G.R. No.

238467 February 12, 2019

Mark Anthony Zabal, et. Al., Petitioners

v.

Rodrigo R. Duterte, et. Al., Respondents

Facts:

Before the Court is a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus filed by Mark Anthony Zabal,
Thiting Jacosalem, and Odon Bandiola against respondents President Rodrigo Duterte,
Executive Secretary Salvador Mediela, and DILG Secretary Eduardo Año.

President Duterte implemented the Proclamation No. 475 which ordered the closure of Boracay
for six months from April 26,2018 to October 25, 2018.

The Petitioners were earning a living from the tourist activities in the Island and they fear that
they would suffer grave and irreparable damage from the closure since their earnings were
barely enough to feed their families.

The Petitioner asserts that the closure of Boracay and the ban against them is unconstitutional
for it infringe on their rights to travel and to due process since they were deprived of the
corollary right to work and earn a living.

Issue:

Whether the Proclamation No. 475 infringe upon the constitutional rights to travel and to due
process of the Petitioners or not.

Ruling:

No, the petition is denied. The Supreme Court ruled that the Proclamation No. 475 does not
pose an actual impairment on the right to travel. The subject Proclamation is clearly focused on
its purpose of rehabilitating Boracay and any intention to directly restrict the right to enter the
island cannot, in any manner, be deduced from its import.

Moreover, the Supreme Court also ruled that the Petitioners have no vested rights on their
sources of income in Boracay as to be entitled to due process. The Petitioners’ form a part of the
informal sector of the economy where earnings are not guaranteed, their asserted right to
whatever they may earn from tourist arrivals in the island is merely an inchoate right or one
that has not fully developed and cannot be claimed as one’s own.

Therefore, they do not possess any vested right on their sources of income, and under this
context, their claim of lack of due process collapses since only rights which have completely and
definitely accrued and settled are entitled protection under the due process clause.