Strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP)
Award damages, litigation costs, attorney’s fees, and other
A legal action filed to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle
any legal recourse that any person, institution or the government
has taken or may take in the enforcement of environmental laws,
protection of the environment or assertion of environmental rights
shall be treated as a SLAPP and shall be governed by these Rules.
SLAPPs are designed and intended to intimidate and silence certain
public constituencies by burdening them with the cost of a legal
defense until they abandon their advocacies and concerns. Winning
the lawsuit is not necessarily the intent of the plaintiff or
complainant. Their goals are accomplished if the defendant,
respondent or accused succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting
legal costs or simple exhaustion and thereby abandons the public
advocacy.
Anti-SLAPP Law
Purposes:
1. Promote and protect the constitutional rights of freedom of
speech, expression, and of the press, and the right of the
people peaceably to assembly, and petition the
government for redress of grievances;
2. Encourage and strengthen the participation of individuals
in matters of public concern;
3. Prevent any abuse of the judicial process that shall curtail
such participation;
4. Prohibit the filing of SLAPPs;
5. Establish the speedy dismissal of SLAPPs;
6.
relief to the defendant, respondent, or accused, as the
case may be, upon the final and executory dismissal of
SLAPPs; and
7. Provide the defendant, respondent, or accused, as the case
may be, the right to recover separate damages, litigations
costs, attorney’s fees, and other relief by filing a
SLAPPBack action against the complainant of a SLAPP upon
the final and executory dismissal of such SLAPP.
SLAPP CASE
Mark Anthony V. Zabal, et. al. vs. Rodrigo Roa Duterte, et. al.,
G.R. No. 238467, February 12, 2019
Facts:
 Mark Anthony V. Zabal who claims to build sandcastles
for tourists, Thiting Estoso Jacosalem who drives for
tourists and workers in Boracay, and Odon S. Bandiola
who occasionally visit the Island for business and pleasure,
filed a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus with
Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary
Injunction, and/or Status Quo Ante Orde due to the
Proclamation by PRRD of the total closure of Boracay for
fear that closure will result to grave and irreparable
damage.
 Petitioner contends that Proclamation No. 475 is an invalid
exercise of legislative powers and is unconstitutional for
infringing on the constitutional rights to travel and to due
process.
 Respondents maintain that the petition is in nature of a
SLAPP and asserted that petition must be dismissed since
it was filed for the said purpose.
Ruling:
 Petitioners failed to present and establish the factual bases
of their arguments because they went directly to the
Supreme Court. In ruling on the substantive issues in this
case, the Court is, thus, constrained to rely on, and uphold
the factual bases, which prompted the issuance of the
challenged proclamation, as asserted by respondents.
Besides, executive determinations, such as said factual
bases, are generally final at the Supreme Court.