Court Upholds Validity of Boracay’s “One-Entry, One-Exit’ Ordinance

By Odon S. Bandiola

All systems go for the implementation of the "one entry, one exit" provincial ordinance in Caticlan and Boracay Island, Malay, Aklan.
This after the Regional Trial court in Aklan through Branch 7 Presiding Judge Virgilio Luna Paman junked Civil Case No. 7633 for a Declaratory Relief with Preliminary Injunction filed by the Municipality of Malay through Mayor Ciceron Cawaling against the provincial government of Aklan represented by Governor Carlito S. Marquez.
The complaint sough the court to annul and to declare it void the "one-entry, one-exit" ordinance for alleged violation of the Constitution for it restricts people’s right to travel and violate Section 468 of the Local Government Code.
Complainant –municipality of Malay assailed the ordinance as usurping the powers and functions of the Municipality under Section 447, Section 17 (b) 2 (XII), disregarded and trampled the corporate powers of the municipality under Section 22(d) aside from duplicating the assessment of fees and impeding the free flow of commerce.
The assailed ordinance is actually Provincial Ordinance No. 05-032 titled: "An Ordinance Implementing The Regulations Of The One-Entry, One-Exit Policy To And From Boracay Island For The Preservation, Protection, Security And Safety Of The Provincial Tourism Assets And Resources And Prescribing Penalties For Violations Thereof."
In dismissing the complaint, Judge Paman emphasized that the court declined to be unwittingly drawn into the turf issues between Malay and the Province. He described the petition to be unnecessary, improper, or at least premature under the circumstance.
Paman reminded the complainant, that generally speaking, when a municipality questions the official acts of the province on legal and social issues, it must protest and seek redress initially within the sphere of the government branch where it belongs, in this case, the executive branch, to the province, then to the Department of Interior and Local Government or the Department of Justice on legal issues. The judge said in this case, the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies was not observed.
The judge further based his dismissal of the case in another angle saying that the interest of the petitioner municipality is adverse to or conflicting with the interest of the respondent province since the questioned ordinance is undisputably for the public welfare and passage of which is predicated on the exercise of the province’s governmental and administrative functions, hence the implementation of the ordinance passed by the municipality on the same matter must yield to the provincial ordinance.
Paman further ruled that the petition is not proper for declaratory relief because validity is not determinative of the construction of definite rights, status and other relations commonly expressed in written instructions, but of issues on protection of tourism assets, security and internal revenue allotments. /MP mailto:madyaas_pen@yahoo.com