G.R. No. 88211
September 15, 1989, 258 PHIL 479-541
Doctrine
The right to travel and the liberty of abode are distinct or separate from the right to return to one’s country. Here, the right to return to one’s country is decided on the basis of the residual power of the President.
Facts
Former President Ferdinand Marcos and his family were forced into exile. Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philippines 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 has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family.
Petitioners contended that Mr. Marcos has the right to return to the Philippines pursuant to Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution regarding liberty of abode and the right to travel. Furthermore, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guaranteed the right of Mr. Marcos and his family to return to the Philippines.
On the other hand, respondents argue that the duty of the State to safeguard national security is more supreme than the individual rights pursuant to Sections 4 and 5, Article II of the 1987 Constitution.
Issue
Whether or not Mrs. Aquino acted with grave abuse of discretion when she refused to allow the return to the Philippines of Mr. Marcos and his family.
Held
No. The right to travel and the liberty of abode is totally distinct from the right to return to one’s country. Thus, the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treat the right to freedom of movement and abode within the territory of a state, the right to leave a country, and the right to enter one’s country as separate and distinct rights. It would therefore be inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right to return to one’s country in the same context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to travel.
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, but it is our 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. 2 of the Constitution.] However, it is distinct and separate from the right to travel and enjoys a different protection under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.
However, the Supreme Court decided this case not on the basis of international law on the right to return to one’s country, but within the bounds of the 1987 Constitution (i.e. the residual power of the President to promote the general welfare of the country).
The power of the President is not only limited to those specifically enumerated in the 1987 Constitution. The President has the residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. The request or demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines cannot be considered in the light solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel, subject to certain exceptions, or of case law which clearly never contemplated situations even remotely similar to the present one. 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.
In this case, there exist factual bases for the President’s decision not to allow the return of the Marcoses. The documented history of the efforts of the Marcoses and their followers to destabilize the country bolsters the conclusion that the return of the Marcoses at this time would only exacerbate and intensify the violence directed against the State and instigate more chaos. Hence, the President cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily and capriciously and whimsically in determining that the return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat to the national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return.