Boracay Case
Boracay Case
Duterte
Facts:
- Petitioners Zabal and Jacosalem are both residents of Boracay who were earning a living from the tourist
activities therein.
- Respondents PDU30, Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea and DILG Secretary Eduardo Ano were being
sued in their capacity as officials of the government.
- President Duterte through Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque announced the total closure of Boracay
for a maximum period of 6 months starting April 26, 2018.
- Petitioners filed a petition praying that:
o Upon filing of the petition a TRO and/or a Writ of Preliminary Prohibition Injunction be
immediately issued restraining and/or Enjoining the respondents, and all persons acting under
their command, order, and responsibility from enforcing the closure of Boracay Island. + Writ of
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction directing respondents to allow petitioners, tourist and non-
residents to enter and leave Boracay Island.
o And in the alternative, that a Status Que Ante Order be issued restoring and maintaining the
condition prior to closure.
o And a judgment be rendered Permanently Restraining Respondents from enforcing a closure of
Boracay Island and declaring the ban/closure to be unconstitutional
- Petitioner’s Arguments
o Proclamation No. 475 is an invalid exercise of legislative powers.
Petitioners argued that its issuance is in truth a law-making exercise since the
proclamation imposed a restriction on the constitutional right to travel and due process
(right to work and earn a living) which is not vested in the President.
o Petitioner likewise argue that the closure of Boracay could not be anchored on police power
because it is not exercised by the executive but by the legislative bodies through creation of
statutes and ordinances.
o Petitioner also stated that the Proclamation impinges upon the local autonomy of the affected
LGUs
- Respondent’s Arguments
o Respondents assert that PDU30 must be dropped as party-respondent in the case because he is
immune from suit.
o Prohibition is not the proper remedy because the proclamation has already been implemented
fait accompli.
o Mandamus is not the proper remedy because they were not neglectful of their duty to protect
the environment.
o That the petition is in the nature of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) under
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases which is a legal action filed to simply harass, vex,
exert undue pressure or stifle enforcement of environmental laws.
o Respondents contend that the issuance of the Proclamation is a valid exercise of delegated
legislative power, it being anchored on Section 16 of the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management Act or the authority of the president to declare a state of calamity.
o They also contend that the Proclamation was issued pursuant to the President’s executive power
to enforce and administer laws which include the power to control bureaus and offices.
o In sum, respondents emphasize that the issuance of the Proclamation is within the ambit of the
powers of the President and not contrary to the doctrine of separation of powers.
o On the right to travel and due process, respondents emphasize that the right to travel is not an
absolute right, it may be impaired or restricted in the interest of national security, public safety
etc.
o On the right to due process, respondent claimed that petitioners were merely freelances and
their private interests should yield to the reasonable prerogatives of the States for the public
good and welfare.
o Lastly, respondents argued that the Proclamation does not unduly transgress upon the local
autonomy of the LGU concerned, national government can interfere with LGU’s affairs especially
when the localized problem cannot be resolved by the LGU concerned.
Issue:
- Whether or not PDU30 acted within the scope of the powers granted him by the Constitution in ordering
the closure of Boracay
- YES
Ruling: