Constitutionality of Banning Presidential Returns: Marcos et al v Manglapus, GR 88211, Sep 15, 1989

Summary

The 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

00:00

🏛️ 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.

05:02

📜 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.

Keywords

💡Ferdinand E. Marcos

Ferdinand E. Marcos was the former President of the Philippines who was deposed in 1986 and forced into exile. His name is central to the video's narrative as it revolves around the legal controversy concerning his and his family's right to return to the Philippines. The video discusses various legal arguments and court decisions regarding Marcos' case, highlighting the tension between individual rights and national interests.

💡Exile

Exile refers to the state of being expelled from one's country or forced to leave it. In the context of the video, Ferdinand Marcos and his family were forced into exile after being deposed from the presidency. The term is significant as it sets the stage for the legal debate over their right to return to the Philippines, which is a central theme of the video.

💡Constitutional Rights

Constitutional rights are the rights guaranteed by a country's constitution. The video discusses the petitioners' argument that the president does not have the power to bar the Marcos family's return, citing their constitutional rights to liberty of abode and travel. These rights are fundamental to the legal dispute and are used to argue against the president's authority to prohibit their return.

💡National Security

National security refers to the protection of a nation against threats to its sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity. Respondents in the video argue that the issue of the Marcos family's return involves national security and public safety, suggesting that the president has the power to prohibit their return based on these concerns. This concept is central to the debate over the president's authority and the potential risks associated with the Marcos family's return.

💡Public Safety

Public safety encompasses the protection of the public from harm and the maintenance of order. In the video, it is mentioned as a reason for the president to potentially prohibit the Marcos family's return, alongside national security. The term is significant as it is used to justify the president's actions and to argue for the prioritization of the general welfare over individual rights.

💡Political Question

A political question is a matter that is considered to be within the purview of the political branches of government, often involving issues of policy or governance. The video mentions that one of the issues to be determined is whether the matter raised is a political question. This concept is important as it relates to the debate over whether the courts should intervene in matters that are considered to be the domain of the executive or legislative branches.

💡Grave Abuse of Discretion

Grave abuse of discretion is a legal term used to describe a situation where a decision-maker has exercised their authority in an arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful manner. The video discusses whether the president acted with grave abuse of discretion in barring the Marcos family's return. This concept is crucial as it relates to the court's evaluation of the president's actions and the potential for judicial review.

💡Due Process

Due process is a legal principle that requires the government to respect all legal rights that are owed to a person, including notice and the opportunity to be heard before certain actions are taken against them. The dissenting opinion in the video emphasizes the importance of upholding human rights and due process, arguing that the indefinite suspension of the constitutional right to travel without proper justification is a violation of due process.

💡Mandate

A mandate, in a legal context, is a court order directing a government official or agency to perform a specific act. The dissenting opinion in the video argues that mandamus should be granted, which implies that the court should issue an order directing the government to allow the Marcos family's return. This term is significant as it reflects the court's power to enforce constitutional rights and the debate over the government's compliance with those rights.

💡Separation of Powers

Separation of powers is a political doctrine that suggests that state authority should be divided into branches to prevent the concentration of power. The video mentions the Constitution's provision for a separation of powers among the three branches of government. This concept is relevant as it forms the backdrop against which the president's authority is being questioned and the court's role in checking that authority is being discussed.

💡Social Contract

A social contract is a philosophical concept that people are born free and equal in rights, and they surrender some of their freedoms to the state for the sake of order, protection, and the greater good. The video refers to the Constitution as a social contract, emphasizing that the president's power is derived from the people and should be exercised for their welfare. This concept is important as it underpins the debate over the balance between individual rights and the state's duty to protect its citizens.

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