FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R.

MARCOS, JR., IRENE M. ARANETA, IMEE MANOTOC, TOMAS

MANOTOC, GREGORIO ARANETA, PACIFICO E. MARCOS, NICANOR
YÑIGUEZ and PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION
(PHILCONSA), represented by its President, CONRADO F. ESTRELLA,
petitioners,

vs.

HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS, CATALINO MACARAIG, SEDFREY

ORDOÑEZ, MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, FIDEL RAMOS, RENATO
DE VILLA, in their capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Executive
Secretary, Secretary of Justice, Immigration Commissioner, Secretary of
National Defense and Chief of Staff, respectively,
respondents.

G.R. No. 88211 September 15, 1989

The Facts

In February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the
non-violent "people power" revolution and forced into exile. Now, Mr. Marcos, in
his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philipppines to die. But Mrs.
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 Mr. Marcos and his family.
The Issue

The issue is basically one of power: whether or not, in the exercise of the powers
granted by the Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning
to the Philippines.

Court Ruling

Yes. It would not be accurate to state that “executive power” is the power to enforce
the laws, for the President is head of state as well as head of government and
whatever powers inhere in such positions pertain to the office unless the Constitution
itself withholds it. Although the Constitution imposes limitations of the exercise of
specific powers* of the President, it maintains intact what is traditionally considered
as within the scope of “executive power.” Corollarily, the powers of the President
cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the
Constitution. Executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so
enumerated. More particularly, this case calls for the exercise of the President’s
powers as protector of the peace. The President is also tasked with xxx ensuring
domestic tranquility xxx. The demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the
Philippines xxx 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.
There exists factual basis for the President’s decision. The Court cannot xxx pretend
the country is not besieged from within xxx. xxx the catalytic effect of the return of
the Marcoses xxx may prove to be the proverbial final straw that would break the
camel’s back. With these before her, the President cannot be said to have acted
arbitrarily and capriciously xxx in determining that the return of the Marcoses poses
a serious threat to the national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return.

MARCOS V. MANGLAPUS DOCTRINE

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.
-It is the court's 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. 2of the Constitution.] -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".

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Petitioner,

vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN, MAJOR GENERAL JOSEPHUS Q. RAMAS and

ELIZABETH DIMAANO,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 104768

The Facts
The PCGG (Presidential Commission on Good Government) created an AFP Anti-
Graft Board tasked to scrutinize the reports of unexplained wealth and corrupt
practices by any AFP personnel (active or retired). The AFP Board investigated
various reports of alleged “ill-gotten” wealth of respondent Maj. Gen. Josephus
Ramas. Along with this, the Constabulary raiding team served a search and seizure
warrant on the premises of Ramas’ alleged mistress, Elizabeth Dimaano. The Board
then concluded that Ramas be prosecuted for violating the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act (RA 3019)” and “Forfeiture of unlawfully Acquired Property (RA
1379)”.
Thereafter, they filed a petition for forfeiture against him before the Sandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case on several grounds one of which is that there
was an illegal search and seizure of the items confiscated.
The Issues
1. Whether or not the PCGG has the authority to investigate Ramas and Dimaano
2. Whether or not the properties and other belongings confiscated in Dimaano’s
house were illegally seized which will consequently make it inadmissible
Held
The petition was dismissed. Even in the absence of a Constitution, the right against
unlawful seizure can be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Nevertheless, even during the
interregnum, the Filipino people under the Covenant and Declaration continued to
enjoy almost the same rights found in the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution. As
stated in Article 2(1) of the Convenant, the State is required “to respect and to ensure
to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights
recognized in the present Covenant.” Further, under Article 17(1) of the Covenant,
the revolutionary government had the duty to insure that “[n]o one else shall be
subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence.”
The Declaration also provides in its Article 17(2) that “[n]o one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his property.” The Court has taken into consideration the Declaration as
part of the generally accepted principles of international law and binding on the
State. Hence, the revolutionary government was also obligated under international
law to observe the rights of individuals under the Declaration, because it didn’t
repudiated either the Covenant or the Declaration during the interregnum.

The Doctrine
Though the Bill of Rights were inoperative during the Interregnum, the
Revolutionary Government still operated as a Government paying heed to treaty
obligations provided by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as
(ICCPR) as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The
Revolutionary Government, which was in fact a De Jure Government, assumed
under International Law, assumed responsibility for the compliance of the state with
Good Faith with the Covenant, to which the Philippines is a signatory and a part of.
Article 2(1) of the Covenant requires each signatory State "to respect and to ensure
to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights
recognized in the present Covenant." Under Article 17(1 and 2) of the Covenant, the
revolutionary government had the duty to insure that "no one shall be subjected to
arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence,
nor is he to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his property.”