TANO v.
SOCRATES establish a "closed season" for the species of fish or aquatic animals covered therein for a
Facts:
The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality
of:(1) Ordinance No. 15-92 entitled:
" AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVEFISH AND LOBSTER
OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA CITY FROM JANUARY 1, 1993 TO JANUARY 1,1998
AND PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS, PENALTIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
THEREOF"(2) Office Order No. 23, requiring any person engaged or intending to engage
in any business,trade, occupation, calling or profession or having in his possession any of
the articles for which a permit is required to be had, to obtain first a Mayor’s and
authorizing and directing to check or conduct necessary inspections on cargoes containing
live fish and lobster being shipped out from Puerto Princesa and,(3) Resolution No. 33,
Ordinance No. 2 entitled: "A RESOLUTION PROHIBITING THECATCHING, GATHERING,
POSSESSING, BUYING, SELLING AND SHIPMENT OF LIVE MARINECORAL
DWELLING AQUATIC ORGANISMS”
The petitioners contend that the said Ordinances deprived them of due process of law,
their livelihood, and unduly restricted them from the practice of their trade, in violation of
Section 2, Article XII and Sections 2 and 7 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution and that
the Mayor had the absolute authority to determine whether or not to issue the permit.They
also claim that it took away their right to earn their livelihood in lawful ways; and insofar as
the Airline Shippers Association are concerned, they were unduly prevented from pursuing
their vocationand entering "into contracts which are proper, necessary, and essential to
carry out their business endeavors to a successful conclusion. Public respondents
Governor Socrates and Members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan defended
the validity of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993, as a valid exercise of the Provincial
Government's power under the general welfare clause; they likewise maintained that there
was no violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution.
Issue:
Whether or not the Ordinances in question are unconstitutional
Held: NO
Ratio:
In light then of the principles of decentralization and devolution enshrined in the LGC and
the powers granted therein 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 theexercise of police power, the validity of the
questioned Ordinances cannot be doubted.***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. (emphasis supplied).It is clear
to the Court that both Ordinances have two principal objectives or purposes: (1) to
period of five years; and (2) to protect the coral in the marine waters of the City of Puerto
Princesa and the Province of Palawan from further destruction due to illegal fishing
activities.
It imposes upon the sangguniang bayan, the sangguniang panlungsod, and the
sangguniang panlalawigan the duty to enact ordinances to "[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 ecological imbalance."
The petition is dismissed.
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.xxx xxx xxx
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 extend 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.
FACTS:
On Dec 15, 1992, the Sangguniang Panglungsod ng Puerto Princesa enacted an
ordinance banning the shipment of all live fish and lobster outside Puerto Princesa City
from January 1, 1993 to January 1, 1998. Subsequently the Sangguniang Panlalawigan,
Provincial Government of Palawan enacted a resolution prohibiting the catching ,
gathering, possessing, buying, selling, and shipment of a several species of live marine
coral dwelling aquatic organisms for 5 years, in and coming from Palawan waters.
Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, praying that the court
declare the said ordinances and resolutions as unconstitutional on the ground that the said
ordinances deprived them of the due process of law, their livelihood, and unduly restricted
them from the practice of their trade, in violation of Section 2, Article XII and Sections 2
and 7 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution.
ISSUE: Are the challenged ordinances unconstitutional?
HELD:
No. The Supreme Court found the petitioners contentions baseless and held that the
challenged ordinances did not suffer from any infirmity, both under the Constitution and
applicable laws. There is absolutely no showing that any of the petitioners qualifies as a
subsistence or marginal fisherman. Besides, Section 2 of Article XII aims primarily not to
bestow any right to subsistence fishermen, but to lay stress on the duty of the State to
protect the nation’s marine wealth. The so-called “preferential right” of subsistence or
marginal fishermen to the use of marine resources is not at all absolute.
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.
G.R. No. 119619. December 13, 1996
HIZON VS CA
PUNO, J.:
DOCTRINES: (1) The offense of illegal fishing is committed when a person catches, takes
or gathers or causes to be caught, taken or gathered fish, fishery or aquatic products in
Philippine waters with the use of explosives, electricity, obnoxious or poisonous
substances. The law creates a presumption that illegal fishing has been committed
when: (a) explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substances or equipment or device for
electric fishing are found in a fishing boat or in the possession of a fisherman; or (b) when
fish caught or killed with the use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substances or by
electricity are found in a fishing boat. Under these instances, the boat owner, operator or
fishermen are presumed to have engaged in illegal fishing. However, this presumption is
merely prima facie. It cannot, under the guise of regulating the presentation of evidence,
operate to preclude the accused from presenting his defense to rebut the main fact
presumed. At no instance can the accused be denied the right to rebut the presumption.
(2) Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and aircrafts for violations of
customs laws have been the traditional exception to the constitutional requirement of a
search warrant.
FACTS: In September 1992, the PNP Maritime Command of Puerto Princesa
City, Palawan received reports of illegal fishing operations in the coastal waters of the
city. In response to these, the city mayor organized Task Force Bantay Dagat to assist the
police in the detection and apprehension of violators of the laws on fishing.
