temporary closure of boracay does not impair the right to travel; situations where the right to travel may be impaired legally

In fine, this case does not actually involve the right to travel in its essential sense contrary to what petitioners want to portray. Any bearing that Proclamation No. 475 may have on the right to travel is merely corollary to the closure of Boracay and the ban of tourists and non-residents therefrom which were necessary incidents of the island's rehabilitation. There is certainly no showing that Proclamation No. 475 deliberately meant to impair the right to travel. The questioned proclamation is clearly focused on its purpose of rehabilitating Boracay and any intention to directly restrict the right cannot, in any manner, be deduced from its import. This is contrary to the import of several laws recognized as constituting an impairment on the right to travel which directly impose restriction on the right, viz.:

[1] The Human Security Act of 2010 or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9372. The law restricts the right travel of an individual charged with the crime of terrorism even though such person is out on bail.
[2] The Philippine Passport Act of 1996 or R.A. No. 8239. Pursuant to said law, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs or his authorized consular officer may refuse the issuance of, restrict the use of, or withdraw, a passport of a Filipino citizen.
[3] The 'Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003' or RA 9208. Pursuant to the provisions thereof, the Bureau of Immigration, in order to manage migration and curb trafficking in persons, issued Memorandum Order Radjr No. 2011-011, allowing its Travel Control and Enforcement Unit to 'offload passengers with fraudulent travel documents, doubtful purpose of travel, including possible victims of human trafficking' from our ports.
[4] The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 or R.A. No. 8042, as amended by R.A. No. 10022. In enforcement of said law, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) may refuse to issue deployment permit[s] to a specific country that effectively prevents our migrant workers to enter such country.
[5] The Act on Violence Against Women and Children or R.A. No. 9262. The law restricts movement of an individual against whom the protection order is intended.
[6] Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995 or R.A. No. 8043. Pursuant thereto, the Inter-Country Adoption Board may issue rules restrictive of an adoptee's right to travel 'to protect the Filipino child from abuse, exploitation, trafficking and/or sale or any other practice in connection with adoption which is harmful, detrimental, or prejudicial to the child.'^[38]

In Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Hon. Drilon,^[39] the Court held that the consequence on the right to travel of the deployment ban implemented by virtue of Department Order No. 1, Series of 1998 of the Department of Labor and Employment does not impair the right.

Also significant to note is that the closure of Boracay was only temporary considering the categorical pronouncement that it was only for a definite period of six months.

Hence, if at all, the impact of Proclamation No. 475 on the right to travel is not direct but merely consequential; and, the same is only for a reasonably short period of time or merely temporary.

In this light, a discussion on whether President Duterte exercised a power legislative in nature loses its significance. Since Proclamation No. 475 does not actually impose a restriction on the right to travel, its issuance did not result to any substantial alteration of the relationship between the State and the people. The proclamation is therefore not a law and conversely, the President did not usurp the law-making power of the legislature.

For obvious reason, there is likewise no more need to determine the existence in this case of the requirements for a valid impairment of the right to travel.