Facts:
Mark Anthony V. Zabal, Thiting Estoso Jacosalem, and Odon S. Bandiola v. Rodrigo R. Duterte, G.R. No. 238467, February 12, 2019, Supreme Court En Banc, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners Zabal and Jacosalem were Boracay-based workers (a sandcastle maker and a driver, respectively) and Bandiola an occasional non‑resident visitor; they filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with application for TRO, preliminary injunction and/or status quo ante order challenging the announced closure and rehabilitation of Boracay and, after its issuance,
Proclamation No. 475 (declaring a state of calamity and ordering temporary closure of the island for six months beginning 26 April 2018). Respondents were the President, the Executive Secretary and the DILG Secretary, sued in their official capacities; the petition attacked the proclamation as exceeding executive power and as violating the rights to travel and due process (livelihood), and sought to enjoin enforcement and to have the proclamation declared unconstitutional.
The petition was filed 25 April 2018 and supplemented after the Proclamation on 18 May 2018. The Court required respondents’ comments (Resolutions of 26 April and 5 June 2018); respondents filed a Consolidated Comment (30 July 2018) and petitioners replied (12 October 2018). Boracay was reopened on 26 October 2018. The case came to the Supreme Court as an original special civil action under Rule 65 (petition for prohibition and mandamus) raising constitutional questions and asking extraordinary reliefs (TRO, injunctive and declaratory relief).
Petitioners alleged (inter alia) that the President’s closure usurped legislative power, impermissibly restricted the right to travel (Art. III, Sec. 6) without a statute, and deprived many—especially informal workers—of livelihood without due process. Respondents defended the Proclamation as within the President’s executive and delegated authority under
RA 10121 (the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010), as proper exercise of police power to protect public health and the environment (also invoking
RA 9275, the Clean Water Act), and argued the writs were improper...
(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether incumbent President Rodrigo R. Duterte may remain a respondent in this suit.
- Whether prohibition and mandamus (Rule 65) were proper remedies and whether the petition satisfied the requisites for judicial review (actual controversy, locus standi, earliest opportunity, lis mota).
- Whether Proclamation No. 475 actually impaired the constitutional right to travel (Art. III, Sec. 6).
- If there was an impairment, whether the Proclamation was a valid exercise of police power (including statutory authority under RA 10121 and environmental laws).
- Whether the Proclamation deprived petitioners of due process by taking their means of livelihood without compensation or legal process.
- Whether Proclamation No....(Pro-only)
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: