FERDINAND E. MARCOS vs. HON. RAUL MANGLAPUS
]
(177 SCRA 668)
Facts:
 After Ferdinand Marcos was deposed from the
presidency, he and his family fled to Hawaii.
 Now in his deathbed, petitioners are asking the court to
order the respondents to issue their travel documents
and enjoin the implementation of the President’s
decision to bar their return to the Philippines.
 Petitioners contend under the provision of the Bill of
Rights that the President is without power to impair their
liberty of abode because only a court may do so “within
the limits prescribed by law.”
 Nor, according to the petitioners, may the President
impair their right to travel because no law has
authorized her to do so.
Issue:
1 .Whether or not the ban of Mr. Marcos and family from
returning to the Philippines has international precedents?
2. Whether or not the President acted in grave abuse of
discretion in determining the return of the Marcoses?
HELD:NO.
 The right to return to one's country is not among the
rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which
treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel,
 but it is our well-considered view that the right to return
may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of
international law and, under our Constitution, is part of
the law of the land [Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.]
 However, it is distinct and separate from the right to
travel and enjoys a different protection under the
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, i.e.,
against being "arbitrarily deprived" thereof [Art. 12 (4).
 The Declaration speaks of the "right to freedom of
movement and residence within the borders of each
state" [Art. 13(l)] separately from the "right to leave any
country, including his own, and to return to his country."
[Art. 13(2).]
 On the other hand, the Covenant guarantees the "right
to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his
residence" [Art. 12(l)] and the right to "be free to leave
any country, including his own."
 [Art. 12(2)] which rights may be restricted by such laws
as "are necessary to protect national security, public
order, public health or morals or enter qqqs own
country" of which one cannot be "arbitrarily deprived."
[Art. 12(4).]
 It would therefore be inappropriate to construe the
limitations to the right to return to one's country in the
same context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode
and the right to travel.
2.NO.
 The President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse
of discretion in determining that the return of former
President Marcos and his family at the present time and
under present circumstances poses a serious threat to
national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their
return to the Philippines.
 The power involved is the President's residual power to
protect the general welfare of the people.
 It is founded on the duty of the President, as steward of
the people.
Petition is Dismissed
ISSUE:
Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the
Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from
returning to the Philippines.

RULING:
Yes
 According to Section 1, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution: "The executive power shall be vested in
the President of the Philippines."
 The phrase, however, does not define what is meant by
executive power although the same article tackles on
exercises of certain powers by the President such as
appointing power during recess of the Congress (S.16),
 control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and
offices (Section 17),
 power to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons,
and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final
judgment (Section 19),
 treaty making power (Section 21), borrowing power
(Section 20), budgetary power (Section 22), informing
power (Section 23).
 The Constitution may have grant powers to the
President, it cannot be said to be limited only to the
specific powers enumerated in the Constitution.
 Whatever power inherent in the government that is
neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive.
Manotoc vs. CA | May 30, 1986
FACTS:
 Ricardo Manotoc Jr. was one of the two principal
stockholders of Trans-Insular Management Inc. and the
Manotoc Securities Inc. (stock brokerage house).
 He was in US for a certain time, went home to file a
petition with SEC for appointment of a management
committee for both businesses. Such was granted.
 However, pending disposition of a case filed with SEC,
the latter requested the Commissioner of Immigration
not to clear him for departure.
 Consequently, a memorandum to this effect was issued.
 There was a torrens title submitted to and accepted by
Manotoc Securities Inc which was suspected to be
fake.
 6 of its clients filed separate criminal complaints against
the petitioner and Leveriza, President and VP
respectively.
 He was charged with estafa and was allowed by the
Court to post bail.
Petitioner filed before each trial court motion for permission to
leave the country stating his desire to go to US relative to his
business transactions and opportunities.
 Such was opposed by the prosecution and was also
denied by the judges.
 He filed petition for certiorari with CA seeking to annul
the prior orders and the SEC communication request
denying his leave to travel abroad.
According to the petitioner, having been admitted to bail as a
matter of right, neither the courts that granted him bail nor SEC,
which has no jurisdiction over his liberty, could prevent him
from exercising his constitutional right to travel.
