View full case

MARK ANT V. ZABAL v. RODRIGO R. DUTERTE

FACTS:

This case involves a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus filed by petitioners, who are residents and business owners in Boracay. They challenge the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 475, which ordered the closure of Boracay for rehabilitation. The petitioners argue that the proclamation is an invalid exercise of legislative power and infringes on their constitutional rights. They claim that the closure of Boracay violated their right to travel and work, as well as their right to due process. Petitioners seek various orders, including restraining respondents from enforcing the closure and allowing petitioners and tourists to enter and leave the island. The respondents claim that the President is immune from suit and should be dropped as a party. They argue that prohibition is improper and mandamus is inappropriate in this case. Respondents assert that there is no justiciable controversy between the preservation of natural resources and the right of petitioners to earn a living.

The respondents argue that Proclamation No. 475 is a valid exercise of delegated legislative power and is based on the authority given to the President to declare a state of calamity. They contend that the proclamation was issued in accordance with the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010. Respondents claim that the President's approval of the recommendation to place Boracay under a state of calamity was an exercise of his power of control over the executive branch. They also assert that the right to travel is not absolute and can be restricted for national security, public safety, or public health reasons. Respondents dispute the petitioners' allegations of being deprived of their livelihood without due process, arguing that they are freelancers in the informal economy sector. Respondents further argue that Proclamation No. 475 does not unduly infringe upon the local autonomy of the LGUs concerned. They emphasize the need for national government agencies to intervene and assist the LGUs in addressing the environmental problem in Boracay. Lastly, respondents assert that petitioners' intention to re-open Boracay would aggravate the environmental degradation of the island.

In another aspect of the case, the petitioners seek to compel the government to enforce environmental laws, close establishments violating these laws, rehabilitate the island, and prevent further degradation. The respondents argue that the President should be dropped as a party based on the doctrine of non-suability of the incumbent President. They argue that suing the President would hinder his ability to perform his official duties and compromise the dignity of the office. The Court agrees to drop President Duterte as a respondent and discusses the proper use of the writs of prohibition and mandamus.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the recourse of prohibition and mandamus is proper in this case.

  2. Whether or not the requisites for judicial review are met.

  3. Whether there is an actual case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for determination.

  4. Whether the petitioners have legal standing to sue.

  5. Whether or not the petitioners have locus standi to file the present petition.

  6. Whether or not the defense of strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is applicable in the instant case.

  7. Whether or not Proclamation No. 475, declaring a state of calamity in certain barangays in Boracay and the temporary closure of the island as a tourist destination, is constitutional.

  8. Whether or not the environmental issues raised in the case warrant the application of the defense of SLAPP.

  9. Whether or not there is a need to implement urgent measures to address the environmental degradation and ecological imbalance in the Island of Boracay.

  10. Whether or not the President has the authority to declare a State of Calamity and order the temporary closure of the Island of Boracay as a tourist destination.

  11. Does Proclamation No. 475 constitute an impairment on the right to travel?

  12. Does Proclamation No. 475 deliberately mean to impair the right to travel?

RULING:

  1. The use of prohibition and mandamus is not confined to Rule 65. These extraordinary remedies may be invoked when constitutional violations or issues are raised. Prohibition seeks to prevent the performance of an illegal act, while mandamus commands the performance of a duty that has been neglected. It is not enough that the closure of Boracay is already a fait accompli or that there was no neglect of duty on the part of the respondents. The petition must meet the requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial review.

  2. The four requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial review are: (a) actual case or controversy; (b) locus standi of the petitioners; (c) constitutional question raised at the earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality being the lis mota of the case. The petition must not only mount a constitutional challenge against the closure of Boracay but must also meet these requisites for the Court to sustain the propriety of the recourse.

  3. There is an actual case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for determination. The implementation of Proclamation No. 475, which temporarily closed Boracay and banned tourists and non-residents from entering the island, has raised concerns of possible constitutional rights violations. The reopening of Boracay does not render the case moot and academic due to the possibility of constitutional violations and the exceptional character of the situation.

