Tano v. Socrates| G.R No. 110249 | August 21, 1997 | David, Jr., J.

Nature: Special civil action for certiorari and prohibition; Declaratory relief
Petitioners: Alfredo Tano, et.al.
Respondents: Hon. Gov. Salvador Socrates, et.al. (Puerto Princesa, Palawan)
TOPIC: Basic Principles > LGC Sec 3 (Operative principles of decentralization)
SUMMARY: Petitioners assail certain ordinances by the LGU of Palawan for being unconstitutional. They claim that the
prohibition catch, gather, possess, buy, sell, or ship certain aquatic organisms deprives them of their livelihood and
lawful occupation and trade. The SC held that the issuances are not unconstitutional. The centerpiece of LGC is the
system of decentralization. Indispensable to decentralization is devolution. 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 LGU. Some of the devolved powers of LGUs are 1) the enforcement of
fishery laws within the municipal waters, 2) the establishment of a closed season to allow aquatic animals to recover,
and, 3) as under the general welfare clause, the protection of marine life in Palawan. These are the contents/purpose
of the assailed ordinances. They are a valid exercise of the powers of the LGU.

FACTS
 Petitioners assail some ordinance by the Respondents for being unconstitutional, as it deprives all fishermen
of Palawan of their only means of livelihood and from performing their lawful occupation and trade.
o Ordinance 15-92: banning shipment of all live fish and lobster outside Puerto Princesa from Jan 1 1993-
1998.
o Office Order No. 23 series of 1993: requiring persons engaged in any trade/profession or having in his
possession articles for which a permit is required to first obtain a Mayor’s Permit
 Authorizes and directs the conduct of necessary inspections on cargoes containing live fish
and lobster
o Resolution No 33/Ordinance No 2: prohibiting catching, gathering, possessing, buying, selling, shipping
of live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms as listed for 5 years.
 Petitioners Alfredo Tano, Baldomero Tano, Teocenes Midello, Angel de Mesa, Eulogio Tremocha, and Felipe
Ongonion, Jr. and Robert and Virginia Lim were charged criminally.
 Petitioners directly invoked the original jurisdiction of the SC. They contend that:
o The ordinances deprived them of due process and of their livelihood
o Office Order No 23 gives the Mayor absolute authority to issue permits, as there are no guidelines
o As the ordinances are null and void, the criminal cases against Petitioners should be dismissed
 Respondents defended the validity of the ordinances as a valid exercise of the Provincial Government’s power
under the general welfare clause <Section 16, LGC> and its specific power to protect the environment and
impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the environment. The answered that:
o There is no violation of the due process and equal protection clauses.
 They conducted public hearings before enacting the ordinances, which have a lawful purpose
and reasonable means.
 Ordinance applied equally to all those belonging to a class, as there is substantial distinction
between fishermen who catch and sell live fish (use sodium cyanide to do this) and those who
don’t.
 A TRO was issued to cease and desist from proceeding with the criminal case, by motion of Petitioners.

ISSUE: WON the ordinances are unconstitutional? – NO

Put differently, WON the Provincial Government of Palawan had the power to issue the ordinances? – YES

[The petition is procedurally infirm [see other issues] but the SC opted to resolve the case considering that the
protection and preservation of the environment is of novel and paramount importance.]

Discussion relevant to topic:

1) Laws (including ordinances enacted by LGUs) enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. To overthrow this
presumption, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not merely a doubtful or
argumentative contradiction. In short, the conflict with the Constitution must be shown beyond reasonable doubt.
2) 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.
 General welfare provisions of the LGC “shall be liberally interpreted to give more powers to the LGUs in
accelerating economic development and upgrading the quality of life for the people of the community.”
3) The centerpiece of LGC is the system of decentralization. Indispensable to decentralization is devolution. 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 LGU.
 Devolution: the act by which the National Government confers power and authority upon the various local
government units to perform specific functions and responsibilities.

Discussion on the merits:

4) The Petitioners cited A12 S2 of the Constitution for the protection of subsistence fishermen. None of the
petitioners were able to establish that they are:
 Subsistence fisherman is one whose catch yields but the irreducible minimum for his livelihood; OR
 Marginal fisherman is an individual engaged in fishing whose margin of return or reward in his harvest of
fish as measured by existing price levels is barely sufficient to yield a profit or cover the cost of gathering
the fish; OR
 Individual engaged in subsistence fishing which shall be limited to the sale, barter or exchange of
agricultural or marine products produced by himself and his immediate family.
 Besides, the Consti doesn’t primarily bestow rights to fishermen, but lays 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 Constitution, their "exploration, development and utilization . . . shall be under the full
control and supervision of the State."
 Records of the Constitutional Commission shows that the framers intended for the LGUs to define
subsistence/marginal fishermen.
5) LGUs have the power, within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and
support, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology.
 Oposa v. Factoran: The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it a correlative duty to refrain
from impairing the environment.
6) One of the devolved powers of LGUs is the enforcement of fishery laws within the municipal waters. Municipal
waters also include some marine waters. [See notes for list of powers]
7) 2 purposes of the ordinances are well within 1) the devolved powers of the LGU to enforce fishery laws in municipal
waters (establish a closed season to allow aquatic animals to recover) and 2) the general welfare clause (protect
coral in Palawan)
 The market for live fish requires fishermen to spray corals and fish with sodium cyanide which stuns the
fish and kills the corals over time.

Other issues (procedural)

8) There are 2 sets of Petitioners here (those criminally charged and those claiming to be fishermen). The SC has no
jurisdiction over both.
 Set 1: Premature; violated hierarchy of courts by going directly to the SC. There was no showing that they
exhausted all the remedies in the lower courts. Their recourse would be to file a motion to quash, go
through the trial in case the quashal is dismissed, and to appeal.
 Set 2: theirs is a petition for declaratory relief and the SC only exercises appellate jurisdiction over such
petitions
9) J. Bellosillo dissents from the majority claiming that the Sangguniang Panglunsod of Puerto Princesa had no power
to enact the ordinances, because they are within the jurisdiction of Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
(BFAR)
 LGC’s repealing clause expressly repeals or amends Sections 16 and 29 of P.D. No. 70445 insofar as they
are inconsistent with the provisions of the LGC.
  Under the general welfare clause of the LGC, local government units have the power, inter alia, to enact
ordinances to enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology.
 Therefore, the majority does not agree with J. Bellosillo and holds that the Sangunian have the power.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the temporary restraining
order issued on 11 November 1993 is LIFTED.

NOTE: [There is a concurring opinion by J. Mendoza and a dissenting opinion by J. Bellosillo.]

Powers:

 Establishment of a “closed season” for conservation or ecological purposes

 Exploration, exploitation, and conservation of coral resouces
 Regulation (allow/punish certain acts)
 Issuance of permits to construct fish cages within municipal waters;
 Issuance of permits to gather aquarium fishes within municipal waters;
 Issuance of permits to gather kapis shells within municipal waters;
 Issuance of permits to gather/culture shelled mollusks within municipal waters;
 Issuance of licenses to establish seaweed farms within municipal waters;
 Issuance of licenses to establish culture pearls within municipal waters;
 Issuance of auxiliary invoice to transport fish and fishery products; and
 Establishment of "closed season" in municipal waters.