ISSUE: WON petitioner’s constitutional right to travel was
violated.
HELD: NO.
 The court has power to prohibit person admitted to bail
from leaving the country because this is a necessary
consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond.
 The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself
available at all times whenever the court requires his
presence operates as a valid restriction on his
constitutional right to travel.
 In case he will be allowed to leave the country without
sufficient reason, he may be placed beyond the reach of
courts.
Furthermore, petitioner failed to satisfy trial court and CA of the
urgency of his travel, duration thereof, as well as consent of his
surety to the proposed travel.
He was not able to show the necessity of his travel abroad. He
never indicated that no other person in his behalf could
undertake such business transaction.
Article 3 Sec 6: “The liberty of abode and of changing the
same… shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the
court….”
According to SC, the order of trial court in releasing petitioner
on bail constitutes such lawful order as contemplated by the
provision on right to travel.
Facts:
 Petitioner was charged with estafa.
 He posted bail.
 Petitioner filed before each of the trial courts a motion
entitled, "motion for permission to leave the country,"
 stating as ground therefor his desire to go to the United
States, "relative to his business transactions and
opportunities."
 The prosecution opposed said motion and after due
hearing, both trial judges denied the same.
 Petitioner thus filed a petition for certiorari and
mandamus before the then Court of Appeals seeking to
annul the orders dated March 9 and 26, 1982, of
Judges Camilon and Pronove, respectively,
 as well as the communication-request of the Securities
and Exchange Commission, denying his leave to travel
abroad.
 He likewise prayed for the issuance of the appropriate
writ commanding the Immigration Commissioner and
the Chief of the Aviation Security Command
(AVSECOM) to clear him for departure.
 The Court of Appeals denied the petition.
 Petitioner contends that having been admitted to bail as
a matter of right, neither the courts which granted him
bail nor the Securities and Exchange Commission
which has no jurisdiction over his liberty could prevent
him from exercising his constitutional right to travel.
Issue: Whether or Not his constitutional right to travel has been
violated.
Held:
 A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to
bail from leaving the Philippines.
 This is a necessary consequence of the nature and
function of a bail bond.
 The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself
available at all times whenever the court requires his
presence operates as a valid restriction on his right to
travel.
 Indeed, if the accused were allowed to leave the
Philippines without sufficient reason, he may be placed
beyond the reach of the courts.
 Petitioner has not shown the necessity for his travel
abroad. There is no indication that the business
transactions cannot be undertaken by any other person
in his behalf.
Manotoc v CA 142 SCRA 149 (1986)
Facts:
 This is a consolidated case of members of the AFP who
were charged with violation of Articles of War (AW) 67
(Mutiny), AW 96 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a
Gentleman) and AW 94 (Various Crimes) in relation to
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (Murder).
 The petitioners were questioning the conduct of the pre-
trial investigation conducted where a motion to bail was
filed but was denied.
 Petitioner applied for provisional liberty and preliminary
injunction before the court which was granted.
 However De Villa refused to release petitioner for
provisional liberty pending the resolution of the appeal
they have taken before the court invoking that military
officers are an exemption from the right to bail
guaranteed by the Constitution.
  Decision was rendered reiterating the release for
provisional liberty of petitioners with the court stating
that there is a mistake in the presumption of
respondents that bail does not apply among military
men facing court martial proceeding. Respondents now
appeal before the higher court.
Issue: Whether or not military men are exempted from the
Constitutional guarantee on the right to bail.
Held: The SC ruled that the bail invoked by petitioners is not
available in the military as an exception to the general rule
embodied in the Bill of Rights.
 Thus the right to a speedy trial is given more emphasis
in the military where the right to bail does not exist.
 Justification to this rule involves the unique structure of
the military and national security considerations which
may result to damaging precedents that mutinous
soldiers will be released on provisional liberty giving
them the chance to continue their plot in overthrowing
the government.
 Therefore the decision of the lower court granting bail to
the petitioners was reversed.
PASEI v. Drilon
FACTS:
 Phil association of Service Exporters, Inc., is engaged
principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers, male
and female of overseas employment.