  4. The petitioners do not have legal standing to sue. The sandcastle maker and driver only have a contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest in the case, as their earnings are not guaranteed and depend on the business climate. Their alleged loss of income is a mere projected earning and does not confer legal standing. As for the non-resident occasional visitor, he fails to provide specific details on how his right to travel was affected, and thus lacks the requisite legal standing to sue.

  5. The Court waived the requirement of locus standi due to the transcendental importance of the case and the matters involved, which affect public interests. It allowed the petition to proceed.

  6. The defense of SLAPP does not apply in this case as the ultimate issue for resolution is the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 475, not the environmental issues in Boracay.

  7. The Court did not provide a ruling on the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 475 as the case was dropped due to its mootness.

  8. The defense of SLAPP does not apply in this case as it does not solely involve environmental issues but primarily concerns the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 475.

  9. Yes, there is a need to implement urgent measures to address the environmental degradation and ecological imbalance in the Island of Boracay. The continuous rise of tourist arrivals, the insufficient sewer and waste management system, and environmental violations of establishments aggravate the environmental degradation and destroy the ecological balance of the island, resulting in major damage to property and natural resources, as well as the disruption of the normal way of life of the people therein.

  10. Yes, the President has the authority to declare a State of Calamity and order the temporary closure of the Island of Boracay as a tourist destination. The President, by virtue of the powers vested in him by the Constitution and existing laws, has the authority to declare a State of Calamity and exercise control over various government agencies and local government units to implement and execute the closure and the appropriate rehabilitation works.

  11. The Court answers in the negative. Proclamation No. 475 does not pose an actual impairment on the right to travel.

  12. There is no showing that Proclamation No. 475 deliberately meant to impair the right to travel. The questioned proclamation is clearly focused on its purpose of rehabilitating Boracay and any intention to directly restrict the right cannot, in any manner, be deduced from its import.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Prohibition is a preventive remedy seeking to stop the commission of an illegal act.

  • Mandamus is a remedy to command the performance of a duty that has been neglected.

  • Prohibition and mandamus may be invoked when constitutional violations or issues are raised.

  • The four requisites for the exercise of judicial review are: actual case or controversy, locus standi, constitutional question raised at the earliest opportunity, and issue of constitutionality being the lis mota of the case.

  • Judicial review is limited to actual cases or controversies and does not extend to hypothetical or abstract questions. The power of judicial review does not provide advisory opinions.

  • Legal standing requires a party to have a personal and substantial interest in a case, showing direct injury as a result of the governmental act being challenged. Mere expectancies or contingencies do not confer legal standing.

  • The rule on locus standi can be waived or relaxed in cases of transcendental importance or public interest.

  • Matters that involve possible violations of the Constitution and the need to rehabilitate a prime tourist destination are considered of transcendental importance to the people.

  • The defense of SLAPP does not apply when the ultimate issue for resolution is the constitutionality of a government measure.

  • The State has the duty to protect and promote the health and well-being of its residents, workers, and tourists, and to rehabilitate environmentally degraded areas to ensure sustainability and prevent further degradation of ecosystems.

  • The President has the authority to declare a State of Calamity and exercise control over government agencies and local government units to address disasters and implement measures for relief, rehabilitation, and public safety.

  • All lands not privately owned belong to the State under the Regalian Doctrine.

  • The government may take measures to upgrade the quality of water in non-attainment areas and prevent the discharge of pollutants without a corresponding reduction in discharges from existing sources.

  • Executive determinations, such as the factual bases for a proclamation, are generally final on the court.

  • Any bearing that a proclamation may have on the right to travel is merely corollary to the closure or restriction imposed for a legitimate purpose.

  • To constitute an impairment on the right to travel, there must be a deliberate intention to restrict such right.

  • Laws recognized as constituting an impairment on the right to travel directly impose restrictions on the right.