CASE 2019-0003:  MARK ANTHONY V. ZABAL, THITING ESTOSO JECOSALEM, AND ODON S. BANDIOLA VS. RODRIGO R. DUTERTE, PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY AND EDUARDO M. AÑO, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (G.R. NO. 238467. FEBRUARY 12, 2019, DEL CASTILLO J.) (SUBJECT/S: POLICE POWER TO REHABILITATE BORACAY; PROPERTY RIGHTS; VESTED RIGHTS; ENCHOATE RIGHTS; LGU POWERS) (BRIEF TITLE: ZABAL VS DUTERTE)

  

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus is DISMISSED.

  

SO ORDERED.”

  

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

PETITIONERS CLAIM THAT THEY WERE DEPRIVED OF THEIR PROPERTY RIGHT TO WORK AND MAKE A LIVING IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. ARE THEY CORRECT?

 

WRONG. IT IS TRUE THAT THE RIGHT TO WORK AND MAKE A LIVING ARE PROPERTY RIGHS, THE ARBITRARY AND UNWARRANTED DEPRIVATION OF WHICH NORMALLY CONSTITUTES AN ACTIONABLE WRONG.

 

BUT WHEN THE CONDITIONS SO DEMAND AS DETERMINED BY THE LEGISLATURE, PROPERTY RIGHTS MUST BOW TO THE PRIMACY OF POLICE POWER BECAUSE PROPERTY RIGHTS, THOUGH SHELTERED BY DUE PROCESS, MUST YIELD TO GENERAL WELFARE.

 

HAVE PETITIONERS ACQUIRED VESTED RIGHTS TO THEIR SOURCES OF INCOME IN BORACAY?

 

NO BECAUSE THEY ARE PART OF THE INFORMAL SECTOR OF THE ECONOMY WHERE EARNINGS ARE NOT GUARANTEED.

 

WHAT ARE VESTED RIGHTS?

 

VESTED RIGHTS ARE ‘FIXED, UNALTERABLE, OR IRREVOCABLE.’

 

MORE EXTENSIVELY, THEY ARE DEPICTED AS FOLLOWS: RIGHTS WHICH HAVE SO COMPLETELY AND DEFINITELY ACCRUED TO OR SETTLED IN A PERSON THAT THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO BE DEFEATED OR CANCELLED BY THE ACT OF ANY OTHER PRIVATE PERSON, AND WHICH IT IS RIGHT AND EQUITABLE THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD RECOGNIZE AND PROTECT, AS BEING LAWFUL IN THEMSELVES, AND SETTLED ACCORDING TO THE THEN CURRENT RULES OF LAW, AND OF WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL COULD NOT BE DEPRIVED ARBITRARILY WITHOUT INJUSTICE, OR OF WHICH HE COULD NOT JUSTLY BE DEPRIVED OTHERWISE THAN BY THE ESTABLISHED METHODS OF PROCEDURE AND FOR THE PUBLIC WELFARE.

 

A RIGHT IS NOT ‘VESTED’ UNLESS IT IS MORE THAN A MERE EXPECTANCY BASED ON THE ANTICIPATED CONTINUANCE OF PRESENT LAWS; IT MUST BE AN ESTABLISHED INTEREST IN PROPERTY, NOT OPEN TO DOUBT. X X X TO BE VESTED IN ITS ACCURATE LEGAL

 

SENSE, A RIGHT MUST BE COMPLETE AND CONSUMMATED, AND ONE OF WHICH THE PERSON TO WHOM IT BELONGS CANNOT BE DIVESTED WITHOUT HIS CONSENT.

  

WHAT KIND OF RIGHT TO EARNINGS IN BORACAY DO PETITIONERS HAVE?

 

MERELY INCHOATE RIGHT  OR ONE THAT HAS NOT FULLY DEVELOPED AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS ONE’S OWN.

 

AN INCHOATE RIGHT IS A MERE EXPECTATION, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT COME INTO FRUITION. “IT IS CONTINGENT AS IT ONLY COMES ‘INTO EXISTENCE ON AN EVENT OR CONDITION WHICH MAY NOT HAPPEN OR BE PERFORMED UNTIL SOME OTHER EVENT MAY PREVENT THEIR VESTING.”‘

 

 PETITIONERS CLAIM THAT THEY WERE BEING MADE TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSGRESSIONS OF OTHERS. IS THIS CLAIM CORRECT?

 

WRONG. THE  TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF BORACAY AS A TOURIST DESTINATION AND THE CONSEQUENT BAN OF TOURISTS INTO THE ISLAND WERE NOT MEANT TO SERVE AS PENALTY TO VIOLATORS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS.

 

THE LIABILITIES OF THE VIOLATORS REMAIN AND ONLY THEY ALONE SHALL SUFFER THE SAME.

 

OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ARE INVOLVED IN THE REHABILITATION WORKS. DOES THIS NOT CREATE THE INFERENCE THAT THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE LGUS ARE BEING ENCROACHED UPON?

 

NO BECAUSE  THE RESPECTIVE ROLES OF EACH GOVERNMENT AGENCY ARE PARTICULARLY DEFINED AND ENUMERATED IN EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 5365 AND ALL ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE MANDATES.

 

ALSO, THE SITUATION IN BORACAY CAN IN NO WISE BE CHARACTERIZED OR LABELLED AS A MERE LOCAL ISSUE AS TO LEAVE ITS REHABILITATION TO LOCAL ACTORS. BORACAY IS A PRIME TOURIST DESTINATION WHICH CATERS TO BOTH LOCAL AND FOREIGNTOURISTS. ANY ISSUE THEREAT HAS CORRESPONDING EFFECTS, DIRECT OR OTHERWISE, ATA NATIONAL LEVEL. THIS, FOR ONE, REASONABLY TAKES THE ISSUES THEREIN FROM A LEVEL THAT CONCERNS ONLY THE LOCAL OFFICIALS.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2019-0003-MARK ANTHONY V. ZABAL ET AL VS. RODRIGO R. DUTERTE ET AL, G.R. NO. 238467, FEBRUARY 12, 2019

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.