GRF - MILF Bangsamoro Agreement

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Georgia - Russia Conflict

This is a cursory glance at the legality of what recently happened between Russia and Georgia. This analysis does not aim to be conclusive or exhaustive.

The most important questions are:

• Was there an armed attack against Russia?
• Was the Russian use of force in response necessary?

The recent examples of international use of force by major Western powers without a UN Security Council authorization are clearly relevant, especially in a possible theory that they have changed international law.

History

The Soviet Union was divided into territories, often by titular ethnic group. They had varying degrees of autonomy and different places in the administrative hierarchy. Modern countries like Georgia, Ukraine and Russia itself, known as “newly independent states” after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, held the highest place in the hierarchy as the constituent “republics” of the USSR.

Other territories like South Ossetia ended up as pieces of the larger units. Decisions about the structure of this hierarchy were made by Soviet authorities, and often by individual people like Joseph Stalin. These decisions were sometimes revised, and some units moved up or down in the hierarchy in almost 70 years of the Soviet history. Yet only the top-level territories composing the USSR at the time of its dissolution received international recognition.

When Georgia declared its independence from the Soviet Union, South Ossetia was an “autonomous” unit within the Soviet Socialist Republic of Georgia. As was often the case with “autonomous” regions, the ethnicity of the majority South Ossetia’s population was different from the titular ethnicity of Georgia. When Georgia separated from the USSR, South Ossetia declared its independence from Georgia, which sent troops to keep South Ossetia from breaking away. Russia brokered an agreement to end the war in 1992.

Russia stationed its troops in South Ossetia in 1992 under the deal with Georgia and South Ossetia. The troops had a peacekeeper status and a mandate to separate Georgians and South Ossetians. The latter have been de facto independent from Georgia for 16 years. During this time most of them received Russian citizenship.

On August 8, 2008, Georgia initiated a military assault on Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, on August 8, 2008 following a week of clashes with South Ossetian troops. Georgian military shelled the city of Tskhinvali with heavy artillery including MRLS (multiple rocket launcher system) and the Georgian air force conducted bombing raids of Tskhinvali. The city fell to Georgians soon after the attack. According to the Russian defence ministry, 12 of its troops stationed in South Ossetia under the 1992 agreement with Georgia were killed and 30 wounded. Their base in Tskhinvali was destroyed.

On August 8 following the Georgian shelling of Tskhinvali, Russian troops entered South Ossetia from Russia. In five days they repelled the Georgian troops and forced them out of South Ossetia. Russian air force systematically destroyed Georgian military infrastructure in various parts of Georgia and bombed the port of Poti. Russian military entered or occupied several towns in Georgia for various lengths of time declaring its intention to destroy or remove abandoned ordnance and maintain security.

Opinion :

Is the use of force by Russia legal? Jus ad bellum - the law of entering into war, is generally based on the UN Charter. A state can use force either with permission of the Security Council or in response to an armed attack under Article 51 of the Charter. The use of force must pass the test of necessity and proportionality.

In their attack on Tskhinvali Georgian forces used weapons designed to inflict maximum destruction and casualties in a large area. The Georgian military was aware of the civilian population in the city and the Russian military contingent present in Tskhinvali under the 1992 agreement. Most residents of Tskhinvali are Russian citizens. South Ossetia is not Russian territory, and it is internationally recognized to be a part of Georgia although South Ossetian authorities dispute South Ossetia’s status within Georgia. Georgians acted in violation of the 1992 agreement and either targeted the civilians and the Russian military or attacked the city with reckless disregard for their safety and lives.

Therefore, that the Georgian shelling of Tskhinvali was an armed attack on Russia, the legality of the Russian response by force depends on whether the use of force would be necessary for a legitimate goal under the UN Charter, and whether the cost of the response in civilian lives and damage to civilian property would not outweigh the benefit. For example, if Russians responded by destroying international oil pipelines in Georgia to eliminate competition to its energy transit routes, such use of force would be unnecessary and illegal. If Russia carpet-bombed Georgian cities (like Georgia bombed Tskhinvali) declaring its intention to destroy military bases, it would probably also be illegal because the massive loss of civilian lives in Georgia would be disproportionate to a potential loss of lives, had Georgia continued unfettered.

