LIBERTY OF ABODE AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT consider these basic principles in arriving at a decision.

More than that, having

sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution, the President has the
MARCOS vs. MANGLAPUS obligation under the Constitution to protect the people, promote their welfare and
advance the national interest. It must be borne in mind that the Constitution, aside
FACTS:
from being an allocation of power is also a social contract whereby the people have
In February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from precidency via the non- surrendered their sovereign powers to the State for the common good. Hence, lest
violent “people power” revolution and forced into exice. the officers of the Government exercising the powers delegated by the people
forget and the servants of the people become rulers, the Constitution reminds
Corazon Aquino was declared President of the Republic under a revolutionary everyone that "[s]overeignty resides in the people and all government authority
government. emanates from them." [Art. II, Sec. 1.]

Her ascension to and consolidation of power have not been unchallenged. The The Court cannot close its eyes to present realities and pretend that the country is
failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by political leaders of Mr. Marcos, the takeover not besieged from within by a well-organized communist insurgency, a separatist
of television station Channel 7 by rebel troops with the support of “Marcos loyalists” movement in Mindanao, rightist conspiracies to grab power, urban terrorism, the
and the unsuccessful plot of the Marcos spouse to return from Hawaii awakened the murder with impunity of military men, police officers and civilian officials, to
nation to the capacity of the Marcoses to stir trouble even from afar and to the mention only a few. The documented history of the efforts of the Marcose's and
fanatism and blind loyalty of their followers in the country. their followers to destabilize the country, as earlier narrated in
this ponencia bolsters the
Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die.

President Aquino, considering the dire consequence to the nation of his return, has
stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Marcos and his family. 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.
ISSUE: Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution,
the President may prohibit the Marcoses from retyrning to the Philippines. The President has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the
Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years and lead to
RULING:
total economic collapse. Given what is within our individual and common
The right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed knowledge of the state of the economy, we cannot argue with that determination.
in the Bill of Rights, which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel,
WHEREFORE, and it being our well-considered opinion that the President did not act
but it is our well-considered view that the right to return may be considered, as a
arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of former
generally accepted principle of international law and, under our Constitution, is part
President Marcos and his family at the present time and under present
of the law of the land [Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.] However, it is distinct and
circumstances poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and in
separate from the right to travel and enjoys a different protection under the
prohibiting their return to the Philippines, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, i.e., against being "arbitrarily
deprived" thereof [Art. 12 (4).]

Faced with the problem of whether or not the time is right to allow the Marcoses to
return to the Philippines, the President is, under the Constitution, constrained to
 On the very day of the hearing, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 464. The
GUDANI VS. SENGA Office of the Solicitor General notes that the E.O. “enjoined officials of the executive
FACTS: department including the military establishment from appearing in any legislative
inquiry without her approval.
Petitioners Gen. Gudani and Lieutenant Colonel Balutan are high-ranking officers of
Philippine Marines assigned to the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) in Baguio Now, petitioners seek the annulment of a directive from the President enjoining
City. Senator Biazon invited several senior officers of the military to appear at a them and other military officers from testifying before Congress without the
public hearing before a Senate Committee to clarify allegations of massive cheating President’s consent. Petitioners also pray for injunctive relief against a pending
and the surfacing of copies of an audio excerpt purportedly of a phone conversation preliminary investigation against them, in preparation for possible court-martial
between the President and then Commission on Elections Commissioner Garcillano. proceedings, initiated within the military justice system in connection with
At the time of the 2004 elections, Gen. Gudani had been designated as commander, petitioners’ violation of the aforementioned directive.
and Col. Balutan a member, of “Joint Task Force Ranao” by the AFP Southern
Command. Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff Lt . Gen. Senga were The Court has to resolve whether petitioners may be subjected to military discipline
among the several AFP officers also received a letter invitation from Sen. Biazon to on account of their defiance of a direct order of the AFP Chief of Staff.
attend the hearing. But only Gen. Gudani, and Col. Balutan attended the invitation
from Sen. Biazon. ISSUE:

Thereafter, the Office of the Chief of Staff of the AFP issued a Memorandum Whether or not E.O. 464 which provides among others that NO AFP PERSONNEL
addressed to Gen. Baloing. It was signed by Lt. Col. Hernando DCA Iriberri in behalf SHALL APPEAR BEFORE ANY CONGRESSIONAL OR SENATE HEARING WITHOUT HER
of Gen. Senga. Noting that Gen. Gudani and Col. Balutan had been invited to attend APPROVAL is unconstitutional?
the Senate Committee hearing, the Memorandum directed the two officers to
attend the hearing. Conformably, Gen. Gudani and Col. Balutan filed their respective HELD:
requests for travel authority addressed to the PMA Superintendent.
The Petition is dismissed.
However, Gen. Senga did not attend to the requested hearing as per instruction
from the President that NO AFP PERSONNEL SHALL APPEAR BEFORE ANY Is EO 464 constitutional or not, or may the President prevent a member of the
CONGRESSIONAL OR SENATE HEARING WITHOUT HER APPROVAL. ` armed forces from testifying before a legislative inquiry?

