Constitutionality of Banning Presidential Returns: Marcos et al v Manglapus, GR 88211, Sep 15, 1989
Summary
TLDRThe video explores the legal dispute over whether former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos and his family could return to the Philippines after being exiled in 1986. It discusses the Supreme Court's two-tiered approach, considering the president's constitutional powers and the potential threat to national security posed by the Marcoses' return. The court initially dismissed the petition due to national interest concerns but later ruled in favor of Marcos's right to return, citing generic government reasons as insufficient. The video highlights the balance between individual rights and the state's duty to protect its citizens, emphasizing the importance of upholding human rights and due process.
Takeaways
- 🏛️ The case revolves around the constitutionality of barring former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos and his family from returning to the Philippines post-exile.
- 📜 Petitioners argue for the Marcos family's right to return, citing constitutional rights to liberty of abode and travel.
- 🛂 Respondents claim the president's authority to prohibit their return based on national security and public safety considerations.
- 🌍 The right to return is recognized under international law as distinct from the right to travel, which is not explicitly guaranteed in the Philippine Bill of Rights.
- ⚖️ The Supreme Court of the Philippines initially dismissed the petition, citing potential threats to national interest and welfare posed by the Marcos family's return.
- 🏢 The Court acknowledged the executive's crisis powers and considered various destabilizing incidents that could be emboldened by the Marcos family's return.
- 🔄 In a subsequent ruling, the Supreme Court found that Ferdinand Marcos has the constitutional right to return, as the government's reasons for the ban were deemed too generic.
- 🏢 The Court rejected the government's argument regarding the lack of a congressional statute defining the right to travel and to freely choose one's abode.
- 🤔 The case highlights the balance between individual rights and the state's duty to protect its citizens, particularly in the context of executive power.
- 🏆 The final decision to allow Marcos to return underscores the importance of individual rights and the limitations on executive power, despite potential implications for human rights.
Q & A
What was the controversy surrounding the Marcos family's return to the Philippines?
-The controversy was whether former Philippine president Ferdinand E. Marcos and his family had the right to return to the Philippines after being deposed and forced into exile in 1986, with arguments revolving around constitutional rights and national security concerns.
What are the constitutional rights cited by the petitioners in this case?
-The petitioners cited the constitutional rights to liberty of abode and travel, arguing that the president does not have the power to bar their return.
What was the respondents' argument against the Marcos family's return?
-The respondents argued that the issue involved a political question of national security and public safety, and that the president has the power to prohibit their return based on these concerns.
How does international law view the right to return to one's country?
-Under international law, the right to return to one's country is a distinct right, separate from the right to travel, and is considered a generally accepted principle.
What approach did the Supreme Court of the Philippines take to resolve the issue?
-The Supreme Court took a two-tiered approach: first determining the president's power under the Constitution, and then assessing whether the president acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion.
What were the main issues the Supreme Court considered in this case?
-The main issues were whether the president had the power to bar the Marcos family from returning, whether the president acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion, whether the issue was a political question, and whether there was a clear and present danger to national security and public safety.
What was the initial ruling of the Supreme Court regarding the Marcos family's return?
-The Supreme Court initially dismissed the petition seeking to allow the return of the Marcos family, citing the serious threat to national interest and welfare posed by their return.
What was the subsequent ruling by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on the Marcos family's right to return?
-In a subsequent ruling, the Supreme Court found that former president Ferdinand Marcos had the constitutional right to return to the Philippines, rejecting the government's reasons for the ban as too generic and sweeping.
What legal doctrines were applied in the case to balance individual rights and state duty?
-The case involved the balance between individual rights and the state's duty to protect its citizens, considering the president's executive power, the separation of powers, and the social contract theory where people surrender sovereign powers to the state for the common good.
What was the dissenting opinion's stance on the Marcos family's right to return?
-The dissenting opinion argued that the Bill of Rights must take precedence over the president's implied powers, stating that there was no evidence to suggest a threat to national security from the Marcos family's return, and emphasized the importance of upholding human rights and due process.
