THE Supreme Court has been asked to reconsider its decision upholding the legality of President Duterte’s Proclamation No. 475, which placed the island of Boracay under a state of calamity and ordered its temporary closure to pave the way for its rehabilitation.
The motion was filed by Boracay residents Mark Anthony Zabal, Thiting Estoso Jacosalem and Odeon Bandiola through the assistance of the National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL)
The petitioners are asking the Court to take a second look at the way Duterte exercised his police power, which they insisted failed to comply with Section 6, Article III, of the 1987 Constitution. That provision states that the right to travel can only be curtailed “in the interest of national security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law.”
They stressed that if the decision is not reversed, this would set “a dangerous legal precedent as far as constitutional rights are concerned.” In its ruling issued in February, the Court held that Proclamation No. 475 did not pose an actual impairment of the right to travel.
The SC pointed out that the impact of the said proclamation on the right to travel was temporary and merely incidental to the intended rehabilitation of the island.
“It should also be pointed out that the temporary nature of the infringement does not change the fact that the damage had been done, with the livelihood of thousands of workers—petitioners included—being affected or lost, all to the detriment of these workers and their families,” the petitioners explained.
Even though the travel restrictions were temporary or merely incidental to Boracay’s rehabilitation, the petitioners insisted that such measure should comply with Section 6, Article III of the Constitution.
The petitioners said the SC ruling would give the government the reason to “evade accountability by restricting the rights of citizens as long as the end goal is something other than the impairment per se.”
Furthermore, the petitioners argued that contrary to the SC ruling, the closure of Boracay is not a valid exercise of police power.
They claimed that the exercise of police power is primarily a legislative prerogative subject only to “well-defined” exceptions.
“Clearly, without a law providing for a delegation of legislative power in relation to a given subject matter, any order issued by the President, or any other officer of the executive department under the guise of an exercise of police power is perforce null and void. It amounts to a usurpation of legislative authority insofar as it deals with matters that are properly subject of legislation,” they added.