FACTS: HIZON et al.

were to present evidence to rebut this Princesa City from January 1,

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

sjhbgsjkdgasjbdasljdbsajdvaslj
Mn m
hvkjkkvhjvcjnkkmslaknldnaskj;j
bkasbjhcmh
Kjbaskjdbakdbask.bdaskbdkasbdk
asdb
kskhdkasjfksa
Mn m hvkjkkvhjvcjhcmh
Kjbaskjdbakdbask.bdaskbdkasbdkasdb
kskhdkasjfksa
Mn m hvkjkkvhjvcjhcmh
Kjbaskjdbakdbask.bdaskbdkasbdkasdb
kskhdkasjfksa