What was the final decision of the court regarding Marcos's return to the Philippines?
-The court ultimately granted the petition allowing Marcos to return to the Philippines, highlighting the importance of individual rights and limits on executive power.
Outlines
🏛️ Constitutional Rights and the Marcos Family's Return
The video script discusses a legal case concerning the return of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos and his family to the Philippines after their exile in 1986. The petitioners argue that the president lacks the authority to bar their return, citing constitutional rights to liberty of abode and travel. Respondents, however, claim that national security and public safety are at stake, justifying the president's power to prohibit their return. The Supreme Court of the Philippines initially dismissed the petition, citing a serious threat to national interests. However, in a subsequent ruling, the court found that the government's reasons for the ban were too broad and did not justify the denial of the constitutional right to return, thus allowing the Marcos family to return. The case highlights the balance between individual rights and the state's duty to protect its citizens, as well as the president's executive powers during times of crisis.
📜 Legal Doctrines and Human Rights Concerns
The second paragraph delves into the legal doctrines applied in the case, emphasizing the tension between individual rights and the state's responsibility to safeguard its citizens, particularly under the president's executive power. The Constitution delineates the separation of powers among the three branches of government, with the president holding executive authority. Despite limitations on the president's powers, the president is obliged to protect the people and promote their welfare. The court's role is to determine if there has been a grave abuse of discretion by any government branch. The majority opinion supports the president's power to deny travel rights for the general welfare, citing American precedent. In contrast, the dissenting opinion argues for the primacy of the Bill of Rights and the lack of evidence linking the Marcos family's return to a national security threat. The court's final decision to grant the petition and allow Marcos's return is viewed as a setback for human rights, emphasizing individual rights and limiting executive power.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Ferdinand E. Marcos
💡Exile
💡Constitutional Rights
💡National Security
💡Public Safety
💡Political Question
💡Grave Abuse of Discretion
💡Due Process
💡Mandate
💡Separation of Powers
💡Social Contract
Highlights
The case revolves around the right of the former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos and his family to return to the Philippines after being exiled in 1986.
Petitioners argue that the president does not have the power to bar their return, citing constitutional rights to liberty of abode and travel.
Respondents argue that the issue involves national security and public safety, and the president has the power to prohibit their return.
The right to return to one's country is distinct under international law and is part of the Philippine Constitution.
The Supreme Court takes a two-tiered approach to resolve the issue, examining the president's power and the potential abuse of discretion.
The court dismisses the petition for the Marcos family's return, citing a serious threat to national interest and welfare.
The court acknowledges the executive branch's power in times of crisis or national emergency.
The dissenting opinion argues that the indefinite suspension of the constitutional right to travel is unjustified.
In a subsequent ruling, the Supreme Court of the Philippines finds that Ferdinand Marcos has the constitutional right to return.
The government's reasons for the ban were deemed too generic and sweeping to deny a constitutional right.
The court rejects the argument that the failure of Congress to define the right to travel has constrained the president.
The case involves balancing individual rights with the state's duty to protect its citizens and the president's executive power.
The Constitution provides for a separation of powers with limitations on the president's specific powers.
The president has the obligation to protect the people and promote their welfare, advancing the national interest.
The dissenting opinion emphasizes the importance of upholding human rights and due process.
The court ultimately grants the petition allowing Marcos to return, emphasizing individual rights and limits on executive power.
The decision is seen as a setback for human rights in the country, highlighting the importance of individual rights.
