071 Tano v. Socrates (Rosales) THEREOF.

”
August 21, 1997 | Davide, Jr, J. | Devolution 2. To implement said city ordinance, then Acting City Mayor Amado L.
Lucero issued Office Order No. 23, Series of 1993 dated January 22, 1993.
PETITIONER: Alfredo Tano, et. al. The purpose of the inspection is to ascertain whether the shipper possessed
RESPONDENTS: Hon. Gov. Salvador P. Socrates, et. al. the required Mayor's Permit issued by this Office and the shipment is
covered by invoice or clearance issued by the local office of the Bureau of
SUMMARY: On 15 December 1992 the Sanguniang Panglungsod of Puerto Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and as to compliance with all other
Princesa enacted Ordinance No 15-92 to establish a “closed season” for the existing rules and regulations on the matter. Any cargo containing live fish
species of fish or aquatic animals covered therein for a period of five years; and and lobster without the required documents as stated herein must be held for
on 22 January 1993 acting Mayor Amado Lucero issued Order No 23 to protect proper disposition.
the coral in the marine waters of the City of Puerto Princesa and the Province of 3. On February 19, 1993, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Provincial
Palawan from further destruction due to illegal fishing activities. The petitioners, Government of Palawan enacted Resolution No. 33.
invoked the Court for certiorari contending both ordinances for depriving them 4. The respondents (other respondents) implemented the said ordinances
of due process of law, their livelihood, and unduly restricted them from the thereby depriving all the fishermen of the whole province of Palawan and
practice of their trade, in violation of Section 2, Article XII and Sections 2 and 7 the City of Puerto Princesa of their only means of livelihood and the
of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution. The issue is WoN Ordinance No. 15-92 petitioners Airline Shippers Association of Palawan and other marine
and Ordinance No. 2 are unconstitutional? The SC held no, it is constitutional. merchants from performing their lawful occupation and trade/
There is absolutely no showing that any of the petitioners qualifies as a 5. Petitioners Alfredo Tano, Baldomero Tano, Teocenes Midello, Angel de
subsistence or marginal fisherman. Besides, Section 2 of Article XII aims Mesa, Eulogio Tremocha, and Felipe Ongonion, Jr. were charged criminally
primarily not to bestow any right to subsistence fishermen, but to lay stress on under criminal case no. 93-05-C in the 1st Municipal Circuit Trial Court of
the duty of the State to protect the nation’s marine wealth. The so-called Cuyo-Agutaya-Magsaysay.
“preferential right” of subsistence or marginal fishermen to the use of marine 6. Petitioners Robert Lim and Virginia Lim, were charged by the respondent
resources is not at all absolute. In accordance with the Regalian Doctrine, marine PNP with the respondent City Prosecutor of Puerto Princess City.
resources belong to the state and pursuant to the first paragraph of Section 2, 7. Without seeking redress from the concerned local government units,
Article XII of the Constitution, their “exploration, development and prosecutor's office and courts, petitioners directly invoked our original
utilization...shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. In jurisdiction by filing this petition on 4 June 1993.
addition, one of the devolved powers of the LCG on devolution is the 8. Petitioners’ Contentions are as follows:
enforcement of fishery laws in municipal waters including the conservation of a. The Ordinances deprived them of due process of law, their
mangroves. This necessarily includes the enactment of ordinances to effectively livelihood, and unduly restricted them from the practice of their
carry out such fishery laws within the municipal waters. In light of the principles trade, in violation of Section 2, Article XII and Sections 2 and 7 of
of decentralization and devolution enshrined in the LGC and the powers granted Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution.
therein to LGUs which unquestionably involve the exercise of police power, the b. Office Order No. 23 contained no regulation nor condition under
validity of the questioned ordinances cannot be doubted. which the Mayor's permit could be granted or denied; in other
words, the Mayor had the absolute authority to determine whether
DOCTRINE: Ordinances passed in the exercise of the general welfare clause or not to issue the permit.
and devolved powers of LGUs need not be approved by the devolving agency in c. As Ordinance No. 2 of the Province of Palawan "altogether
order to be effective absent a specifc provision of law. prohibited the catching, gathering, possession, buying, selling and
shipping of live marine coral dwelling organisms, without any
distinction whether it was caught or gathered through lawful
fishing method," the Ordinance took away the right of petitioners-
FACTS:
fishermen to earn their livelihood in lawful ways; and insofar as
1. On December 15, 1992, the Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Puerto Princesa
petitioners-members of Airline Shippers Association are
City enacted Ordinance No. 15-92 which took effect on January 1, 1993
concerned, they were unduly prevented from pursuing their
entitled: "AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE
vocation and entering "into contracts which are proper, necessary,
FISH AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA CITY FROM
and essential to carry out their business endeavors to a successful
JANUARY 1, 1993 TO JANUARY 1, 1998 AND PROVIDING
conclusion."