So, Russia did none of these things when it used force against Georgia. Instead, its troops appear to be systematically degrading Georgian military. Initially this was accomplished by artillery and air force with a small number of civilian casualties, and later the preferred method appears to be occupation of Georgian military bases and controlled detonation or removal of ordnance, military vessels, aircraft and infrastructure. At some point the Russian military stopped running into any significant resistance from the Georgian troops.

Are Russian actions necessary to protect the civilian population of South Ossetia and its contingent stationed under the 1992 agreement?

Lastly, the Russian response to the Georgian attack is its proportionality. To the Russians’ credit, the civilian casualties of their military operation appear minimal, especially compared to some of the recent examples of international use of force unauthorized by the Security Council.

Continuing military operations deep into Georgian territory and fortifying their positions days after a cease-fire and withdrawal of troops has been signed is a clear violation of international law. But as they say ‘there is nothing new under the sun’

Sen. Pimentel vs Executive Secretary , G.R. No. 158088 , July 6, 2005

Facts :This is a petition of Senator Aquilino Pimentel and the other parties to ask the Supreme Court to require the Executive Department to transmit the Rome Statute which established the International Criminal Court for the Senate’s concurrence in accordance with Sec 21, Art VII of the 1987 Constitution.

Petitioners contend that that ratification of a treaty, under both domestic law and international law, is a function of the Senate. That under the treaty law and customary international law, Philippines has a ministerial duty to ratify the Rome Statute.

Respondents on the other hand, questioned the legal standing of herein petitioners and argued that executive department has no duty to transmit the Rome Statute to the Senate for concurrence.

Issues : Whether or not petitioners have the legal standing to file the instant suit.

Whether or not the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs have the ministerial duty to transmit to the Senate the copy of the Rome Statute signed by the Philippine Member to the United Nations even without the signature of the President.

Ruling : Only Senator Pimentel has a legal standing to the extent of his power as member of Congress. Other petitioners have not shown that they have sustained a direct injury from the non-transmittal and that they can seek redress in our domestic courts.

Petitioners’ interpretation of the Constitution is incorrect. The power to ratify treaties does not belong to the Senate.

Under E.O. 459, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) prepares the ratification papers and forward the signed copy to the President for ratification. After the President has ratified it, DFA shall submit the same to the Senate for concurrence.

The President has the sole authority to negotiate and enter into treaties, the Constitution provides a limitation to his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 of all the members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty entered into by him. Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.” The participation of the legislative branch in the treaty-making process was deemed essential to provide a check on the executive in the field of foreign relations.

It should be emphasized that under the Constitution the power to ratify is vested in the President subject to the concurrence of the Senate. The President has the discretion even after the signing of the treaty by the Philippine representative whether or not to ratify a treaty.

The signature does not signify final consent, it is ratification that binds the state to the provisions of the treaty and renders it effective.

Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, concurrence to the ratification. It is within the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or having secured its consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. Such decision is within the competence of the President alone, which cannot be encroached by this court via writ of mandamus,

Thus, the petition is DISMISSED.

