TANO VS.
SOCRATES
FACTS:
The Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Puerto Princesa City enacted AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL
LIVE FISH AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA CITY. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Provincial
Government of Palawan enacted Resolution No. 33 entitled: "A RESOLUTION PROHIBITING THE CATCHING,
GATHERING, POSSESSING, BUYING, SELLING AND SHIPMENT OF LIVE MARINE CORAL DWELLING AQUATIC
ORGANISMS
Petitioners aver that the said ordinances deprives all the fishermen of the whole province of Palawan and the City of
Puerto Princesa of their only means of livelihood and the petitioners Airline Shippers Association of Palawan and other
marine merchants from performing their lawful occupation and trade;
Petitioners also contend that the Ordinances deprived them of due process of law, their livelihood, and unduly restricted
them from the practice of their trade, in violation of Section 2, Article XII and Sections 2 and 7 of Article XIII of the 1987
Constitution."
Public respondents Governor and Members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan defended the validity of the
Ordinances as a valid exercise of the Provincial Government's power under the general welfare clause of the Local
Government Code and its specific power to protect the environment and impose appropriate penalties for acts which
endanger the environment,. They claimed that in the exercise of such powers, the Province of Palawan had "the right and
responsibility to insure that the remaining coral reefs within its territory remain healthy for the future generation. That the
Ordinance, covered only live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms and the prohibition was for only five (5) years to
protect and preserve the coral and allow those damaged to regenerate. Aforementioned respondents likewise maintained
that there was no violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the enacted ordinances by the local government units violative of the preferential rights of the marginal
fishermen? Whether or not the petitioners are subsistence or marginal fishermen?
HELD:
NO. The SC finds petitioners' contentions baseless and so hold that the former do not suffer from any infirmity, both under
the Constitution and applicable laws.
There is absolutely no showing that any of the petitioners qualifies as a subsistence or marginal fisherman. In their
petition, petitioner Airline Shippers Association of Palawan is self-described as "a private association composed of Marine
Merchants;" other are "merchants;" while the rest of the petitioners claim to be "fishermen," without any qualification as to
their status.
A marginal fisherman is an individual engaged in fishing whose margin of return or reward in his harvest of fish as
measured by existing price levels is barely sufficient to yield a profit or cover the cost of gathering the fish, while a
subsistence fisherman is one whose catch yields but the irreducible minimum for his livelihood. Section 131(p) of the LGC
(R.A. No. 7160) defines a marginal farmer or fisherman as "an individual engaged in subsistence farming or fishing which
shall be limited to the sale, barter or exchange of agricultural or marine products produced by himself and his immediate
family." It bears repeating that nothing in the record supports a finding that any petitioner falls within these definitions.
Besides, Section 2 of Article XII aims primarily not to bestow any right to subsistence fishermen, but to lay stress on the
duty of the State to protect the nation's marine wealth. What the provision merely recognizes is that the State may allow,
by law, cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays and lagoons
The so-called “preferential right” of subsistence or marginal fishermen to the use of marine resources is not at all absolute.
In accordance with the Regalian Doctrine, marine resources belong to the state and pursuant to the first paragraph of
Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, their “exploration, development and utilization shall be under the full control and
supervision of the State.
In addition, one of the devolved powers of the LCG on devolution is the enforcement of fishery laws in municipal waters
including the conservation of mangroves. This necessarily includes the enactment of ordinances to effectively carry out
such fishery laws within the municipal waters. In light of the principles of decentralization and devolution enshrined in the
LGC and the powers granted therein to LGUs which unquestionably involve the exercise of police power, the validity of
the questioned ordinances cannot be doubted.
