G.R. No. 238467 , February 12, 2019
Separate Concurring Opinion (Carpio, J.)

FACTS

This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 475, which declared a state of calamity in three barangays on Boracay Island and ordered its temporary closure as a tourist destination for six months from April 26 to October 25, 2018. The proclamation was issued due to severe environmental degradation and ecological destruction on the island, aggravated by unchecked tourist arrivals. The closure period was designated for a massive rehabilitation effort, including road, drainage, and sewerage construction, and to compel business establishments to comply with various environmental laws.
The rehabilitation resulted in the closure of most hotels for non-compliance, the suspension of tourism accreditations, the dismantling of illegal structures, and a ban on swimming due to dangerously high fecal coliform levels—reaching 47,460 mpn/100ml against a safe standard of 1,000 mpn/100ml. Road closures for construction severely restricted movement. The prohibition applied to tourists and travelers, but not to local residents entering or leaving the island.

ISSUE

Whether Proclamation No. 475, which temporarily closed Boracay Island to tourists, constitutes a valid exercise of executive power and police power, and does not unlawfully infringe upon the constitutional right to travel.

RULING

Justice Carpio voted to dismiss the petition, upholding the validity of Proclamation No. 475. The legal logic is that the proclamation was a legitimate exercise of police power, implemented through specific existing laws, and did not constitute an invalid restriction on the right to travel. The concurrence clarifies that the right to travel is not absolute and may be restricted for compelling state interests, such as public health, safety, and environmental protection. The extreme conditions on Boracay—including unsafe water quality, widespread legal non-compliance by businesses, and massive infrastructure works that physically impeded movement—created a scenario where the island was fundamentally unfit and unsafe for tourism.
The proclamation was anchored on several valid laws, including Presidential Decree No. 1586 (Environmental Impact Statement System), the Clean Water Act, the Code on Sanitation, and Commonwealth Act No. 548 (regulating traffic on national roads). These laws collectively authorize the state to address environmental crises and public nuisances. The President, exercising control over the executive branch, properly directed the implementation of these laws to undertake urgent rehabilitation. The restriction was tailored, as it applied only to tourists and not residents, and was limited to the six-month period necessary for remediation. Thus, the measure was a reasonable and necessary response to a severe public calamity.