Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 862 views

    Marcos v. Manglapus

    Uploaded by

    bedan
    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by former President Marcos and his family asking the court to issue travel documents allowing their return to the Philippines. The Marcos family argued that barring their return violated their rights under the constitution and international law. However, the court found no abuse of discretion in the President's decision to bar their return, as evidence showed Marcos and his followers were attempting to destabilize the new government. Allowing their return could exacerbate violence and chaos. The court concluded the President acted within her executive powers in making this decision.

    Copyright:

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

    Marcos v. Manglapus

    Uploaded by

    bedan
    862 views1 page
    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by former President Marcos and his family asking the court to issue travel documents allowing their return to the Philippines. The Marcos family argued that barring their return violated their rights under the constitution and international law. However, the court found no abuse of discretion in the President's decision to bar their return, as evidence showed Marcos and his followers were attempting to destabilize the new government. Allowing their return could exacerbate violence and chaos. The court concluded the President acted within her executive powers in making this decision.

    Original Title

    marcos v. manglapus

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by former President Marcos and his family asking the court to issue travel documents allowing their return to the Philippines. The Marcos family argued that barring their return violated their rights under the constitution and international law. However, the court found no abuse of discretion in the President's decision to bar their return, as evidence showed Marcos and his followers were attempting to destabilize the new government. Allowing their return could exacerbate violence and chaos. The court concluded the President acted within her executive powers in making this decision.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    862 views1 page

    Marcos v. Manglapus

    Uploaded by

    bedan
    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by former President Marcos and his family asking the court to issue travel documents allowing their return to the Philippines. The Marcos family argued that barring their return violated their rights under the constitution and international law. However, the court found no abuse of discretion in the President's decision to bar their return, as evidence showed Marcos and his followers were attempting to destabilize the new government. Allowing their return could exacerbate violence and chaos. The court concluded the President acted within her executive powers in making this decision.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Marcos vs.

    Manglapus
    G.R No. 88211

    Facts:
    The petition for mandamus and prohibition was filed before the Supreme Court by the petitioner (former President Marcos and his Family), asking the Court to issue travel documents to him and to his family and to enjoin the Presidents decision to bar their return to the Country. The case for the petitioners were founded on the assertion that their right to return in the Country was guaranteed under Section 1 and 6 of the Bill of Rights as well as in Section 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights under International Law. Likewise, such right was within the International Covenant of Civil and Political right, which was ratified in the country. Respondent argued that the case involved political question which was non-justiciable. Consequently, the Court came out with a well-debated Resolution clarifying the substance of the legal issue. First was to determine the power of the President under the Constitution, to bar the Marcoss from returning the country. Then, to determine if the President acted arbitrarily or with abuse of discretion on barring the return of the Marcoss to the country pursuant to her Executive Power as provided in the provisions of the Constitution.

    Issue:
    Whether or not it is lawful for the President to bar return of Marcoss in the Country pursuant to the Executive Powers vested in her by the 1987 Constitution

    Held:
    The Members of the Court dismissed the petition filed by Marcoss for they found no abuse of discretion on the part of the President in barring the return of the former President and his family to the country. T he Court

    could not close its eyes in the present realities and pretend that the country was not snowed under by well-organized groups--the documented efforts of the petitioner and his followers to destabilized the government, which made the Court conclude that the return of the Marcoss would only exacerbate and intensify violence against the State and instigate chaos. Accordingly, the Presidents decision was based on the pleadings and oral argument filed by the parties concerned.

    You might also like