EXEMPTIONS, PENALTIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
 d. As Ordinance No. 2 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan is null and Virginia Lim who were charged with violating City Ordinance No. 15-92 of
void, the criminal cases based thereon against petitioners Tano and Puerto Princesa City and Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993, of the Province
the others have to be dismissed. of Palawan before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Puerto Princesa.
9. Public respondents Governor Socrates and Members of the Sangguniang 2. The second set of petitioners is composed of the rest of the petitioners
Panlalawigan of Palawan defended the validity of Ordinance No. 2, Series numbering seventy-seven (77), all of whom, except the Airline Shippers
of 1993, as a valid exercise of the Provincial Government's power under the Association of Palawan — an alleged private association of several marine
general welfare clause (Section 16 of the Local Government Code of 1991 merchants — are natural persons who claim to be fishermen.
[hereafter, LGC]), and its specific power to protect the environment and 3. Notwithstanding the foregoing procedural obstacles against the first set of
impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the environment, such petitioners, we opt to resolve this case on its merits considering that the
as dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing under Section lifetime of the challenged Ordinances is about to end.
447 (a) (1) (vi), Section 458 (a) (1) (vi), and Section 468 (a) (1) (vi), of the 4. Ordinance No. 15-92 of the City of Puerto Princesa is effective only up to 1
LGC. January 1998, while Ordinance No. 2 of the Province of Palawan, enacted
10. They claimed that in the exercise of such powers, the Province of Palawan on 19 February 1993, is effective for only five (5) years. Besides, these
had "the right and responsibility . . . to insure that the remaining coral reefs, Ordinances were undoubtedly enacted in the exercise of powers under the
where fish dwells, within its territory remain healthy for the future new LGC relative to the protection and preservation of the environment and
generation." The Ordinance, they further asserted, covered only live marine are thus novel and of paramount importance.
coral dwelling aquatic organisms which were enumerated in the ordinance 5. After a scrutiny of the challenged Ordinances and the provisions of the
and excluded other kinds of live marine aquatic organisms not dwelling in Constitution petitioners claim to have been violated, we find petitioners'
coral reefs; besides the prohibition was for only five (5) years to protect and contentions baseless and so hold that the former do not suffer from any
preserve the pristine coral and allow those damaged to regenerate. infirmity, both under the Constitution and applicable laws.
11. Respondents likewise maintained that there was no violation of the due 6. Petitioners specifically point to Section 2, Article XII and Sections 2 and 7,
process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. As to the former, Article XIII of the Constitution as having been transgressed by the
public hearings were conducted before the enactment of the Ordinance Ordinances. These provisions talk about the rights of subsistence fishermen.
which, undoubtedly, had a lawful purpose and employed reasonable means; In the case of the petitioners, there is absolutely no showing that any of the
while as to the latter, a substantial distinction existed "between a fisherman petitioners qualifies as a subsistence or marginal fisherman. In their
who catches live fish with the intention of selling it live, and a fisherman petition, petitioner Airline Shippers Association of Palawan is self-
who catches live fish with no intention at all of selling it live," i.e., "the described as "a private association composed of Marine Merchants;"
former uses sodium cyanide while the latter does not." Further, the petitioners Robert Lim and Virginia Lim, as "merchants;" while the rest of
Ordinance applied equally to all those belonging to one class. the petitioners claim to be "fishermen," without any qualification, however,
as to their status.
ISSUE/s: 7. Since the Constitution does not specifically provide a definition of the terms
1. WoN Ordinance No. 15-92 and Ordinance No. 2 are unconstitutional – NO, "subsistence" or "marginal" fishermen, they should be construed in their
because the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Puerto Princesa and general and ordinary sense. A marginal fisherman is an individual engaged
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Palawan are just exercising in fishing whose margin of return or reward in his harvest of fish as
the requisite political will to enact urgently needed legislation to protect and measured by existing price levels is barely sufficient to yield a profit or
enhance the marine environment. cover the cost of gathering the fish, while a subsistence fisherman is one
whose catch yields but the irreducible minimum for his livelihood.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and a. Section 131(p) of the LGC (R.A. No. 7160) defines a marginal
the temporary restraining order issued on 11 November 1993 is LIFTED. farmer or fisherman as "an individual engaged in subsistence
farming or fishing which shall be limited to the sale, barter or
RATIO: exchange of agricultural or marine products produced by himself
1. There are actually two sets of petitioners in this case. The first is composed and his immediate family."
of Alfredo Tano, et. al. who were criminally charged with violating 8. Section 2 of Article XII aims primarily not to bestow any right to
Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution No. 33 and Ordinance No. 2, Series subsistence fishermen, but to lay stress on the duty of the State to protect
of 1993, of the Province of Palawan, in Criminal Case No. 93-05-C of the the nation's marine wealth. What the provision merely recognizes is that the
1st Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Palawan; and Robert Lim and State may allow, by law, cooperative fish farming, with priority to
 subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays and lagoons. ecological imbalance.
