FACTS: HIZON et al. were seizures of fishing vessels and GR No.
110249; August 21,
charged with violating PD 704 for boats breaching our fishery laws. 1997
supposedly fishing without the use Hizon et al. were charged
of a poisonous substance (sodium with illegal fishing penalized under
cyanide). A report that some sections 33 and 38 of P.D. 704.
fishing boats were fishing by "muro These provisions create a FACTS:
ami" led to the apprehension of presumption of guilt for On Dec 15, 1992, the
such boat (F/B Robinson), where possession of explosives or Sangguniang Panglungsod ng
Hizon et al were Does the proscription poisonous substances. However, Puerto Princesa enacted an
against ex post facto laws apply to the
interpretation of Section 11, a provision
this presumption is merely prima ordinance banning the
which does not provide for a penal
facie and the accused has the right shipment of all live fish and
to present evidence to rebut this
sanction but which merely authorizes lobster outside Puerto
the inspection of suspect accounts and presumption.
deposits? Does the proscription In this case, the only basis Princesa City from January 1,
against ex post facto laws apply to the
for the charge of fishing with 1993 to January 1, 1998.
interpretation of Section 11, a provision
which does not provide for a penal poisonous substance is the result Subsequently the
sanction but which merely authorizes of the first NBI laboratory test on Sangguniang Panlalawigan,
the inspection of suspect accounts and the four fish specimens. The Provincial Government of
deposits? present. The police (PNP
Maritime Command and the Task
apprehending officers who Palawan enacted a resolution
boarded and searched the boat prohibiting the catching ,
Force Bantay Dagat) directed the did not find any sodium cyanide
boat captain to get random nor any poisonous or obnoxious
gathering, possessing,
samples of the fish from the fish substance. Neither did they find buying, selling, and shipment
cage for testing. The initial results any trace of the poison in the of a several species of live
tested the fish positive for sodium possession of the fishermen or in marine coral dwelling aquatic
cyanide and that was the basis of the fish cage itself. Under the organisms for 5 years, in and
the information against Hizon et al.
However, a second set of fish
circumstances of the case, coming from Palawan waters.
however, this finding does not Petitioners filed a special civil
samples yielded a negative result warrant the infallible conclusion
on the sodium cyanide. that the fishes in the F/B Robinson,
action for certiorari and
Notwithstanding this, the or even the same four specimens, prohibition, praying that the
RTC found Hizon et al. guilty and ABUSE OF RIGHT
were caught with the use of Elements ABUSE OF RIGHT
sentenced them to imprisonment sodium cyanide. Elements court declare the said
and forfeiture of the fishes. The CA Apparently, it was the
affirmed this decision. Hizon et al., police who were the ones engaged
ordinances and resolutions as
together with the Solicitor general in an illegal fishing expedition. unconstitutional on the
now question the admissibility of "Muro ami", as what was reported ground that the said
the evidence against petitioners in the fishermen were doing, is made ordinances deprived them of
view of the warrantless search of with "the use of a big net with the due process of law, their
the fishing boat and the sinkers to make the net submerge livelihood, and unduly
subsequent arrest of petitioners. in the water with the fishermen restricted them from the
surround[ing] the net." This
ISSUE/S: practice of their trade, in
method of fishing needs
1. W/N fish samples seized approximately two hundred (200) violation of Section 2, Article
by the NBI in the F/B fishermen to execute. What the XII and Sections 2 and 7 of
Robinson without a apprehending officers instead Article XIII of the 1987
search warrant are discovered were twenty eight (28) Constitution.
admissible in evidence. – fishermen in their sampans fishing
YES. by hook and line. The authorities ISSUE:
2. W/N Hizon et al., are guilty found nothing on the boat that
of illegal fishing with the
Are the challenged
would have indicated any form of
use of poisonous illegal fishing. All the documents of
ordinances unconstitutional?
substances. NO. the boat and the fishermen were in
order. It was only after the fish HELD:
RATIO: As a general rule, any specimens were tested, albeit No. The Supreme Court
evidence obtained without a under suspicious circumstances, found the petitioners
judicial warrant is inadmissible for that petitioners were charged with contentions baseless and held
any purpose in any proceeding. illegal fishing with the use of that the challenged
The rule is, however, subject to poisonous substances.
certain exceptions. Search and ordinances did not suffer
from any infirmity, both
seizure without search warrant of
vessels and aircrafts for violations
Tano vs under the Constitution and
of customs laws have been the Socrates applicable laws. There is
traditional exception to the
Natural and Environmental absolutely no showing that
constitutional requirement of a any of the petitioners
search warrant. The same Laws; Constitutional Law; qualifies as a subsistence or
exception ought to apply to Regalian Doctrine
marginal fisherman. 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. 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.
Mn m hvkjkkvhjvcjhcmh
[Link]
asdb
kskhdkasjfksa
sjhbgsjkdgasjbdasljdbsajdvaslj
Mn m
hvkjkkvhjvcjnkkmslaknldnaskj;j
bkasbjhcmh
[Link]
asdb
kskhdkasjfksa
Mn m hvkjkkvhjvcjhcmh
[Link]
kskhdkasjfksa
Mn m hvkjkkvhjvcjhcmh
[Link]
kskhdkasjfksa
