Members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan raised concern on Tuesday about the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and the Department of Agriculture’s inadequate and delayed response to a commercial versus municipal fishing rights case, which resulted in the Supreme Court’s 1st Division declaring certain provisions of the fisheries code unconstitutional.
This came up from the board members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan who availed of the privilege hour to express their opinions on the Supreme Court division’s decision regarding Mercidar Fishing Corporation.
The fishing company, which is based in Malabon, contested the provisions granting exclusive rights to municipal fisherfolk over municipal waters, arguing that they violated the constitutional principle that natural resources are owned by the State.
Board Member Ryan Maminta stated that addressing the issue is important not just for Palawan but also for other provinces, especially for their own small-scale fishermen who have been granted priority access to the 15-kilometer municipal water limits.
He cautioned that the decision will adversely affect the long-term sustainability of marine resources in the country, as large commercial fishing vessels equipped with advanced technologies can swiftly deplete them, and the rate would be “alarming.”
“Malaki ang magiging epekto nito sa ating livelihood at sa livelihood ng mga marginalized fishing communities, kasama na yong tinatawag na yong sustainability ng ating marine resources,” Maminta pointed out.
The lobster industry, which he asserted is solely present in Palawan, Surigao, and a select few others, faces significant peril should the ruling be enacted.
Maminta cited a 2021 Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) report that states that “fishermen are the poorest sector in the country with a high-poverty incidence.” He mentioned that as of October 2024, a few months after the SC division verdict, 1.1 million people work in fishing and aquaculture.
The board member criticized BFAR and DA for their insufficient response, which impacted the decision.
He stated that despite the gravity of the case, the solicitor general representing both agencies did not submit a “timely response” in the Mercidar case.
“I cannot stress enough the role of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources in this matter. The BFAR, tasked with implementing and defending the fisheries code—sorry to say—failed to act swiftly and decisively. Sa katotohanan lang naman, technical ang pagkakatalo sa decision,” he stated.
“[The] lack of urgency allowed the petition of Mercidar Fishing Corporation effectively bypass essential checks and balances,” he added.
Board Member Juan Anton Alvarez also expressed his opinion regarding the decision. He recalled that a congressman from Cebu had previously introduced this as a bill in the House of Representatives, but it encountered major opposition because of its harmful impact on small-scale fishermen, who do not possess the same resources and capabilities as commercial fishing operators.
“Ngayon, may Supreme Court decision na nga na i-a-allow na naman. Nakakalungkot dahil yong pinaglalaban natin na mga maliliit na mangingisda ay maaapektuhan yong kanilang hanapbuhay,” Alvarez stated during the privilege hour.
“Dehadong-dehado ang ating mga constituents sa Palawan lalo na’t marami dito ang mangingisda,” he asserted.
He said that poor fishermen are already struggling with competition from those engaging in “still rampant” illegal fishing from other provinces, and now their situation will worsen with the return of commercial fishing in municipal waters.
Board Members Rafael Ortega Jr. and Ariston Arzaga, who is the chair of the Committee on Agriculture, said they are worried about what will happen to small fishermen in Palawan if the decision becomes final.
Ortega said that in Aborlan town where he hails from, ang mga mangingisda ay umiiyak kapag pinapasok ng commercial fishing ang municipal waters na galing sa ibang lugar. Aniya, kapag sumasama siya sa mga nagbabantay sa karagatan, doon niya nakikita na ang mga mangingisda ay walang nahuhuli kapag nauunahan ng mga commercial fishing vessels.
“Pag-ilaw nila, napakalakas ng ilaw nila, yong mga maliliit na mangingisda wala ng [nahuhuli]. Kawawa talaga,” he said, adding the large fishing vessels even sell their catch in Aborlan.
Arzaga said that the ruling is “mapungaw”, a Cuyonon term meaning “sad.” He brought out that the responsibility for managing municipal waters has been delegated to local government units, thus rendering it constitutional.
He recounted that during his tenure as vice mayor of Brooke’s Point, they installed a buoy extending from the shoreline to the designated 15 kilometers to adhere to the devolution requirements outlined in the Local Government Code of 1991.
“Base Section 149 ng Local Government Code, binigay po yan sa local government,” he highlighted, noting that BFAR and the solicitor general stumbled and had failed to adequately safeguard the interests of small fishermen.
“Hindi sila nag-file ng motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period. So yong denisyunan yong pagpapabaya,” he added.
Despite the failure of BFAR and DA, the Palawan board members supported the decision to bring forth an appeal. Three resolutions were presented, which will be integrated to reflect a cohesive position opposing the reinstatement of commercial fishing in municipal waters.
Earlier, both agencies, in coordination with the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), stated that it is “studying the possibility of seeking further review by the Supreme Court.”
“DA-BFAR shall continue to uphold its mandate to protect and conserve the country’s aquatic resources while safeguarding the welfare of small-scale fishermen and coastal communities. The agency remains committed to the rule of law and the protection of national interests and sustainable fisheries management,” it stated.
The SC division resolution dated August 19, 2024, dismissed the petition filed by the BFAR and the DA challenging the Malabon RTC decision from December 11, 2023.
The RTC concluded that the provisions of Republic Act No. 8550, amended by Republic Act No. 10654, and Administrative Order No. 10, series of 2015, are unconstitutional.