9. The only provision of law which speaks of a preferential right of marginal 16. The centerpiece of LGC is the system of decentralization as expressly
fishermen is Section 149 of the LGC. This case, however, does not involve mandated by the Constitution. Indispensable to decentralization
such fishery right. is devolution and the LGC expressly provides that "[a]ny provision on a
10. Section 7 of Article XIII speaks not only of the use of communal marine power of a local government unit shall be liberally interpreted in its
and fishing resources, but of their protection, development and favor, and in case of doubt, any question thereon shall be resolved in
conservation. As hereafter shown, the ordinances in question are meant favor of devolution of powers and of the lower local government unit.
precisely to protect and conserve our marine resources to the end that their Any fair and reasonable doubt as to the existence of the power shall be
enjoyment may be guaranteed not only for the present generation, but also interpreted in favor of the local government unit concerned."
for the generations to come. Devolution refers to the act by which the National Government confers
11. The so-called "preferential right" of subsistence or marginal fishermen to power and authority upon the various local government units to
the use of marine resources is not at all absolute. In accordance with the perform specific functions and responsibilities
Regalian Doctrine, marine resources belong to the State, and, pursuant to 17. One of the devolved powers enumerated in the section of the LGC on
the first paragraph of Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, their devolution is the enforcement of fishery laws in municipal waters
"exploration, development and utilization . . . shall be under the full control including the conservation of mangroves.
and supervision of the State." Moreover, their mandated protection, 18. In light then of the principles of decentralization and devolution
development and conservation as necessarily recognized by the framers of enshrined in the LGC and the powers granted therein to local
the Constitution, imply certain restrictions on whatever right of enjoyment government units under Section 16 (the General Welfare Clause), and
there may be in favor of anyone. under Sections 149, 447(a) (1) (vi), 458 (a) (1) (vi) and 468 (a) (1) (vi),
12. as to the curtailment of the preferential treatment of marginal fishermen, the which unquestionably involve the exercise of police power, the validity
following exchange between Commissioner Francisco Rodrigo and of the questioned Ordinances cannot be doubted.
Commissioner Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr., took place at the plenary session of 19. The purpose of the Ordinances as set forth in the statement of purposes or
the Constitutional Commission: declaration of policies states: (1) to establish a "closed season" for the
a. Mr Bengzon: It is subject to whatever rules and regulations and species of fish or aquatic animals covered therein for a period of five years;
local laws that may be passed, may be existing or will be passed. and (2) to protect the coral in the marine waters of the City of Puerto
13. The state policy enshrined in the Constitution the duty of the State to protect Princesa and the Province of Palawan from further destruction due to illegal
and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in fishing activities.
accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. The LGC provisions 20. The accomplishment of the first objective is well within the devolved power
invoked by private respondents merely seek to give flesh and blood to the to enforce fishery laws in municipal waters, such as P.D. No. 1015, which
right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. allows the establishment of "closed seasons." The devolution of such power
14. Moreover, Section 5(c) of the LGC explicitly mandates that the general has been expressly confirmed in the Memorandum of Agreement of 5 April
welfare provisions of the LGC "shall be liberally interpreted to give more 1994 between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior
powers to the local government units in accelerating economic development and Local Government.
and upgrading the quality of life for the people of the community." 21. The realization of the second objective clearly falls within both the general
15. The LGC vests municipalities with the power to grant fishery privileges in welfare clause of the LGC and the express mandate thereunder to cities and
municipal waters and impose rentals, fees or charges therefor; to penalize, provinces to protect the environment and impose appropriate penalties for
by appropriate ordinances, the use of explosives, noxious or poisonous acts which endanger the environment
substances, electricity, muro-ami, and other deleterious methods of fishing;
and to prosecute any violation of the provisions of applicable fishery
laws.24 Further, the sangguniang bayan, the sangguniang panlungsod and the
sangguniang panlalawigan are directed to enact ordinances for the general
welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants, which shall include, inter
alia, ordinances that "[p]rotect the environment and impose appropriate
penalties for acts which endanger the environment such as dynamite fishing
and other forms of destructive fishing . . . and such other activities which
result in pollution, acceleration of eutrophication of rivers and lakes, or of