TANO v.
SOCRATES
FACTS:
On December 15, 1992, the Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Puerto Princesa City enacted Ordinance
No. 15-92 which took effect on January 1, 1993 entitled: AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE
SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE FISH AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA
CITY FROM JANUARY 1, 1993 TO JANUARY 1, 1998 AND PROVIDING
EXEMPTIONS, PENALTIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES THEREOF.
To implement said city ordinance, then Acting City Mayor Amado L. Lucero issued Office
Order No. 23, Series of 1993 dated January 22, 1993 which requires inspection on cargoes
containing live fish and lobster being shipped out of Puerto Princesa.
On February 19, 1993, 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, TO WIT:
FAMILY: SCARIDAE (MAMENG), EPINE PHELUS FASCIATUS (SUNO). CROMILEPTES
ALTIVELIS (PANTHER OR SENORITA), LOBSTER BELOW 200 GRAMS AND
SPAWNING, TRADACNA GIGAS (TAKLOBO), PINCTADA
MARGARITEFERA (MOTHER PEARL, OYSTERS, GIANT CLAMS AND OTHER
SPECIES), PENAEUS MONODON (TIGER PRAWN-BREEDER SIZE OR
MOTHER), EPINEPHELUS SUILLUS (LOBA OR GREEN GROUPER) AND
FAMILY: BALISTIDAE (TROPICAL AQUARIUM FISHES) FOR A PERIOD FIVE (5)
YEARS IN AND COMING FROM PALAWAN WATERS.
The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto Princessa enacted ordinance no. 15-92 banning the
shipment of live fish and lobster outside Puerto Princessa City for a period of 5 years. In the
same light, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan also enacted a resolution that prohibits the
catching, gathering, buying, selling and possessing and shipment of live marine coral dwelling
aquatic organisms for a period of 5 years within the Palawan waters. The petitioners Airline
Shippers Association of Palawan together with marine merchants were charged for violating
the above ordinance and resolution by the city and provincial governments. The petitioners now
allege that they have the preferential rights as marginal fishermen granted with privileges
provided in Section 149 of the Local Government Code, invoking the invalidity of the above-
stated enactments as violative of their preferential rights.
ISSUE:
1st set: They hoped to prevent the prosecution until the constitutionality of the Ordinances have
been resolved.
2nd set: 77 petitioners, who claim to be fishermen, merely claim that they would be adversely
affected by the ordinances.
Whether or not the enacted resolutions and ordinances by the local government units
violative of the preferential rights of the marginal fishermen.
HELD:
NO.
1. The enacted resolution and ordinance of the LGU were not violative of their preferential
rights. The enactment of these laws was a valid exercise of the police power of the LGU to
protect public interests and the public right to a balanced and healthier ecology.
The pertinent portion of Section 2 of Article XII reads:
SEC. 2. x x x
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and
exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens,
as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish workers in
rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
xxx
2. The rights and privileges invoked by the petitioners are not absolute. 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 described as a private
association composed of Marine Merchants; petitioners Robert Lim and Virginia Lim, as
merchants; while the rest of the petitioners claim to be fishermen, without any
qualification, however, as to their status.
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.
3. The general welfare clause of the local government code mandates for the liberal
interpretation in giving the LGUs more power to accelerate economic development and to
upgrade the life of the people in the community. Indispensable thereto is devolution and the
LGC expressly provides that any provision on a power of a local government unit shall be
liberally interpreted in its favor, and in case of doubt, any question thereon shall be resolved in
favor of devolution of powers and of the lower local government unit. One of the devolved
powers enumerated in the section of the LGC on devolution is the enforcement of fishery laws in
municipal waters including the conservation of mangroves. This necessarily includes enactment
of ordinances to effectively carry out such fishery laws within the municipal waters.
