Title
Zabal vs. Duterte
Case
G.R. No. 238467
Decision Date
Feb 12, 2019
Boracay residents and visitors challenged President Duterte's six-month closure order, citing violations of rights and local autonomy. The Supreme Court upheld the closure, ruling it a valid exercise of executive power to address environmental degradation, ensuring public welfare and enforcing environmental laws.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 238467)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • The Parties and Petition
    • Petitioners Mark Anthony V. Zabal (sandcastle maker), Thiting Esteso Jacosalem (driver), and Odon S. Bandiola (non-resident visitor) earn their living from tourism in Boracay.
    • They filed a special civil action for Prohibition and Mandamus with Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and/or Status Quo Ante Order against President Rodrigo R. Duterte, Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, and DILG Secretary Eduardo M. AAo.
    • They contend that the island’s scheduled rehabilitation and closure violate their constitutional rights to travel and due process.
  • Boracay Closure and Rehabilitation
    • President Duterte publicly labeled Boracay a “cesspool” in February 2018 and announced plans for a six-month shutdown.
    • In a Cabinet meeting on April 4, 2018, he ordered total closure starting April 26, 2018; around 630 police and military personnel were deployed.
    • DILG issued draft guidelines restricting entry to residents and barring tourists; swimming and business operations were suspended.
    • On April 26, 2018, Proclamation No. 475 formally declared a state of calamity in Boracay and ordered the island’s closure until October 25, 2018 to facilitate environmental rehabilitation.
  • Procedural History
    • The Supreme Court required respondents to comment on April 26 and June 5, 2018; respondents filed a Consolidated Comment on July 30, 2018; petitioners replied on October 12, 2018.
    • Boracay reopened on October 26, 2018.
    • The Court consolidated issues of legality and constitutionality of Proclamation 475 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Issues:

  • Whether Prohibition and Mandamus are proper remedies to challenge an executive proclamation on constitutional grounds.
  • Whether Proclamation No. 475 is a valid exercise of legislative power by the President.
  • Whether Proclamation No. 475 improperly restricts the constitutional right to travel without a law.
  • Whether the island’s closure deprived petitioners of their right to work and earn a living without due process.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.