G.R. No. 238467, February 12, 2019
Boracay Foundation, Inc., et al. vs. The Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, et al.

FACTS

This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 475, s. 2018, which declared a state of calamity in Boracay Island and ordered its closure to tourists for six months for rehabilitation. The petitioners, including residents and business entities, argued that the proclamation deprived them of their livelihood and liberty without due process of law. They contended that the closure was an arbitrary exercise of police power, as it broadly affected individuals who were not specifically identified as responsible for the environmental degradation, primarily high fecal coliform levels, that prompted the government’s action.
The Proclamation was anchored on Republic Act No. 10121, the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010. Petitioners argued that the ecological problems in Boracay did not constitute the “calamity” envisioned by the law. They further asserted that the proclamation violated the principle of local autonomy by imposing national control over local rehabilitation efforts and that the implementing guidelines issued by the Department of the Interior and Local Government were inconsistent with the proclamation itself, creating vagueness and overbreadth in its application.

ISSUE

Whether Proclamation No. 475, s. 2018 is unconstitutional for violating the due process clause by depriving persons of life, liberty, and property through an arbitrary and impermissible exercise of police power.

RULING

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Leonen held that Proclamation No. 475 is unconstitutional. The core of his dissent is that the proclamation violated substantive due process. He argued that the state’s exercise of police power must have a direct relation to the purpose of the law and must not be unduly oppressive. Here, the blanket six-month closure of the entire island was an arbitrary imposition, as it deprived residents and workers of their livelihood without a clear, individualized finding of responsibility for the pollution. The right to life, interpreted as the right to enjoy life and earn a living, was unduly infringed.
Justice Leonen emphasized that the ecological issues in Boracay, while serious, did not qualify as a “calamity” under R.A. 10121, which is designed for sudden-onset disasters. The problem was a human-induced, gradual environmental degradation better addressed through the systematic enforcement of existing environmental laws, not through a drastic, blanket closure. The proclamation also violated the statutory framework of R.A. 10121 by centralizing power in the President to lift the state of calamity, undermining the law’s mandate for locally-led rehabilitation and community participation. By tolerating this overreach, the Majority’s decision, in his view, eroded the rule of law and risked endorsing an authoritarian approach to governance.