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 Proclamation No. 475 is
unduly vague and unconstitutionally broad.

Issue:

Whether the Proclamation No. 475 is unconstitutional and void for vagueness, or not.

Ruling:

No, the petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that President Duterte exercised a valid
Police Power in implementing the Proclamation No. 475. Police Power constitutes an implied
limitation to the Bill of Rights, and that even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is subject to
the far more overriding demands and requirements of the greater number. The temporary
closure of Boracay, although unprecedented and radical as it may seem, was reasonably
necessary and not unduly oppressive. It was the most practical and realistic means of ensuring
that rehabilitation works in the island are started and carried out in the most efficacious and
expeditious way. Moreover, the Petitioners totally failed to counter the factual bases and
provide proof showing of grave abuse of discretion, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or
oppressiveness of the challenged executive action.

In the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Leolen, he stated that the Proclamation is unduly vague
and unconstitutionally broad. The specific actions and programs to be undertaken during the
closure of the entire island, so as to properly advise the residents, workers, and others
interested, are not clearly stated. The six (6)-month duration of the closure is arbitrary. The state
of calamity will persist even after the closure expires. The lifting of the declaration of the state of
calamity is not preceded by any discernible standard. Proclamation is vague and contradicts at
least the DILG Guidelines and existing statutes; namely, our Civil Code and Republic Act No.
9275.

The Proclamation does not pass due process scrutiny because it is vague that it does not
adequately provide notice to all those affected as to what the Chief Executive, through his
various departments, intend to do and how the rights of those encompassed within its broad
sweep will be affected. Worse, the deployment of a massive contingent of law enforcers and the
curtailment of freedom of the press may have served to stifle questions as to the specific
contours of the actions of government to address the ecological situation in the island.