G.R. No.

238467, February 12, 2019

Mark Anthony Zabal, et.al., petitioner, v. Pres. Duterte, et. al., respondents
Del Castillo, J.

Facts:
 President Duterte declared Boracay under a state of calamity and ordered its closure, citing environmental
deterioration or degradation.
 Mark Anthony Zabal filed a petition challenging the closure's justification under police power before the
Supreme Court.

Issue on Police Power:

Whether or not the temporary closure of Boracay Island for rehabilitation was a valid exercise of police power.

Supreme Court Ruling:

Yes. The Supreme Court held that the temporary closure of Boracay Island was a valid exercise of police power.

The President’s Proclamation No. 475 is a legitimate exercise of police power intended to rehabilitate Boracay to
ensure the health and safety of the people and the preservation of the environment.

The temporary closure of Boracay to tourists is deemed a necessary measure to address environmental issues or
degradation and is not considered an arbitrary or oppressive action against individuals' rights, including the right
to travel and the right to work.

The closure for a period of six months’ efficient way to make sure the rehabilitation efforts were done properly
and quickly.

Finally, the Supreme Court also addressed the petitioner's Zabal concerns regarding the right to travel and the
right to due process, concluding that Proclamation No. 475 did not pose an actual infringement on the right to
travel, it was merely only temporary.

Thus, the Supreme Court's ruling dismissing the Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus, challenging
Proclamation No. 475.

NOTES:

Petition for Prohibition: This is a legal remedy wanted to prevent any government agency or public official from
performing an act that is beyond their jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction. It is generally filed in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals when there is no appeal or any
other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Petition for Mandamus: This is wanted to compel a government agency, public official, or any entity to perform
a duty required by law but is neglected or refused. Mandamus is invoked when there is a clear legal right to the
performance of the act and no other adequate remedy is available.

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO): This is a provisional remedy issued to temporarily stop a party from
performing a specific act, preventing irreparable harm or injustice while the case is being decided. A TRO is
effective for a maximum of 20 days and can be issued ex parte (without hearing the side of the other party) in
cases of extreme urgency.
Preliminary Injunction: Similar to a TRO but granted after judicial scrutiny during a hearing, a preliminary
injunction is a court order preventing a party from doing a specific act during the pendency of the case. Unlike
the TRO, an injunction remains effective until the court decides otherwise.

Status Quo Ante Order: This order commands the parties involved to maintain the situation as it was before the
litigation, effectively restoring the parties to their original positions prior to the issuance of the contested act or
decision.