Links to International Criminal Court

1. United States and the International Criminal Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court)
2. Judges of the International Criminal Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges_of_the_International_Criminal_Court)
3. People detained by the International Criminal Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_detained_by_the_International_Criminal_Court#Detention_centre)
4.Cases before the International Criminal Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cases_before_the_International_Criminal_Court)
5. Complaints to the International Criminal Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaints_to_the_International_Criminal_Court)
6. The International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Criminal_Court_and_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq)
7. International Criminal Court
(http://www.icc-cpi.int/home.html)
8. Coalition for the International Criminal Court
(http://www.icc-cpi.int/home.html)
9. States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Parties_of_the_International_Criminal_Court)
10. The International Criminal Court: An End To Impunity? (http://www.crimesofwar.org/icc_magazine/icc-intro.html)
11. The International Criminal Court: Global Policy Forum (http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/index.htm)
12. International Criminal Court
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court)
13. Crime against humanity
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_humanity )
14. Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#Jurisdiction)
15. Genocide definitions
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions)
16. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Prevention_and_Punishment_of_the_Crime_of_Genocide)
17. Victim participation and reparations
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#Victim_participation_and_reparations)
18. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm)
19. Stages of genocide and efforts to prevent it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Stages_of_genocide_and_efforts_to_prevent_it)
20. International Criminal Court: Information and Much More from Answer.com
(http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/index.htm)

International Criminal Court

1. How did the court begin?

The concept of an international court was first discussed in the aftermath of World War II. However, it wasn’t until the 1990s that the first ad hoc international criminal tribunals were set up to deal with war crimes in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The ad hoc tribunals were limited in their efficiency and deterrent capability, which spurred the need for a permanent court to deal with the world’s most serious crimes. A statute to establish the International Criminal Court (ICC) for creating such a body was approved at a United Nations (UN) conference in Rome on July 17, 1998. After receiving more than sixty ratifications by April 2002, the treaty became legal on July 1, 2002. On March 11, 2003, the ICC opened with Canadian Philippe Kirsch as judge-president, and Elizabeth Odio Benito of Costa Rica and Akua Kuenyenia of Ghana as vice presidents.

2. Who does the court aim to prosecute?

The ICC seeks to try individuals who are perpetrators of the world’s most serious crimes such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression. Crimes against humanity include those crimes that systematically exterminate, enslave, torture, rape, and persecute victims based on political, gender, religious, ethnic, national, or cultural differences. War crimes are violations of the international Geneva Convention to protect prisoners of war, and other laws that apply to international armed conflict. For now, the treaty has also listed a crime of “aggression,” but has yet to define what constitutes this crime. In the future, this stipulation may be amended to add other crimes.

3. What is the relationship between the United States and the ICC?

At the time of statute negotiations, the United States opposed the court, fearing their soldiers could be subject to prosecutions that were either trivial or politically motivated. In its defense, the United States insisted on immunity for all its military personnel operating in UN peacekeeping missions, particularly in East Timor and Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was denied immunity in East Timor, but after vetoing a UN-extended peacekeeping mission Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Washington was granted a one-year exemption from prosecution to be renewed every year. The United States also formed bilateral agreements with other nations obliging them not to hand over U.S. personnel to the ICC and passed the American Service Member’s Protection Act authorizing the president to use all means necessary to free U.S. personnel detained by the ICC.

Former President Bill Clinton did eventually sign the treaty at the end of his second term, but U.S. support for the treaty was quickly withdrawn when President George W. Bush un-signed the treaty in 2002.

4. What other countries are not involved?

In total, seven countries voted against the statute: China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen. China objected on grounds that “the statute is an attempt to interfere with the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation.” Other non-members include India, Iran, Japan, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Turkey. While most Western European and South American countries are signatories, there is only one Arab nation member—Jordan—and five Asian members—Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mongolia, South Korea, and Tajikistan.

5. What cases are on the docket now?

The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) has been referred cases from Uganda, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In addition, the United Nations Security Council gave its first referral for the Darfur region of Sudan to the OTP in March 2005. In accordance with the Statute of Rome, the OTP has decided to open investigation in Uganda, The Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Darfur, Sudan.

6. What is the relationship between the International Court and the national courts?

The ICC is based on a principle of complementarity. This means that the ICC can only act when a national court is unable or unwilling to carry out a prosecution itself because the ICC was not created to supplant the authority of the national courts. However, when a state’s legal system collapses or when a government is a perpetrator of heinous crimes, the ICC can exercise jurisdiction.

7. What is the difference between the ICC and other international courts such as the international criminal tribunals and the UN’s International Court of Justice?

