Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    Manglapus and Marcos Self

    Uploaded by

    Ivy Colili
    This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Imelda Marcos to allow her and Ferdinand Marcos to return to the Philippines from exile and for his remains to be brought back to be buried. The Solicitor General asserts their return could destabilize the country. The Court denied the motion, finding the President has broad executive powers and her decision to bar their return was within her constitutional duty. Four justices dissented, believing Marcos had a right as a Filipino to be buried in his homeland and that allowing his return could foster reconciliation.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Manglapus and Marcos Self

    Uploaded by

    Ivy Colili
    52 views2 pages
    This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Imelda Marcos to allow her and Ferdinand Marcos to return to the Philippines from exile and for his remains to be brought back to be buried. The Solicitor General asserts their return could destabilize the country. The Court denied the motion, finding the President has broad executive powers and her decision to bar their return was within her constitutional duty. Four justices dissented, believing Marcos had a right as a Filipino to be buried in his homeland and that allowing his return could foster reconciliation.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Imelda Marcos to allow her and Ferdinand Marcos to return to the Philippines from exile and for his remains to be brought back to be buried. The Solicitor General asserts their return could destabilize the country. The Court denied the motion, finding the President has broad executive powers and her decision to bar their return was within her constitutional duty. Four justices dissented, believing Marcos had a right as a Filipino to be buried in his homeland and that allowing his return could foster reconciliation.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    52 views2 pages

    Manglapus and Marcos Self

    Uploaded by

    Ivy Colili
    This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Imelda Marcos to allow her and Ferdinand Marcos to return to the Philippines from exile and for his remains to be brought back to be buried. The Solicitor General asserts their return could destabilize the country. The Court denied the motion, finding the President has broad executive powers and her decision to bar their return was within her constitutional duty. Four justices dissented, believing Marcos had a right as a Filipino to be buried in his homeland and that allowing his return could foster reconciliation.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    IMELDA R. MARCOS vs HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS G.R. No.

    88211 October 27, 1989

    FACTS: This is a petition for reconsideration to allow the petitioners by issuing the necessary travel documents for their return to the Philippines and enjoin the respondents from implementing President Aquinos decision to bar the return of the remains of the past President Ferdinand Marcos. The Solicitor General asserts that "the 'formal' rights being invoked by the Marcoses under the label 'right to return', including the label 'return of Marcos' remains, is in reality or substance a 'right' to destabilize the country, a 'right' to hide the Marcoses' incessant shadowy orchestrated efforts at destabilization." ISSUES: The issue is basically one of power: whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. HELD: The Court denied the motion for lack of merit. The Court viewed that there are no compelling reasons established by the petitioners to warrant reconsideration of its decision. The Court stated in its decision to this case that it cannot be denied that the President, upon whom executive power is vested, has unstated residual powers which are implied from the grant of executive power and which are necessary for her to comply with her duties under the Constitution. The powers of the President are not limited to what are expressly enumerated in the article on the Executive Department and in scattered provisions of the Constitution. Among the duties of the President under the Constitution, in compliance with his (or her) oath of office, is to protect and promote the interest and welfare of the people. Her decision to bar the return of the Marcoses and subsequently, the remains of Mr. Marcos at the present time and under present circumstances is in compliance with this bounden duty. In the absence of a clear showing that she had acted with arbitrariness or with grave abuse of discretion in arriving at this decision, the Court will not enjoin the implementation of this decision. SEPARATE OPINIONS: CRUZ, J., dissenting: Justice Cruz believed that the threat of the past President Marcos to the national security when he was already moribund that feeble threat has died with him. As the government stresses, he has been reduced to a non-person (which makes me wonder why it is still afraid of him). His cadaver is not even regarded as a symbol of this or that or whatever except by his fanatical followers. It is only a dead body waiting to be interred in this country. We have more important

    things to do than debating over a corpse that deserves no kinder fate than dissolution and oblivion. I say let it be brought home and buried deep and let us be done with it forever. PARAS, J., dissenting on the Motion for Reconsideration: Firstly, the former President, although already dead, is still entitled to certain rights. Secondly, up to now, the alleged threats to national security have remained unproved and consequently, unpersuasive. Thirdly, reconciliation can proceed at a much faster pace if the petition for the return is granted. To refuse the request can mean a hardening of resistance against the wellintentioned aim of the administration. Upon the other hand, to grant the petition may well soften the hearts of the oppositionists; paving the way for a united citizenry. Finally, the entire world will surely applaud our government's act of mercy. PADILLA, J., dissenting: "Mr. Marcos is a Filipino and, as such, entitled to return to, die and be buried in this country." Those who would deny this Filipino the only constitutional and human right that can be accorded him now say that the constitutional and human right to be buried in this country would apply to any Filipino, except Mr. Marcos, because he was a dictator and he plundered the country. This is the most irrelevant argument that can be raised at this time. SARMIENTO, J., Dissenting: It is well to note that the Bill of Rights stands primarily, a limitation not only against legislative encroachments on individual liberties, but more so, against presidential intrusions. And especially so, because the President is the caretaker of the military establishment that has, several times over, been unkind to part of the population it has also sworn to protect.... I reiterate that the President has no power to deny requests of Marcos relatives to bury Marcos in his homeland. As for the former, let them get their just deserts here too. And let the matter rest.

    You might also like