Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 454 views

    Zabal Vs Duterte

    Uploaded by

    Lorelie
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding President Duterte's plan to shut down Boracay island for six months. Petitioners filed a case challenging the constitutionality of the president's proclamation declaring a state of calamity in Boracay and ordering its closure. They argued their right to travel was impaired and it would result in economic loss. Respondents claimed the case was a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). The court ultimately held that while the case involved environmental issues in Boracay, the main issue was the constitutionality of the proclamation, so it was not a SLAPP case.

    Copyright:

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

    Zabal Vs Duterte

    Uploaded by

    Lorelie
    454 views1 page
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding President Duterte's plan to shut down Boracay island for six months. Petitioners filed a case challenging the constitutionality of the president's proclamation declaring a state of calamity in Boracay and ordering its closure. They argued their right to travel was impaired and it would result in economic loss. Respondents claimed the case was a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). The court ultimately held that while the case involved environmental issues in Boracay, the main issue was the constitutionality of the proclamation, so it was not a SLAPP case.

    Original Description:

    Natres Case

    Original Title

    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?

    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding President Duterte's plan to shut down Boracay island for six months. Petitioners filed a case challenging the constitutionality of the president's proclamation declaring a state of calamity in Boracay and ordering its closure. They argued their right to travel was impaired and it would result in economic loss. Respondents claimed the case was a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). The court ultimately held that while the case involved environmental issues in Boracay, the main issue was the constitutionality of the proclamation, so it was not a SLAPP case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    454 views1 page

    Zabal Vs Duterte

    Uploaded by

    Lorelie
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding President Duterte's plan to shut down Boracay island for six months. Petitioners filed a case challenging the constitutionality of the president's proclamation declaring a state of calamity in Boracay and ordering its closure. They argued their right to travel was impaired and it would result in economic loss. Respondents claimed the case was a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). The court ultimately held that while the case involved environmental issues in Boracay, the main issue was the constitutionality of the proclamation, so it was not a SLAPP case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Zabal v. Duterte, G.R. No.

    238467, [February 12, 2019]


    FACTS: President Duterte made public his plan on shutting dow the Boracay during a business forum
    held in Davao sometime in Feb 2018. This was followed by several speeches and news stating that he
    would place Boracay under a state of calamity. Petitioner Zabal and Jacosalem filed a petition despite
    the government was yet to release a formal issuance on the matter, they prayed for the the grant of
    TRO and/or writ of Preliminary Prohibition Injunction and that the banning of tourist and non-resident
    to travel from Boracay be declared as unconstitutional. Following the day of filling their petition the
    president issued Proclamation No. 475 declaring state calamity in Boracay ordering its closure for six
    months. Petitioner implore the court to declare the proclamation unconstitutional, that the right to
    travel is impaired resulting to economic loss. Respondent argued that the petition filed by the
    petitioner is a SLAPP.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the case is a SLAPP.


    HELD: No, while the case touches on the environmental issue on Boracay, the ultimate issue is the
    resolution of the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 475 which allegedly impairs the petitioners
    right to travel. The procedure under Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases should
    not be applied

    You might also like