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 Summary (G.R. No. 238467)

Petitioners’ Locus Standi

– Zabal and Jacosalem claim direct injury to their livelihoods from the closure.
– Bandiola asserts injury to his right to travel as a non-resident visitor.

Executive Measures Taken

The President, citing fecal coliform contamination, illegal structures on wetlands, erosion, waste-management failures, and habitat destruction, placed Boracay under state of calamity and ordered its temporary closure to facilitate environmental rehabilitation.

Proclamation No. 475 and Its Basis

Proclamation 475 declared a state of calamity in Barangays Balabag, Manoc-Manoc, and Yapak and ordered island closure for six months, citing constitutional mandates to protect public health and ecology and statutes on disaster risk management and clean water.

Arguments of Petitioners

  1. No law authorizes the President to restrict the right to travel; the closure is an invalid exercise of legislative power.
  2. The six-month total closure unduly impairs the right to travel and to due process, especially the right to work and earn a living.
  3. The measure is overbroad, arbitrary and not the least restrictive means.
  4. The President unlawfully exercised control over local government units, infringing local autonomy.

Arguments of Respondents

  1. Closure authorized under RA 10121, pursuant to presidential power to declare state of calamity on NDRRMC recommendation.
  2. Closure is a valid exercise of executive (police) power to protect environment, public health, and safety.
  3. Travel and livelihood restrictions are incidental to legitimate rehabilitation.
  4. President’s actions do not override local autonomy, but direct coordination among agencies.

Propriety of Prohibition and Mandamus

The Court reaffirmed that prohibition and mandamus are proper to raise constitutional challenges to executive acts when no other adequate remedy exists, subject to requirements of actual controversy, standing, earliest opportunity, and lis mota.

Existence of Controversy and Standing

– An actual controversy arose with the abrupt closure and ban on entry.
– Petitioners demonstrated reasonable certainty of infringement on travel and employment rights.
– Although earnings are variable, Zabal and Jacosalem showed direct injury to their livelihoods; Bandiola showed injury to travel rights.
– The Court relaxed strict standing rules due to transcendental importance and public interest.

Right to Travel under the Constitution

Article III, Section 6 permits impairment of travel only in interest of national security, public safety or public health, and only “as may be provided by law.” Any closure affecting travel must be grounded in clear statutory authority.

Statutory Basis for Closure

– RA 10121 empowers the President only to declare a state of calamity on NDRRMC recommendation and to implement limited remedial measures (price controls, fund reprogramming, no-interest loans).
– RA 10121 prioritizes local councils for disaster response; it does not authorize island-wide closures.
– RA 9275 authorizes water-quality programs and designation of non-attainment areas, but directs LGUs to implement contingency measures.

Scope of Presidential Authority

– Presidential proclamations derive limited power: they declare conditions on which specific laws operate, not create new authority.
– Faithful execution clause (Article VII, Section 17) requires compliance, not law-making.
– Emergency or calling-out powers under the Constitution do not extend to sweeping closures of private property or fundamental-rights curtailments.

Police Power and Environmental Rehabilitation

– Police power rests primarily with the legislature; executive action must be authorized by law.
– Borrowing from US and Philippine precedents, indirect or incidental travel restrictions are treated as direct impairments and must be statutory.
– Environmental repair and temporary closures are valid legislative subjects but require a clear legal basis.

Due Process and Right to Livelihood

– The right to work and earn a living is a property right protected by due process (Article III, Section 1) and must


    ...continue reading

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

    About Privacy Terms