 It challenges the constitutional validity of Dept. Order
No. 1 (1998) of DOLE entitled “Guidelines Governing
the Temporary Suspension of Deployment of Filipino
Domestic and Household Workers.”
 It claims that such order is a discrimination against
males and females.
 The Order does not apply to all Filipino workers but only
to domestic helpers and females with similar skills, and
that it is in violation of the right to travel, it also being an
invalid exercise of the lawmaking power.
 Further, PASEI invokes Sec 3 of Art 13 of the
Constitution, providing for worker participation in policy
and decision-making processes affecting their rights
and benefits as may be provided by law.
 Thereafter the Solicitor General on behalf of DOLE
submitting to the validity of the challenged guidelines
involving the police power of the State and informed the
court that the respondent have lifted the deployment
ban in some states where there exists bilateral
agreement with the Philippines and existing mechanism
providing for sufficient safeguards to ensure the welfare
and protection of the Filipino workers.
ISSUE: Whether or not D.O. No. 1 of DOLE is constitutional as
it is an exercise of police power.
RULING:
 “[Police power] has been defined as the "state authority
to enact legislation that may interfere with personal
liberty or property in order to promote the general
welfare."
 As defined, it consists of (1) an imposition of restraint
upon liberty or property, (2) in order to foster the
common good.
 It is not capable of an exact definition but has been,
purposely, veiled in general terms to underscore its all-
comprehensive embrace.
 “The petitioner has shown no satisfactory reason why
the contested measure should be nullified.
  There is no question that Department Order No. 1
applies only to "female contract workers,"
 but it does not thereby make an undue discrimination
between the sexes.
 It is well-settled that "equality before the law" under the
Constitution does not import a perfect Identity of rights
among all men and women.
 It admits of classifications, provided that
 (1) such classifications rest on substantial distinctions;
 (2) they are germane to the purposes of the law;
 (3) they are not confined to existing conditions; and
 (4) they apply equally to all members of the same class.
The Court is satisfied that the classification made-the
preference for female workers — rests on substantial
distinctions.
Facts:
 The petitioner, Philippine Association of Service
Exporters, Inc. (PASEI, for short), a firm "engaged
principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers, male
and female, for overseas placement,"
 challenges the Constitutional validity of Department
Order No. 1, Series of 1988, of the Department of Labor
and Employment, in the character of "GUIDELINES
GOVERNING THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF
DEPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO DOMESTIC AND
HOUSEHOLD WORKERS," in this petition for certiorari
and prohibition.
 The measure is assailed for "discrimination against
males or females,"
 that it 'does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to
domestic helpers and females with similar skills," and
that it is violative of the right to travel.
 It was likewise held to be an invalid exercise of the
lawmaking power, police power being legislative, and
not executive, in character.
 In its supplement to the petition, PASEI invokes Section
3, of Article XIII, of the Constitution, providing for worker
participation
 "in policy and decision-making processes affecting their
rights and benefits as may be provided by law."
 In addition, it was contended that Department Order No.
1 was passed in the absence of prior consultations.
 It was claimed to be in violation of the Charter's non-
impairment clause, in addition to the "great and
irreparable injury" that PASEI members face should the
Order be further enforced.
 The Solicitor General, on behalf of the respondent
Secretary of Labor and Administrator of the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration, invokes the
police power of the Philippine State.
Issue: Whether or not deployment ban for female domestic
helpers is valid under our Constitution.
Held: Yes. It is a valid exercise of police power.
 The concept of police power is well-established in this
jurisdiction.
 It has been defined as the "state authority to enact
legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or
property in order to promote the general welfare."
 As defined, it consists of
 (1) an imposition of restraint upon liberty or property,
 (2) in order to foster the common good.
 It is not capable of an exact definition but has been,
purposely, veiled in general terms to underscore its all-
comprehensive embrace.
 "Its scope, ever-expanding to meet the exigencies of the
times, even to anticipate the future where it could be
done, provides enough room for an efficient and flexible
response to conditions and circumstances thus assuring
the greatest benefits."
 It constitutes an implied limitation on the Bill of Rights.
