Marcos v Manglapus

September 15, 1989

GR No. 88211

Petitioners: Ferdinand E. Marcos et al

Repondents: Raul Manglapus, Catalino Macaraig, Sedfrey Ordonez, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Findel
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

Ponente: Cortes

Court Deciding: En Banc

Relief: Petition for Mandamus and Prohibition to order respondents to issue travel documents to Mr.
Marcos

Doctrine: Executive Power

Summary: Former Pres Marcos and his family want to return to the Philippines from exile. Cory, as
President, bars their return as it presents a clear and present danger to national security, public safety
or public health

Issue: Does the President have the power to bar the return of former President Marcos and family to
the Philippines?

Held: Yes.

Ratio:
By enumerating certain powers of the President did the framers of the Constitution intend that the
President shall exercise those specific powers and no other? No. "What the presidency is at any
particular moment depends in important measure on who is President." The consideration of tradition
and the development of presidential power under the different constitutions are essential for a
complete understanding of the extent of and limitations to the President's powers under the 1987
Constitution.

It would not be accurate, however, 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. Furthermore, the Constitution
itself provides that the execution of the laws is only one of the powers of the President. It also grants
the President other powers that do not involve the execution of any provision of law, e.g., his power
over the country's foreign relations.

On these premises, we hold the view that although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on 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. In other words, executive power is more
than the sum of specific powers so enumerated

This case calls for the exercise of the President's powers as protector of the peace. The President is not
only clothed with extraordinary powers in times of emergency, but is also tasked with attending to the
day-to-day problems of maintaining peace and order and ensuring domestic tranquility in times when
no foreign foe appears on the horizon. Wide discretion, within the bounds of law, in fulfilling
presidential duties in times of peace is not in any way diminished by the relative want of an emergency
specified in the commander-in-chief provision.

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.