The international criminal tribunals in Rwanda and formerYugoslavia can only try individuals who committed crimes against humanity in those territories over a specific period of time. The International Criminal Court, on the other hand, can rule on all crimes committed against humanity regardless of its location so long as they have occurred after July 1, 2002. The role of the International Court of Justice is to rule on arguments that occur between governments. Unlike the International Criminal Court, it does not have the ability to try individuals.

8. Who funds the court?

The ICC, as an independent body, is funded primarily by its member states. The contributions of each state are determined by the same method used by the UN, which roughly corresponds with a country’s income. Additional funding is provided by voluntary government contributions, international organizations, individuals, corporations, and other entities. The United Nations may provide funding if it is approved by the General Assembly and is related to a “situation” referred to the court by the Security Council.

9. What is the ICC?

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a permanent international tribunal that will try individuals responsible for the most serious international crimes. One hundred and sixty countries attended a U.N.-sponsored conference in Rome in 1998 to draft a treaty for the establishment of the ICC. After five weeks of intense negotiations, 120 countries voted to adopt the treaty. Only seven countries voted against it (including China, Libya, Iraq, and the United States) and 21 abstained. Before the court can be set up, 60 countries need to ratify the treaty. 139 states signed the treaty by the 31 December 2000 deadline. The treaty entered into force on July 1, 2002. As of July 18, 2008, 108 states have ratified it.

10. What crimes does the ICC prosecute?

The ICC will prosecute individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, all defined in the court's treaty. The ICC will help ensure that these serious crimes, which have long been recognized by the international community, no longer go unpunished because of the unwillingness or inability of individual countries to prosecute them.

11. Who can be brought to trial before the ICC?

The ICC will have jurisdiction over crimes committed by the nationals of governments that ratify the treaty, or in the territories of governments that ratify. It can try any individual responsible for such crimes, regardless of his or her civilian or military status or official position.

12. What are the rights of those accused of a crime by the ICC?

The ICC treaty contains a detailed list of the rights that any accused person shall enjoy, including the presumption of innocence, the right to counsel, to present evidence, the right to remain silent, and the right to have charges proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

13. How will national courts and the ICC work together?

The treaty gives the ICC jurisdiction that is complementary to national jurisdictions. This "principle of complementarity," as it is known, gives states the primary responsibility and duty to prosecute the most serious international crimes, while allowing the ICC to step in only as a last resort if the states fail to implement their duty -- that is, only if investigations and, if appropriate, prosecutions are not carried out in good faith. Bona fide efforts to discover the truth and to hold accountable those responsible for any acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes will bar the ICC from proceeding.

At a press conference on June 12, 2002, U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen, while opposing the ICC, admitted that the court's limited authority would protect US troops and officials: "We have demonstrated over the years wherever there is an allegation of abuse on the part of a soldier we have a judicial system that will deal with it very effectively," Cohen said. "As long as we have a respected judicial system then there should be some insulation factor." That is, the ICC would then be barred from proceedings against Americans.

14. How is the ICC different from the International Court of Justice (World Court) and other existing international tribunals?

The International Court of Justice (ICJ or World Court) is a civil tribunal that hears disputes between countries. The ICC is a criminal tribunal that will prosecute individuals. The two ad hoc war crimes tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda are similar to the ICC but have limited geographical scope while the ICC will be global in its reach. The ICC, as a permanent court, will also avoid the delay and start-up costs of creating country specific tribunals from scratch each time the need arises.

15. What good can the International Criminal Court do?

The ICC will help end the impunity often enjoyed by those responsible for the most serious international human rights crimes. It will provide incentives and guidance for countries that want to prosecute such criminals in their own courts, and it will offer permanent back up in cases where countries are unwilling or unable to try these criminals themselves, because of violence, intimidation, or a lack of resources or political will.

