Court does not have unrestrained authority to rule on just about any and every claim of constitutional violation.[26]The petition must be subjected to the four exacting requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial review,

It must be stressed, though, that resort to prohibition and mandamus on the basis of alleged constitutional violations is not without limitations. After all, this Court does not have unrestrained authority to rule on just about any and every claim of constitutional violation.^[26]The petition must be subjected to the four exacting requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial review, viz.:

(a) there must be an actual case or controversy; 

(b) the petitioners must possess locus standi; (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and

 (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case.^[27] 

Hence, it is not enough that this petition mounts a constitutional challenge against Proclamation No. 475. It is likewise necessary that it meets the aforementioned requisites before the Court sustains the propriety of the recourse.

Existence of Requisites for Judicial Review

In La Bugal-B'laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Sec. Ramos,^[28] an actual case or controversy was characterized as a "case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, lest the decision of the court would amount to an advisory opinion. The power does not extend to hypothetical questions since any attempt at abstraction could only lead to dialectics and barren legal question and to sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities."^[29]

The existence of an actual controversy in this case is evident. President Duterte issued Proclamation No. 475 on April 26, 2018 and, pursuant thereto, Boracay was temporarily closed the same day. Entry of non-residents and tourists to the island was not allowed until October 25, 2018. Certainly, the implementation of the proclamation has rendered legitimate the concern of petitioners that constitutional rights may have possibly been breached by this governmental measure. It bears to state that when coupled with sufficient facts, "reasonable certainty of the occurrence of a perceived threat to any constitutional interest suffices to provide a basis for mounting a constitutional challenge".^[30]And while it may be argued that the reopening of Boracay has seemingly rendered moot and academic questions relating to the ban of tourists and non-residents into the island, abstention from judicial review is precluded by such possibility of constitutional violation and also by the exceptional character of the situation, the paramount public interest involved, and the fact that the case is capable of repetition.^[31]

As to legal standing, petitioners assert that they were directly injured since their right to travel and, their right to work and earn a living which thrives solely on tourist arrivals, were affected by the closure. They likewise want to convince the Court that the issues here are of transcendental importance since according to them, the resolution of the same will have far-reaching consequences upon all persons living and working in Boracay; upon the Province of Aklan which is heavily reliant on the island's tourism industry; and upon the whole country considering that fundamental constitutional rights were allegedly breached.

"Legal standing or locus standi is a party's personal and substantial interest in a case such that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act being challenged. It calls for more than just a generalized grievance. The term 'interest' means a material interest, an interest in issue affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest."^[32] There must be a present substantial interest and not a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest.^[33]

In Galicto v. Aquino III,^[34] the therein petitioner, Jelbert B. Galicto (Galicto) questioned the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 7 (EO7) issued by President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, which ordered, among others, a moratorium on the increases in the salaries and other forms of compensation of all government-owned-and-controlled corporations (GOCCs) and government financial institutions. The Court held that Galicto, an employee of the GOCC Philhealth, has no legal standing to assail EO7 for his failure to demonstrate that he has a personal stake or material interest in the outcome of the case. His interest, if any, was speculative and based on a mere expectancy. Future increases in his salaries and other benefits were contingent events or expectancies to which he has no vested rights. Hence, he possessed no locus standi to question the curtailment thereof.

Here, as mentioned, Zabal is a sandcastle maker and Jacosalem, a driver. The nature of their livelihood is one wherein earnings are not guaranteed. As correctly pointed out by respondents, their earnings are not fixed and may vary depending on the business climate in that while they can earn much on peak seasons, it is also possible for them not to earn anything on lean seasons, especially when the rainy days set in. Zabal and Jacosalem could not have been oblivious to this kind of situation, they having been in the practice of their trade for a considerable length of time. Clearly, therefore, what Zabal and Jacosalem could lose in this case are mere projected earnings which are in no way guaranteed, and are sheer expectancies characterized as contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest, just like in Galicto. Concomitantly, an assertion of direct injury on the basis of loss of income does not clothe Zabal and Jacosalem with legal standing.

As to Bandiola, the petition is bereft of any allegation as to his substantial interest in the case and as to how he sustained direct injury as a result of the issuance of Proclamation No. 475. While the allegation that he is a non-resident who occasionally goes to Boracay for business and pleasure may suggest that he is claiming direct injury on the premise that his right to travel was affected by the proclamation, the petition fails to expressly provide specifics as to how. "It has been held that a party who assails the constitutionality of a statute must have a direct and personal interest. [He] must show not only that the law or any governmental act is invalid, but also that [he] sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that [he] suffers thereby in some indefinite way. [He] must show that [he] has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which [he] is lawfully entitled or that [he] is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of."^[35] Indeed, the petition utterly fails to demonstrate that Bandiola possesses the requisite legal standing to sue.

Notwithstanding petitioners' lack of locus standi, this Court will allow this petition to proceed to its ultimate conclusion due to its transcendental importance. After all, the rule on locus standi is a mere procedural technicality, which the Court, in a long line of cases involving subjects of transcendental importance, has waived or relaxed, thus allowing non-traditional plaintiffs such as concerned citizens, taxpayers, voters and legislators to sue in cases of public interest, albeit they may not have been personally injured by a government act.^[36] More importantly, the matters raised in this case, involved on one hand, possible violations of the Constitution and, on the other, the need to rehabilitate the country's prime tourist destination. Undeniably, these matters affect public interests and therefore are of transcendental importance to the people. In addition, the situation calls for review because as stated, it is capable of repetition, the Court taking judicial notice of the many other places in our country that are suffering from similar environmental degradation.

As to the two other requirements, their existence is indubitable. It will be recalled that even before a formal issuance on the closure of Boracay was made by the government, petitioners already brought the question of the constitutionality of the then intended closure to this Court. And, a day after Proclamation No. 475 was issued, they filed a supplemental petition impugning its constitutionality. Clearly, the filing of the petition and the supplemental petition signals the earliest opportunity that the constitutionality of the subject government measure could be raised. There can also be no denying that the very lis mota of this case is the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 475.