TANO VS SOCRATES

Facts: 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 petitiones 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|:Whether or not the enacted resolutions and ordinances by the local government units violative of the
preferential rights of the marginal fishermen ?
Held: No, 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 rights and privileges invoked by the petitioners are not
absolute. 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. The LGUs are endowed with the power to enact fishery laws in its municipal waters which
necessarily includes the enactment of ordinances in order to effectively carry out the enforcement of fishery
laws in their local community.
Is the ordinance valid and constitutional?
APPLICABLE LAWS:
Section 2 of Article X I I reads: The State shall protect the nation' s marine wealth
in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic z one, 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 w ell as
cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in
rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
Sections 2 and 7 of Article XIII provide: Sec. 2. The promotion of social justice shall
include the commitment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of
initiative and self-reliance. x x x x x x x x x Sec. 7. The State shall protect the rights of
subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the
communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide
support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate
financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall
also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall ex tend to
offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion.
Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine
and fishing resources.
General Welfare Clause, expressly mentions this right:
SEC. 16. General Welfare.-- Every local government unit shall exercise the powers
expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary,

appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are
essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial
jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the
preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of
the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of
appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public
morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among
their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of
their inhabitants. (underscoring supplied).
RULING:
YES. In light then of the principles of decentralization and devolution enshrined in the
LGC and the powers granted to local government units under Section 16 (the General
Welfare Clause), and under Sections 149, 447 (a) (1) (vi), 458 (a) (1) (vi) and 468 (a) (1)
(vi), which unquestionably involve the exercise of police power, the validity of the
questioned Ordinances cannot be doubted.
Both Ordinances have two principal objectives or purposes:
(1) to establish a closed season for the species of fish or aquatic animals covered
therein for a period of five years, and
(2) to protect the corals of the marine waters of the City of Puerto Princesa and the
Province of Palawan from further destruction due to illegal fishing activities. It is
incorrect to say that the challenged Ordinance of the City of Puerto Princesa is invalid or
unenforceable because it was not approved by the Secretary of the DENR. If at all, the
approval that should be sought would be that of the Secretary of the Department of
Agriculture (not DENR) of municipal ordinances affecting fishing and fisheries in
municipal waters. In closing, we commend the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of
Puerto Princesa and Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Palawan for exercising
the requisite political will to enact urgently needed legislation to protect and enhance the
marine environment, thereby sharing In the herculean task of arresting the tide of
ecological destruction. We hope that other local government units shall now be roused
from their lethargy and adopt a more vigilant stand in the battle against the decimation
of our legacy to future generations. At this time, the repercussions of any further delay in
their response may prove disastrous, if not, irreversible.