Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5K views

    Zabal vs. Duterte

    Uploaded by

    Rob
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a petition filed by residents of Boracay Island, Mark Anthony Zabal and Thiting Estoso Jacosalem, challenging the government's planned closure of Boracay Island. Zabal and Jacosalem earned their living from tourism activities on Boracay such as building sandcastles and driving tourists. They argued that the closure would deprive them of their source of livelihood. However, the Supreme Court ruled that while the right to work is a property right entitled to due process, Zabal and Jacosalem did not have vested rights to their sources of income from Boracay's tourism as they were part of the informal sector

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Zabal vs. Duterte

    Uploaded by

    Rob
    5K views2 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a petition filed by residents of Boracay Island, Mark Anthony Zabal and Thiting Estoso Jacosalem, challenging the government's planned closure of Boracay Island. Zabal and Jacosalem earned their living from tourism activities on Boracay such as building sandcastles and driving tourists. They argued that the closure would deprive them of their source of livelihood. However, the Supreme Court ruled that while the right to work is a property right entitled to due process, Zabal and Jacosalem did not have vested rights to their sources of income from Boracay's tourism as they were part of the informal sector

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    70. Zabal vs. Duterte

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a petition filed by residents of Boracay Island, Mark Anthony Zabal and Thiting Estoso Jacosalem, challenging the government's planned closure of Boracay Island. Zabal and Jacosalem earned their living from tourism activities on Boracay such as building sandcastles and driving tourists. They argued that the closure would deprive them of their source of livelihood. However, the Supreme Court ruled that while the right to work is a property right entitled to due process, Zabal and Jacosalem did not have vested rights to their sources of income from Boracay's tourism as they were part of the informal sector

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    5K views2 pages

    Zabal vs. Duterte

    Uploaded by

    Rob
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a petition filed by residents of Boracay Island, Mark Anthony Zabal and Thiting Estoso Jacosalem, challenging the government's planned closure of Boracay Island. Zabal and Jacosalem earned their living from tourism activities on Boracay such as building sandcastles and driving tourists. They argued that the closure would deprive them of their source of livelihood. However, the Supreme Court ruled that while the right to work is a property right entitled to due process, Zabal and Jacosalem did not have vested rights to their sources of income from Boracay's tourism as they were part of the informal sector

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    238467, February 12, 2019

    MARK ANTHONY V. ZABAL, THITING ESTOSO JACOSALEM, AND ODON S.


    BANDIOLA, Petitioners, v. RODRIGO R. DUTERTE, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
    THE PHILIPPINES; SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; AND
    EDUARDO M. AÑO, [SECRETARY] OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL
    GOVERNMENT, Respondents.

    Facts: Zabal and Jacosalem are both residents of Boracay who, at the time of the filing of the
    petition, were earning a living from the tourist activities therein. Zabal claims to build
    sandcastles for tourists while Jacosalem drives for tourists and workers in the island.

    President Duterte first made public his plan to shut it down during a business forum held in
    Davao. This was followed by several speeches and news releases stating that he would place
    Boracay under a state of calamity. True to his words, President Duterte ordered the shutting
    down of the island in a cabinet meeting

    Petitioners claim that ever since the news of Boracay's closure came about, fewer tourists had
    been engaging the services of Zabal and Jacosalem such that their earnings were barely
    enough to feed their families. They fear that if the closure pushes through, they would suffer
    grave and irreparable damage. Hence, despite the fact that the government was then yet to
    release a formal issuance on the matter, petitioners filed the petition praying that a temporary
    restraining order restraining the respondents, and all persons acting under their command,
    order, and responsibility from enforcing a closure of Boracay Island or from banning the
    petitioners, tourists, and non-residents therefrom.

    Petitioners aver that the same covers property rights and these include the right to work and
    earn a living. Since the government, through Proclamation No. 475, restricted the entry of
    tourists and non-residents into the island, petitioners claim that they, as well as all others who
    work, do business, or earn a living in the island, were deprived of the source of their livelihood
    as a result thereof. To make those innocent of environmental transgressions suffer the
    consequences of the Boracay closure is tantamount to violating their right to due process.

    Issue: Whether or not petitioners have vested rights on their sources of income as to be entitle
    to due process.

    Held: No. "A profession, trade or calling is a property right within the meaning of our
    constitutional guarantees. One cannot be deprived of the right to work and the right to make a
    living because these rights are property rights, the arbitrary and unwarranted deprivation of
    which normally constitutes an actionable wrong." 

    It must be stressed, though, that "when the conditions so demand as determined by the
    legislature, property rights must bow to the primacy of police power because property rights,
    though sheltered by due process, must yield to general welfare." 

    In any case, petitioners, particularly Zabal and Jacosalem, cannot be said to have already
    acquired vested rights to their sources of income in Boracay. As heretofore mentioned, they are
    part of the informal sector of the economy where earnings are not guaranteed.
    Here, Zabal and Jacosalem's asserted right to whatever they may earn from tourist arrivals in
    Boracay is merely an inchoate right or one that has not fully developed and therefore cannot be
    claimed as one's own.

    You might also like