As noted, the ICC is not intended to replace national courts. Domestic judicial systems remain the first line of accountability in prosecuting these crimes. The ICC ensures that those who commit the most serious human rights crimes are punished even if national courts are unable or unwilling to do so. Indeed, the possibility of an ICC proceeding may encourage national prosecutions in states that would otherwise avoid bringing war criminals to trial.

16. Who can join the ICC?

All countries of the world can ratify the ICC treaty. Members must accept the court's jurisdiction and cooperate with the court in investigating and prosecuting crimes and enforcing penalties.

17. Where is the ICC located and who is paying for the court?

The ICC has its permanent seat in The Hague, the Netherlands. When necessary, it may also make arrangements to sit in other countries. The countries that belong to the ICC determine its budget and provide the necessary funding. The United Nations also contributes funds, especially when the ICC investigates and prosecutes cases referred to it by the U.N. Security Council.

18. How do the ICC and the Security Council work together?

The Security Council may refer cases to the ICC for investigation and prosecution. The Security Council may also request the ICC to suspend investigations for 12 months at a time if it feels that ICC proceedings might interfere with the Security Council's responsibility to maintain peace and security. This arrangement makes it difficult for any one permanent Security Council member to manipulate the ICC while permitting the Security Council to resolve any genuine conflicts of interest with the ICC.

19. How politically motivated cases be avoided?

Many safeguards exist in the ICC treaty to prevent frivolous or politically motivated cases. For example, all indictments will require confirmation by a Pre-Trial Chamber of judges, which will examine the evidence supporting the indictment before issuing it. The accused and any concerned countries will have an opportunity to challenge the indictment during confirmation hearings before the Pre-Trial Chamber. In addition, any investigation initiated by the prosecutor will first have to be approved by the Pre-Trial Chamber.

Prosecutors and judges all undergo rigorous scrutiny before they are elected and appointed to the court. The treaty establishes strict criteria for the selection of the prosecutor and the judges, requiring experts whose reputation, moral character and independence are beyond reproach. They are prohibited from any activity during their term in office that might jeopardize their independence, and can be excused from particular cases if there is any question of partiality. Ultimately, in the unlikely event that they abuse their powers, they can be impeached.

States that join the ICC will nominate persons to be elected as judges and prosecutor. Only those eligible to hold high judicial office in their own country can be nominated as judges of the ICC.

20. What happens if a country does not ratify the treaty?

Countries that fail to ratify the ICC treaty will be prohibited from participating in the nomination of the court's judges and prosecutor. They will also lose the privilege of contributing to decisions about the budget and administrative operations.

RECOGNITION

Tobar - Wilson Doctrine

* A doctrine that precludes recognition of any government established by revolution, civil war, coup d’ etat or other forms of internal violence until the freely elected representatives of the people have organized a constitutional government.

* First expressed in the 1907 Central American Republics at the suggestion of Foreign Minister Tobar of Ecuador and reiterated by President Woodrow Wilson of the US in a public statement made in 1913.

Example : The Revolution in Nicaragua in which through the moral mandate of US, communicated to rebels in order to foster a true consititutional government and free elections aimed for the preservation of general welfare of Central America.

Stimson Doctrine

* Precludes the recognition of any government established as a result of external aggression.

* Formulated by US Secretary of State Stimson in 1932.

* Adopted by the League of Nations through a resolution stating that: “It is incumbent upon the members of the League of Nations not to recognize any situation, treaty or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the Covenant of the League of Nations or to the Pact of Paris”

Example : The United States did not recognize the Japanese-supported government in Manchukuo (1932) or the Italian government in Ethiopia (1936).

Estrada Doctrine

* The diplomatic representatives in a country where a political upheaval has taken place will deal or will not deal with whatever government is in control at the time and either action shall not be taken as a judgment on the legitimacy of the said government.

* Attributed to Foreign Minister Genaro Estrada of Mexico.