Transcripts
another day another story with your
friendly AI lawyer facts the case
involves the controversy of whether
former Philippine president Ferdinand e
Marcos and his family have the right to
return to the Philippines after being
deposed from the presidency and forced
into Exile in 1986. petitioners argue
that the president does not have the
power to Bar their return citing
constitutional rights to Liberty of
Abode and travel the respondents argue
that the issue involves a political
question of National Security and Public
Safety and that the president has the
power to prohibit their return the right
to return to one's country is a distinct
right under international law separate
from the right to travel while the right
to travel is not specifically guaranteed
in the Bill of Rights the right to
return may be considered a generally
accepted principle of international law
and is part of the law of the land under
the Philippine Constitution the Supreme
Court takes a two-tiered approach to
resolve the issue first determining the
president's power under the Constitution
and then determining whether the
president acted arbitrarily or with of
abuse of discretion issues 1. whether
the president has the power to Bar the
marcosas from returning to the
Philippines 2. whether the president
acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of
discretion in barring the marcos's
return
3. whether the issue raised is a
political question
four whether there is a clear and
present danger to National Security and
Public Safety that would justify the ban
on the Marcos family's return 5. whether
the failure of Congress to enact a
statute defining the parameters of the
right to travel and to freely choose
ones Abode has constrained the president
to fill in a vacuum ruling the Supreme
Court dismisses the petition seeking to
allow the return of former Philippine
president Marcos and his family citing
the serious threat to National interest
and Welfare posed by their return the
court acknowledges the existence of
certain powers granted to the executive
branch in times of Crisis or National
Emergency and states that the power of
the president to allow or disallow the
marcos's return should be viewed in this
context the court also cites various
destabilizing incidents that occurred
after the people's Power Revolution
which could be emboldened by the
marcosa's return one Justice descents
arguing that the issue was one of Rights
and not power and that the indefinite
suspension of the constitutional right
to travel was not justified in a
subsequent ruling the Supreme Court of
the Philippines has ruled that former
president Ferdinand Marcos has the
constitutional right to return to the
Philippines despite the government's ban
on his return the court finds that the
government's reasons for the ban
including National Security and public
safety concerns were too generic and
sweeping to serve as grounds for the
denial of a constitutional right the
court also rejects the government's
argument that the failure of Congress to
enact a statute defining the parameters
of the right to travel and to freely
choose one's Abode has constrained the
president to fill in the vacuum
discussion on legal doctrines applied
the case involves the balance between
individual rights and the state's duty
to protect its citizens particularly in
the context of the president's executive
power the Constitution provides for a
separation of powers among the three
branches of government with the
executive power vested in the president
while the Constitution imposes
limitations on the exercise of specific
powers of the president it maintains
what is traditionally considered within
the scope of executive power the
president of the Republic of the
Philippines must consider Prince of such
as service and protection of the people
maintenance of peace and Order
protection of life liberty and property
and promotion of the general welfare
when making decisions the president has
the obligation to protect the people
promote their welfare and Advance the
national interest the Constitution is a
social contract whereby the people have
surrendered their sovereign powers to
the state for the common good the
president has the power to Bar the
marcosas from returning to the
Philippines if it is in the National
interest the right to return to one's
country is a distinct right under
international law separate from the
right to travel while the right to
travel is not specifically guaranteed in
the Bill of Rights the right to return
may be considered a generally accepted
principle of international law and is
part of the law of the land under the
Philippine Constitution the court has
the duty to determine whether there has
been a grave abuse of discretion on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of
the government
the president cannot shirk from the
responsibility of protecting the people
and preserving the state the majority
argues that the president has the power
to deny a citizen their right to travel
based on American precedence and the
President's duty to protect the general
welfare of the people however the
dissenting opinion argues that the Bill
of Rights must take precedence over the
president's implied powers and that
there is no evidence to suggest that the
return of the marcosas would pose a
threat to National Security
the dissenting opinion also emphasizes
the importance of upholding human rights
and due process and argues that mandamus
should be granted in the end the court
grants the petition allowing Marcos to
return to the Philippines the decision
is seen as a setback for human rights in
the country as it emphasizes the
importance of individual rights and
limits on executive power thanks for
watching please subscribe to my channel
関連動画をさらに表示
What Happened to the Billions That Former President Marcos Stole From the Philippines| The Big Steal
Ang Philippine Bill of Rights ng 1987 Philippine Constitution (PART 1)
UB: Iba't ibang karapatan ng mga manggagawa
THE 1973 CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES
Six Things to Know About the Martial Law in the Philippines
11 Human Rights And Bill Of Rights
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)