Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 265 views

    Marcos v. Manglapus Liberty of Abode and Travel

    Uploaded by

    Roward
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1989 regarding Ferdinand Marcos' petition to return to the Philippines from exile in Hawaii. Marcos argued that President Corazon Aquino did not have the power to impair his right to travel and liberty of abode. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the right involved was the distinct right to return to one's own country, not internal travel rights. While related, international law treats the rights to movement within a state and in/out of one's country as separate. The court found Aquino did not impair Marcos' rights by preventing his return.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Marcos v. Manglapus Liberty of Abode and Travel

    Uploaded by

    Roward
    265 views1 page
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1989 regarding Ferdinand Marcos' petition to return to the Philippines from exile in Hawaii. Marcos argued that President Corazon Aquino did not have the power to impair his right to travel and liberty of abode. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the right involved was the distinct right to return to one's own country, not internal travel rights. While related, international law treats the rights to movement within a state and in/out of one's country as separate. The court found Aquino did not impair Marcos' rights by preventing his return.

    Original Title

    Marcos v. Manglapus; Liberty of Abode and Travel

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1989 regarding Ferdinand Marcos' petition to return to the Philippines from exile in Hawaii. Marcos argued that President Corazon Aquino did not have the power to impair his right to travel and liberty of abode. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the right involved was the distinct right to return to one's own country, not internal travel rights. While related, international law treats the rights to movement within a state and in/out of one's country as separate. The court found Aquino did not impair Marcos' rights by preventing his return.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    265 views1 page

    Marcos v. Manglapus Liberty of Abode and Travel

    Uploaded by

    Roward
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1989 regarding Ferdinand Marcos' petition to return to the Philippines from exile in Hawaii. Marcos argued that President Corazon Aquino did not have the power to impair his right to travel and liberty of abode. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the right involved was the distinct right to return to one's own country, not internal travel rights. While related, international law treats the rights to movement within a state and in/out of one's country as separate. The court found Aquino did not impair Marcos' rights by preventing his return.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    ROWARD TUBOG

    USJR – School of Law


    Subject: Constitutional Law 2
    Topic: Liberty of Abode and Travel
    Title: FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS. JR.,
    IRENE M. ARANETA, IMEE M. MANOTOC, TOMAS MANOTOC, GREGORIO ARANETA,
    PACIFICO E. MARCOS, NICANOR YÑIGUEZ and PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
    ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), represented by its President, CONRADO F. ESTRELLA,
    petitioners,
    vs.
    HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS, CATALINO MACARAIG, SEDFREY ORDOÑEZ,
    MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, FIDEL 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, respondents.
    Citation: G.R. No. 88211 October 27, 1989
    Facts:
    After being deposed from presidency, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos was forced into
    exile. Before he died in Hawaii, he wished to return to the Philippines. However, then
    President Corazon Aquino has stood firmly on the decision to prohibit the return of the
    Marcoses to the Philippines, due to some possible threats to national security.

    Consequently, Marcos filed for a petition of mandamus and prohibition asking the Court to
    order the respondents to issue the Marcoses' travel documents and prevent the
    implementation of President Aquino's decision to bar Marcos from returning in the Philippines.
    The Marcoses contend that the President is without power to impair their liberty of abode of
    the Marcoses because only a court may do so "within the limits prescribed by law" nor may
    the President impair their right to travel because no law has authorized her to do so.

    Hence, the issue.

    Issues:
    Whether or not the right to travel and liberty of abode of the Marcoses have been impaired.

    Ruling:
    No.

    It must be emphasized that the individual right involved is not the right to travel from
    Philippines to others countries or within the Philippines. These are what the right to travel
    would normally connote. Essentially, the right involved is the right to return to one's country, a
    totally distinct right under international law, independent from although related to the right to
    travel. Thus, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 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.

    You might also like