to die in his country. What we are saying in effect is that the
request or demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines cannot be considered in the
light solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel, subject to

1
certain exceptions, or of case law which clearly never contemplated situations even remotely similar to
the present one. It must be treated as a matter that is appropriately addressed to those residual unstated
powers of the President which are implicit in and correlative to the paramount duty residing in that office
to safeguard and protect general welfare. In that context, such request or demand should submit to the
exercise of a broader discretion on the part of the President to determine whether it must be granted or
denied.

2. No. The right to return to one’s country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the
Bill of Rights, which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is our well considered
view that the right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of international law and,
under our Constitution, is part of the law of the land [Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution]. However, it is
distinct and separate from the right to travel and enjoys a different protection under the International
Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, i.e.,against being “arbitrarily deprived” thereof [Art. 12 (4)].

G.R. No. 88211, October 27, 1989

Marcos, VS. Manglapus, (Part 2)

Facts:
In its decision dated September 15, 1989, the Court by a vote of eight to seven, dismissed the
petition, after finding that the President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in
determining that the return of former President Marcos and his family pose a threat to national interest
and welfare and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines. On September 28, 1989, Marcos died in
Honolulu, Hawaii.
President Corazon Aquino issued a statement saying that in the interest of the safety of those
who will take the death of Marcos in widely and passionately conflicting ways, and for the tranquility and
order of the state and society, she did not allow the remains of Marcos to be brought back in the
Philippines.

A motion for Reconsideration was filed by the petitioners raising the following arguments:

1. Barring their return would deny them their inherent right as citizens to return to their country of
birth and all other rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all Filipinos.
2. The President has no power to bar a Filipino from his own country; if she has, she had exercised
it arbitrarily.
3. There is no basis for barring the return of the family of former President Marcos.

Issue:
Whether or not the motion for reconsideration that the Marcoses be allowed to return in the
Philippines be granted.
Ruling:
No. Motion for Reconsideration denied because of lack of merit.

1. Petitioners failed to show any compelling reason to warrant reconsideration.

2. Factual scenario during the time Court rendered its decision has not changed. The threats to the
government, to which the return of the Marcoses has been viewed to provide a catalytic effect, have
not been shown to have ceased. Imelda Marcos also called President Aquino “illegal” claiming that it
is Ferdinand Marcos who is the legal president.

2
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 with other parts of the Constitution (Hamilton). Executive
unlike Congress can exercise power from sources not enumerates so long as not forbidden by
constitutional text (Myers vs. US). This does not amount to dictatorship. Amendment No. 6 expressly
granted Marcos power of legislation whereas 1987 Constitution granted Aquino with implied powers.
4. It is within 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

Aquino vs. Comelec

Sept, 18, 1995

Facts:

On 20 March 1995, Agapito A. Aquino, the petitioner, filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the
position of Representative for the new Second Legislative District of Makati City. In his certificate of
candidacy, Aquino stated that he was a resident of the aforementioned district (284 Amapola Cor. Adalla
Sts., Palm Village, Makati) for 10 months. Move Makati, a registered political party, and Mateo Bedon,
Chairman of LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP of Barangay Cembo, Makati City, filed a petition to disqualify Aquino
on the ground that the latter lacked the residence qualification as a candidate for congressman which
under Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, should be for a period not less than one year
preceding the (May 8, 1995) day of the election.

Faced with a petition for disqualification, Aquino amended the entry on his residency in his
certificate of candidacy to 1 year and 13 days. The Commission on Elections passed a resolution that
dismissed the petition on May 6 and allowed Aquino to run in the election of 8 May. Aquino, with 38,547
votes, won against Augusto Syjuco with 35,910 votes.

Move Makati filed a motion of reconsideration with the Comelec, to which, on May 15, the latter
acted with an order suspending the proclamation of Aquino until the Commission resolved the issue. On 2
June, the Commission on Elections found Aquino ineligible and disqualified for the elective office for lack
of constitutional qualification of residence. Aquino then filed a Petition of Certiorari assailing the May 15
and June 2 orders.

Issue:

Whether or not it is proven that Aquino has established domicile of choice and not just residence
in the district he was running in.

Ruling:

No. Aquino has not established domicile of choice in the district he was running in. The Court with
COMELEC’s contention that in order that petitioner could qualify as a candidate for Representative of the
Second District of Makati City the latter “must prove that he has established not just residence but
domicile of choice.” The Constitution requires that a person seeking election to the House of
Representatives should be a resident of the district in which he seeks election for a period of not less than
one (1) year prior to the elections. Residence, for election law purposes, has a settled meaning in our
jurisdiction.

Clearly, the place “where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home,” where he, no
matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain, i.e., his

3
domicile, is that to which the Constitution refers when it speaks of residence for the purposes of election
law. The manifest purpose of this deviation from the usual conceptions of residency in law as explained in
Gallego vs. Vera is “to exclude strangers or newcomers unfamiliar with the conditions and needs of the
community” from taking advantage of favorable circumstances existing in that community for electoral
gain.

Moreover, his assertion that he has transferred his domicile from Tarlac to Makati is a bare assertion
which is hardly supported by the facts in the case at bench. Domicile of origin is not easily lost. To
successfully effect a change of domicile, petitioner must prove an actual removal or an actual change of
domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one
and definite acts which correspond with the purpose. These requirements are hardly met by the evidence
adduced in support of petitioner’s claims of a change of domicile from Tarlac to the Second District of
Makati. In the absence of clear and positive proof, the domicile of origin should be deemed to continue.