29 Zabal vs.

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:

According to the Supreme Court:

- President Duterte is dropped as respondent in this case.

o According to the case of Professor David v. President Arroyo on the non-suability of an
incumbent president.
 “Settled is the doctrine that the President, during his tenure of office or actual
incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case.”
- Prohibition is not the proper remedy – it is not intended to provide a remedy for acts already
accomplished
- Mandamus is not the proper remedy – no neglect of duty on the part of respondents as they were
precisely performing their duty to protect the environment.
- SC held that the petitioners do not have locus standi because the closure of Boracay would not
directly affect their livelihood due to the fact that the employment of petitioners were not certain
as SC quoted that there are some days/seasons that they do not earn anything.
o However, notwithstanding petitioner’s lack of locus standi, SC allowed this petition to
proceed to its ultimate conclusion due to its transcendental importance.
- Defense of SLAPP is not applicable because the ultimate issue for resolution is the constitutionality
of the Proclamation.
- Proclamation No. 475 does not pose an actual impairment on the right to travel.
o The questioned proclamation is clearly focused on its purpose of rehabilitating Boracay
and any intention to directly restrict the right cannot be deduced from its import – as
opposed to several laws which directly impose restriction on the right to travel.
- Proclamation No. 475 must be upheld for being in the nature of a valid police power measure.
 o Police power has been defined as the state authority to enact legislation that may
interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote general welfare.
 It consists of (1) imposition or restraint upon liberty or property, (2) in order to
foster common good.
o The assailed governmental measure draws authority and the constitutional provisions
Article II, Sections 15 and 16 and Article XII, Section 2 which serve as its framework, are
primarily concerned with the environment and health, safety, and well-being of the
people, the promotion and securing of which are clearly legitimate objectives of
governmental efforts and regulations.
- Petitioners have no vested rights on their sources of income as to be entitled to due process
o Property rights must bow to the primacy of police power because property rights, though
sheltered by due process, must yield to general welfare.
o Petitioners cannot be said to have already acquired vested rights to their sources of
income in Boracay as they are part of the informal sector of the economy where earnings
are not guaranteed.
- No intrusion into the autonomy of the concerned LGUs
o RA 10121 recognizes and even puts a premium on the role of the LG Us in disaster risk
reduction and management as shown by the fact that a number of the legislative policies
set out in the subject statute recognize and aim to strengthen the powers decentralized
to LGUs.