While Gen. Gudani and Col. Balutan had concluded their testimony, the office of Insofar as E.O. 464 compelled officials of the executive branch to seek prior
Gen. Senga issued a statement which noted that the two had appeared before the presidential approval before appearing before Congress, the notion of executive
Senate Committee “in spite of the fact that a guidance has been given that a control also comes into consideration. The impression is wrong. The ability of the
Presidential approval should be sought prior to such an appearance;” that such President to require a military official to secure prior consent before appearing in
directive was “in keeping with the time[-]honored principle of the Chain of Congress pertains to wholly different and independent specie of presidential
Command;” and that the two officers “disobeyed a legal order, in violation of authority—the commander-in-chief powers of the President. By tradition and
A[rticles of] W[ar] 65 (Willfully Disobeying Superior Officer), hence they will be jurisprudence, the commander-in-chief powers of the President are not
subjected to General Court Martial proceedings x x x” Both Gen. Gudani and Col. encumbered by the same degree of restriction as that which may attach to
Balutan were likewise relieved of their assignments then. executive privilege or executive control.
We hold that the President has constitutional authority to do so, by virtue of her
power as commander-in-chief, and that as a consequence a military officer who As a general rule, it is integral to military discipline that the soldier’s speech be with
defies such injunction is liable under military justice. At the same time, we also hold the consent and approval of the military commander. The necessity of upholding the
that any chamber of Congress which seeks to appear before it a military officer ability to restrain speech becomes even more imperative if the soldier desires to
against the consent of the President has adequate remedies under law to compel speak freely on political matters. For there is no constitutional provision or military
such attendance. Any military official whom Congress summons to testify before it indoctrination will eliminate a soldier’s ability to form a personal political opinion,
may be compelled to do so by the President. If the President is not so inclined, the yet it is vital that such opinions be kept out of the public eye. For one, political belief
President may be commanded by judicial order to compel the attendance of the is a potential source of discord among people, and a military torn by political strife is
military officer. Final judicial orders have the force of the law of the land which the incapable of fulfilling its constitutional function as protectors of the people and of
President has the duty to faithfully execute. the State. For another, it is ruinous to military discipline to foment an atmosphere
that promotes an active dislike of or dissent against the President, the commander-
Again, let it be emphasized that the ability of the President to prevent military in-chief of the armed forces. Soldiers are constitutionally obliged to obey a President
officers from testifying before Congress does not turn on executive privilege, but on they may dislike or distrust. Even petitioners are well aware that it was necessary for
the Chief Executive’s power as commander-in-chief to control the actions and them to obtain permission from their superiors before they could travel to Manila to
speech of members of the armed forces. The President’s prerogatives as attend the Senate Hearing.
commander-in-chief are not hampered by the same limitations as in executive
privilege. The commander-in-chief provision in the Constitution is denominated as Congress holds significant control over the armed forces in matters such as budget
Section 18, Article VII, which begins with the simple declaration that “[t]he appropriations and the approval of higher-rank promotions, yet it is on the
President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines x x President that the Constitution vests the title as commander-in-chief and all the
x Outside explicit constitutional limitations, such as those found in Section 5, Article prerogatives and functions appertaining to the position. Again, the exigencies of
XVI, the commander-in-chief clause vests on the President, as commander-in-chief, military discipline and the chain of command mandate that the President’s ability to
absolute authority over the persons and actions of the members of the armed control the individual members of the armed forces be accorded the utmost
forces. Such authority includes the ability of the President to restrict the travel, respect. Where a military officer is torn between obeying the President and obeying
movement and speech of military officers, activities which may otherwise be the Senate, the Court will without hesitation affirm that the officer has to choose
sanctioned under civilian law. the President. After all, the Constitution prescribes that it is the President, and not
the Senate, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
Reference to Kapunan, Jr. v. De Villa is useful in this regard. Lt. Col. Kapunan was
ordered confined under “house arrest” by then Chief of Staff (later President) Gen. Judicial relief as remedy:
Fidel Ramos. Kapunan was also ordered, as a condition for his house arrest, that he
may not issue any press statements or give any press conference during his period The refusal of the President to allow members of the military to appear before
of detention. The Court unanimously upheld such restrictions, noting: Congress is not absolute. Inasmuch as it is ill-advised for Congress to interfere with
the President’s power as commander-in-chief, it is similarly detrimental for the
“… to a certain degree, individual rights may be curtailed, because the effectiveness President to unduly interfere with Congress’s right to conduct legislative inquiries.
of the military in fulfilling its duties under the law depends to a large extent on the The impasse did not come to pass in this petition, since petitioners testified anyway
maintenance of discipline within its ranks. Hence, lawful orders must be followed despite the presidential prohibition. The remedy lies with the courts.
without question and rules must be faithfully complied with, irrespective of a
soldier's personal views on the matter. It is from this viewpoint that the restrictions Senate affirmed both the Arnault and Bengzon rulings. It elucidated on the
imposed on petitioner Kapunan, an officer in the AFP, have to be considered.” constitutional scope and limitations on the constitutional power of congressional
inquiry. Thus, the power of inquiry, “with process to enforce it,” is grounded on the out that he is no longer in the active service. However, an officer whose name was
necessity of information in the legislative process. If the information possessed by dropped from the roll of officers cannot be considered to be outside the jurisdiction
executive officials on the operation of their offices is necessary for wise legislation of military authorities when military justice proceedings were initiated against him
on that subject, by parity of reasoning, Congress has the right to that information before the termination of his service. Once jurisdiction has been acquired over the
and the power to compel the disclosure thereof. officer, it continues until his case is terminated.

