Case Digest: Marcos vs. Manglapus – 177 SCRA 668
Liberty of Abode | Constitutional Law
Facts:
Ferdinand E. Marcos, who was deposed from the presidency in 1986 and forced into exile. Corazon C. Aquino became the President under a revolutionary government.
The country faced economic devastation due to accumulated foreign debt and alleged plunder by Marcos and his cronies. Efforts at economic recovery and the recovery of ill-gotten wealth have been challenging. Now, with Marcos on his deathbed, he wishes to return to the Philippines, but Aquino opposes it due to the potential consequences for national stability and the fragile economy.
The petition seeks a mandamus and prohibition to order the issuance of travel documents to Marcos and his family and to prevent the implementation of Aquino's decision to bar their return.
Issue:
WoN in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.
Held:
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.
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 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.