and 2. Soliven v Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393 (1988)FACTS
Digest
Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668 (1989)
Full description
Baranda vs. Gustilo Digest.docFull description
legal ethics case digest
case digest for Lunod v. Meneses
Consti 1
JIL vs Pasig | LocGov
Full description
Full description
criminal lawFull description
inquiries in aid of legislation, Article 6 of the 1987 constitution
People vs Go case digest
lawFull description
Full description
Legal DigestFull description
Full description
dfdsafdafadfsafd
Admin lawFull description
Tankeh vs Dbp DigestFull description
Marcos vs. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668 (in scribed digest) Marcos vs. Manglapus, [G.R. # 88211 September 15, 1989 ] Facts: Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presi dency and was forced into exile. Corazon Aquino’s Corazon Aquino’s ascension into presidency was challenged by failed coup attempts as well as by plots of Marcos loyalists and the Marcoses themselves. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philipppines to die. But President Aquino, considering the di re consequences to the nation of his return has stood firmly on the decision to bar the returnof Mr. Marcos and his family. Hence, this petition for mandamus and prohibition asks the Courts to order the respondents to issue travel documents to Mr. Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to enjoin the implementation of the President's decision to bar their return to the Philippines. Issues: Whether or not the President has the power to bar the return of Marcos to the Philippines. Assuming that she has the power to bar, was there a finding made that there is a clear and present danger to the public due to the return? And have the requirements of due process been complied with in the making of the finding? HELD: Petition Dismissed. The request of the Marcoses must not be treated only in the light of constitutional provisions, it must be treated as a matter that is appropriately addressed to those residual unstated powers of the President which are implicit in to the paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard and protect general welfare. 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. It is found by the Court that from the pleadings filed by the parties, from their oral arguments, and the facts revealed during the briefing in chambers by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the National Security Adviser, wherein petitioners and respondents were represented, that there exist factual bases for the President's decision. Hence, this act cannot be said to have been done arbitrarily or capriciously. Further, the ponencia (the coups, the communist threat, peace and order issues especially in Mindanao, Marcos loyalists plotting) bolsters the conclusion that the return of Marcos will only exacerbate the situation in the country. Another reason of the Court...“We cannot also lose sight of the the fact that the country is only now beginning to recover from the hardships brought about by the plunder of the economy attributed to the Marcoses and their close associates and relatives, many of whom are still here in the Philippines in a position to destabilize the country, while the Government has barely scratched the surface, so to speak, in its efforts to recover the enormous wealth stashed away by the Marcoses in foreign jurisdictions.”