It may thus be subjected to judicial review pursuant to the Court’s certiorari powers Leave Division of OCA vs Heusdens
under Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution. To avoid conflict, Congress must
Facts:
indicate in its invitations to the public officials concerned, or to any person for that Respondent left for abroad without waiting for the result of her application. It
matter, the possible needed statute which prompted the need for the inquiry. turned out that no travel authority was issued in her favor because she was not
Section 21, Article VI likewise establishes critical safeguards that proscribe the cleared of all her accountabilities as evidenced by the SC Certificate of Clearance.
legislative power of inquiry. The provision requires that the inquiry be done in The OCA found respondent to have violated the OCA Circular for failing to secure
accordance with the Senate or House’s duly published rules of procedure, the approval of her application for travel authority.
necessarily implying the constitutional infirmity of an inquiry conducted without
Issue:
duly published rules of procedure. Section 21 also mandates that the rights of
What are the inherent and statutory limitations on the constitutional right to travel?
persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries be respected, an imposition that
obligates Congress to adhere to the guarantees in the Bill of Rights. Ruling:
The exercise of one’s right to travel is not absolute. There are constitutional,
In Senate, the Court ruled that the President could not impose a blanket prohibition statutory and inherent limitations regulating the right to travel. Section 6 provides
barring executive officials from testifying before Congress without the President’s that “neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national
consent notwithstanding the invocation of executive privilege to justify such security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law.” Inherent
limitations on the right to travel are those that naturally emanate from the source.
prohibition. Should neither branch yield to the other branch’s assertion, the
An example of such inherent limitation is the power of the trial courts to prohibit
constitutional recourse is to the courts, as the final arbiter if the dispute. It is only persons charged with a crime to leave the country. Some of these statutory
the courts that can compel, with conclusiveness, attendance or non-attendance in limitations are the following:
legislative inquiries.
1. The Human Security Act of 2010 or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9372.
Courts are empowered, under the constitutional principle of judicial review, to 2. The Philippine Passport Act of 1996 or R.A. No. 8239.
3. The “Anti- Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003” or R.A. No. 9208.
arbitrate disputes between the legislative and executive branches of government on
4. The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 or R. A. No. 8042,
the proper constitutional parameters of power. By this and, if the courts so rule, the
as amended by R.A. No. 10022.
duty falls on the shoulders of the President, as commander-in-chief, to authorize the 5. The Act on Violence against Women and Children or R.A. No. 9262.
appearance of the military officers before Congress. Even if the President has earlier 6. Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995 or R.A. No. 8043.
disagreed with the notion of officers appearing before the legislature to testify, the
Chief Executive is nonetheless obliged to comply with the final orders of the courts.

Lastly, General Gudani argues that he can no longer fall within the jurisdiction of the
court-martial, considering his retirement last 4 October 2005. He cites Article 2, Title
I of Commonwealth Act No. 408, which defines persons subject to military law as,
among others, “all officers and soldiers in the active service of the [AFP],” and points