According to Fernando,
 it is "rooted in the conception that men in organizing the
state and imposing upon its government limitations to
 safeguard constitutional rights did not intend thereby to
enable an individual citizen or a group of citizens to
obstruct unreasonably the enactment of such salutary
measures calculated to ensure communal peace,
safety, good order, and welfare."
 Significantly, the Bill of Rights itself does not purport to
be an absolute guaranty of individual rights and liberties
 "Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not
unrestricted license to act according to one's will."
 It is subject to the far more overriding demands and
requirements of the greater number.
Issue: WON there has been a valid classification in the
challenged Department Order No. 1.
Held:
SC in dismissing the petition ruled that there has been valid
classification, the Filipino female domestics working abroad
were in a class by themselves, because of the special risk to
which their class was exposed.
 There is no question that Order No.1 applies only to
female contract workers but it does not thereby make
an undue discrimination between sexes.
 It is well settled hat equality before the law under the
constitution does not import a perfect identity of rights
among all men and women. It admits of classification,
provided that:
1. Such classification rests on substantial distinctions
2. That they are germane to the purpose of the law
3. They are not confined to existing conditions
4. They apply equally to al members of the same class
In the case at bar, the classifications made, rest on substantial
distinctions.
 Dept. Order No. 1 does not impair the right to travel.
 The consequence of the deployment ban has on the
right to travel does not impair the right, as the right to
travel is subjects among other things, to the
requirements of “public safety” as may be provided by
law.
 Deployment ban of female domestic helper is a valid
exercise of police power.
 Police power as been defined as the state authority to
enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty
or property in order to promote general welfare. Neither
is there merit in the contention that Department Order
No. 1 constitutes an invalid exercise of legislative power
as the labor code vest the DOLE with rule making
powers.
SILVERIO VS. COURT OF APPEALS [195 SCRA 760 ; G.R.
94284; 8 APR 1991]
Facts:
 Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 2 (4) of
the revised securities act.
 Respondent filed to cancel the passport of the petitioner
and to issue a hold departure order.
 The RTC ordered the DFA to cancel petitioner’s
passport, based on the finding that the petitioner has
not been arraigned and there was evidence to show
that the accused has left the country with out the
knowledge and the permission of the court.
Issue: Whether or Not the right to travel may be impaired by
order of the court.
Held:
 The bail bond posted by petitioner has been cancelled
and warrant of arrest has been issued by reason that he
failed to appear at his arraignments.
 There is a valid restriction on the right to travel, it is
imposed that the accused must make himself available
whenever the court requires his presence.
 A person facing criminal charges may be restrained by
the Court from leaving the country or, if abroad,
compelled to return (Constitutional Law, Cruz, Isagani
A., 1987 Edition, p. 138).
  So it is also that "An accused released on bail may be
re-arrested without the necessity of a warrant if he
attempts to depart from the Philippines without prior
permission of the Court where the case is pending
(ibid., Sec. 20 [2nd par. ]).

Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be

interpreted to mean that:
 while the liberty of travel may be impaired even without
Court Order, the appropriate executive officers or
administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary
discretion to impose limitations.
 They can impose limits only on the basis of "national
security, public safety, or public health" and "as may be
provided by law," a limitive phrase which did not appear
in the 1973 text (The Constitution, Bernas, Joaquin
G.,S.J., Vol. I, First Edition, 1987, p. 263).
 Apparently, the phraseology in the 1987 Constitution
was a reaction to the ban on international travel
imposed under the previous regime when there was a
Travel Processing Center, which issued certificates of
eligibility to travel upon application of an interested party
(See Salonga vs. Hermoso & Travel Processing Center,
No. 53622, 25 April 1980, 97 SCRA 121).
 Holding an accused in a criminal case within the reach
of the Courts by preventing his departure from the
Philippines must be considered as a valid restriction on
his right to travel so that he may be dealt with in
accordance with law.
 The offended party in any criminal proceeding is the
People of the Philippines.
 It is to their best interest that criminal prosecutions
should run their course and proceed to finality without
undue delay, with an accused holding himself amenable
at all times to Court Orders and processes