A report was received by the Task Force Bantay Dagat that a boat and several
small crafts were fishing by muro ami within the shoreline of Barangay San Rafael of
Puerto Princesa. Task Force Bantay Dagat immediately proceeded to the area and found
several men fishing in motorized sampans and a big fishing boat identified as F/B
Robinson within the seven-kilometer shoreline of the city. They boarded the F/B Robinson
and inspected the boat with the consent of the boat captain. In the course of their
inspection, the police saw two foreigners in the captain’s deck. They examined their
passports and found them to be mere photocopies. The police also discovered a large
aquarium full of live lapu-lapu and assorted fish at the bottom of the boat. They checked
the license of the boat and its fishermen and found them to be in order. Nonetheless, the
policemen brought the boat captain, the crew and the fishermen to Puerto Princesa for
further investigation.
The boat captain was ordered to get random samples of fish from the fish cage of
F/B Robinson for laboratory examination. The samples were delivered to the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) sub-office in the city for examination to determine the method
of catching the same for record or evidentiary purposes. The NBI Forensic Chemist
conducted two tests on the fish samples and found that they contained sodium cyanide,
In light of these findings, the PNP Maritime Command filed the complaint at bar
against the owner and operator of the F/B Robinson, the First Fishermen Fishing
Industries, Inc., represented by herein petitioner Richard Hizon, the boat captain, Silverio
Gargar, the boat engineer, Ernesto Andaya, two other crew members, the two Hongkong
nationals and 28 fishermen of the said boat.
Petitioners were arraigned and they pled not guilty to the charge. As defense,
they claimed that they are legitimate fishermen of the First Fishermen Industries, Inc., a
domestic corporation licensed to engage in fishing. They alleged that they catch fish by the
hook and line method and that they were intimidated by the policemen.
The trial court found the petitioners guilty of the crime of Illegal Fishing with the
use of obnoxious or poisonous substance commonly known as sodium cyanide. On
appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: WON Hizon, et. al., are guilty of the crime charged
HELD: NEGATIVE. Petitioners question the admissibility of the evidence against them in
view of the warrantless search of the fishing boat and the subsequent arrest. Search and
seizure without search warrant of vessels and aircrafts for violations of customs laws have
been the traditional exception to the constitutional requirement of a search warrant. Hence,
the warrantless search on the F/B Robinson, a fishing boat suspected of having engaged
in illegal fishing, is VALID.
The offense of illegal fishing is committed when a person catches, takes or
gathers or causes to be caught, taken or gathered fish, fishery or aquatic products
in Philippine waters with the use of explosives, electricity, obnoxious or poisonous
substances. The law creates a presumption that illegal fishing has been committed
when: (a) explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substances or equipment or device
for electric fishing are found in a fishing boat or in the possession of a fisherman; or
(b) when fish caught or killed with the use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous
substances or by electricity are found in a fishing boat. Under these instances, the
boat owner, operator or fishermen are presumed to have engaged in illegal fishing.
Petitioners contend that this presumption of guilt under the Fisheries Decree
violates the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the Constitution. The third paragraph
of section 33 of P.D. 704 creates a presumption of guilt based on facts proved and hence
is not constitutionally impermissible. It makes the discovery of obnoxious or poisonous
substances, explosives, or devices for electric fishing, or of fish caught or killed with the
use of obnoxious and poisonous substances, explosives or electricity in any fishing boat or
in the possession of a fisherman evidence that the owner and operator of the fishing boat
or the fisherman had used such substances in catching fish. The ultimate fact presumed is
that the owner and operator of the boat or the fisherman were engaged in illegal fishing
and this presumption was made to arise from the discovery of the substances and the
contaminated fish in the possession of the fisherman in the fishing boat. The fact
presumed is a natural inference from the fact proved. [32]
However, the statutory presumption is merely prima facie. It cannot, under the
guise of regulating the presentation of evidence, operate to preclude the accused from
presenting his defense to rebut the main fact presumed. At no instance can the accused
be denied the right to rebut the presumption.
Here, after the information was filed in court and petitioners granted bail,
petitioners moved that the fish specimens taken from the F/B Robinson be
reexamined. The trial court granted the motion. The re-examination revealed that there is
negative presence of sodium cyanide. The absence of cyanide in the second set of fish
specimens supports petitioners claim that they did not use the poison in fishing. Also, the
only basis for the charge of fishing with poisonous substance is the result of the first NBI
laboratory test on the four fish specimens.
 Apparently, the members of the PNP Maritime Command and the Task Force
Bantay Dagat were the ones engaged in an illegal fishing expedition. As sharply observed
by the Solicitor General, the report received by the Task Force Bantay Dagat was that a
fishing boat was fishing illegally through muro ami on the waters of San Rafael. Muro ami
is made with the use of a big net with sinkers to make the net submerge in the water with
the fishermen surround[ing] the net.
This method of fishing needs approximately two hundred (200) fishermen to
execute. What the apprehending officers instead discovered were twenty eight (28)
fishermen in their sampans fishing by hook and line. The authorities found nothing on the
boat that would have indicated any form of illegal fishing. All the documents of the boat
and the fishermen were in order. It was only after the fish specimens were tested, albeit
under suspicious circumstances, that petitioners were charged with illegal fishing with the
use of poisonous substances.
PETITIONERS ACQUITTED.