GR 238467; (February, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 238467, February 12, 2019
MARK ANTHONY V. ZABAL, THITING ESTOSO JACOSALEM, AND ODON S. BANDIOLA, Petitioners vs. 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
Petitioners, residents and a frequent visitor to Boracay, filed a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus to challenge the planned six-month closure of the island for rehabilitation. They argued the closure, announced by President Duterte and later formalized by Proclamation No. 475, would inflict grave economic injury by depriving them of their livelihood and infringing upon constitutional rights to travel and due process. The closure was implemented on April 26, 2018. Petitioners sought injunctive relief and a declaration of unconstitutionality. By the time the Court deliberated, Boracay had already been reopened to tourism on October 26, 2018.
ISSUE
The primary issue was whether the petition had been rendered moot and academic by the reopening of Boracay Island.
RULING
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for being moot and academic. The core legal principle is that courts will not determine cases where no actual controversy exists or where the issues have ceased to be justiciable. The six-month closure period mandated by Proclamation No. 475 had fully lapsed, and the island was officially reopened. Consequently, the petitioners’ primary plea for injunctive relief to prevent or halt the closure was stripped of practical legal value. Any ruling on the constitutionality of the closure would be an advisory opinion, which the Court avoids issuing. The transcendental importance doctrine invoked by petitioners could not salvage the case, as its application is discretionary and generally requires a live case or controversy. The Court found no compelling reason to make an exception, noting that the constitutional questions raised could be addressed in a future, proper case where the issues remain actual and unresolved. The dismissal was without prejudice to such future litigation.