Supreme Court TRO sought vs Boracay closure

BORACAY workers and residents have filed a constitutional challenge to the closure of the resort island, saying in a Supreme Court complaint that the government’s six-month shutdown violates their rights.

The complaint, filed on their behalf by the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers ( NUPL) on Wednesday, also questioned the validity of the closure, claiming that President Rodrigo R. Duterte issued the closure order verbally, with no documentation of the executive order released to the public.

The NUPL said in a statement that it also sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the closure.

“Any order he issues, whether verbal of written, that curtails or limits the enjoyment of fundamental rights can never be valid and must be struck down by the court if it finds no statutory or constitutional basis,” it said in the 29-page Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus, adding that the President and several government agencies implemented the closure even though “no executive order by President Duterte for the closure… has been released.”

Mr. Duterte ordered the closure of the island on April 4 to allow for the correction of alleged violations of environmental law.

According to the petition, “the 1987 Constitution does not grant the President the power to close Boracay island to tourists and non-residents” and that “President Duterte’s orders to close Boracay island, and the enforcement thereof, are in violation of the principle of separation of powers.”

It added closing Boracay to tourists and non- residents would be “a violation of their right to travel” and “the right to due process of persons earning a living on Boracay island by depriving them of their livelihood and source of income.”

“The closure is too oppressive to all persons living and working in Boracay,” lawyer and NUPL spokersperson Angelo Karlo Guillen said in a statement.

“The Duterte administration can casually say that it will close Boracay for six months, but that sudden move also means thousands of families will be deprived of income and go hungry. The measure does not take into account their plight. The closure of Boracay must be fair to all,” he added.

The NUPL requested that the petitioners not be identified. It said, however, that the complainants include a sandcastle maker, a driver, and a resident.

Presidential spokesperson Herminio L. Roque, Jr. said in response to the Supreme Court filing: “While the President respects the Court, we see absolutely no merit for any private party to restrain the closure of Boracay to tourists given that SC itself has previously ruled that Boracay is owned primarily by the state. We see no reason how private persons can allege and prove irreparable injuries, a prerequisite for TRO, given that their stay in the island is by mere tolerance of the State.”

He added: “In any case, the closure is because of the inherent police power of the state to protect the environment in Boracay. Unless a TRO is issued, the planned closure of Boracay to tourists, shall proceed.” —