G.R. No. 88211
September 15, 1989
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.
FACTS:
On February 1986, President Ferdinand E Marcos was deposed from presidency via the non-violent “people power” revolution and forced in to exile together with his family members.
President Cory Aquino was declared President of the Republic of the Philippines under a revolutionary government but her government was not free from threats. There were the different coup attempts headed by either the loyalist of the former president like Col. Canlas, or by rebel soldiers like Gringo Honasan. The forces of the NPA had not been uprooted. They also pose a considerable threat to the government.
Moreover, the economy of the country is still devastated and the efforts for economic recovery have yet to show concrete results, while the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses has not been recovered.
Now, Mr. Marcos petition the court to return to the Philippines to die in his homeland. Considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when stability of the 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.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the President has the power under the Constitution to bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.
HELD:
The petition is DISMISSED. The President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of former President Marcos and his family at the present time and under present circumstances poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare.
The present Constitution limits resort to the political question doctrine and broadens the scope of judicial inquiry into areas which the Court, under previous constitutions, would have normally left to the political departments to decide. But nonetheless there remain issues beyond the Court's jurisdiction the determination of which is exclusively for the President, for Congress or for the people themselves through a plebiscite or referendum. We cannot, for example, question the President's recognition of a foreign government, no matter how premature or improvident such action may appear.