* Example: Recognition of PROC based on the ‘one china policy’

Example : Many Latin Americans condemn the idea of the US unilaterally "certifying" nations as fighting against the drug trade

CMC vs. Callega, G.R. no. 85750, September 28, 1990

Facts : After the Vietnam War, the international community was confronted with a problem on the plight of Vietnamese refugees fleeing from South Vietnam. In response, an agreement was forged between Philippine Government and United Nations High Commissioner for refugees to create an operating center for the resettlement of refugees.

Under the said agreement, the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) was accredited by the Philippine Government to operate the refugee processing center in Morong, Bataan. The ICMC was considered a non-profit agency involved in international and humanitarian and voluntary work.

However, on July 14, 1986, the Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Service (TUPAS) filed to the then Ministry of Labor and Employment a Petition for Certification Election among the rank and file members employed by ICMC.

Afterwhich, while ICMC’s request for recognition as a “specialized agency” was still pending, Director Pura Calleja of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) ordered ICMC the immediate conduct of certification of election.

Subsequently, through the Department of Foreign Affairs (DEFORAF) the ICMC was granted a status of a specialized agency with corresponding diplomatic priveleges and immunities. ICMC then sought immediate dismissal of TUPAS petition invoking immunities expressly granted but were twice denied by respondent BLR director. Thus, the present Petition for Certiorari is now at bar.

Issue : Whether or not the grant of diplomatic priveleges and immunities to ICMC extends to immunity from the application of Philippine labor laws

Held : The immunity granted being from every form of legal process except in any particular case they have expressly waived the immunity.
Respondent’s claim in so far as stating that a certification of election is beyond the scope of immunity. That such is not a suit against ICMC but mere investigation of a non-adversary fact-finding character were all rejected.

The immunuties accorded to international organization constitute a categorical recognition by the executive branch of the Government. Its determination is held to be a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by the Executive Branch. Where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized an affirmed by the executive branch as in the case at bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion of the principal law officer of the government or other officer acting under his direction - as for this case the DEFORAF.

Moreover, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Department of Labor would defeat the very purpose of immunity, which is to shield the affairs of internatinal organizations, in accordance with international practice, from political pressure or control by the host country and to ensure unhampered perfromance of their functions.

Petition is GRANTED.

Marcos vs. Manglapus, G.R. no. 88211, September 15, 1989

Facts : In February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from presidency via people power and forced into exile in Hawaii. Nearly three years after, in his deathbed seeks return to the Philippines to die.

Thus, this petition for mandamus and prohibition asks the Court to order the respondent to issue travel documents to Mr. Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to enjoin the the implementation of President Aquino’s decision to bar their return to the Philippines.

Petitioners contend that the right of the Marcoses to return to the Philippines is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. That the President is without power to impair the liberty of abode of the Marcoses because only the court may do so “within the limits prescribed by law.” The President has enumerated powers and what is not enumerated is impliedly denied to her.

Issues : Whether or not the President has the power under the Constitution, to bar Marcoses from returning to the Philippines

Whether or not the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction upon determining that the Marcoses’s return poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and decided to bar their return

Held : The executive power of the President under the Constitution is more than the sum of specific powers enumerated under the Constitution. In balancing the general welfare and the common good against the exercise of rights of certain individuals, the power involved is the President’s residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. Presidential power is a wide discretion, within the bounds of laws and extraordinary in times of emergency.

The President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of former President Marcos and his family poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare. There exist factual bases in the President’s decision in the pleadings, oral arguments and facts filed by the parties during the briefing in chambers by the Chief of Staff of the Armed of the Philppines and National Security Adviser.

That the President has the power under the Constitution to bar the Macrose’s from returning has been recognized by the members of the Legislature. Through a Resolution proposed in the House of Representative, signed by 103 members urging the President to allow Mr. Marcos to return to the Philippines –an act of true national reconciliation. The Resolution does not question the President’s power but was an appeal to allow a man to come home and to die in his country. Such request submit to the exercise of a broader discretion on the part of the President to determine whether it must be granted or not.

The case is not a political question and for such, the court exercised its judicial power involving the determination whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumnetality of the government.

Petition is hereby DISMISSED.