The Supreme Court (SC) was asked, as a full court, to reconsider its division ruling which affirmed a regional trial court (RTC) decision that allowed commercial fishing within 15 kilometers from city or municipal shores.

In a petition, the SC was asked to uphold constitutional principles, protect marine ecosystems, and reaffirm the rights of small-scale fishers.     

“This is not only a legal issue, but a matter of social justice, sustainability, and the future of our coastal communities,” the petition pointed out.  

Specifically, the petition filed on Thursday, April 24, challenged what was called as the “sluggish” performance of concerned government agencies in the RTC case that led to the questioned decision.

The petition was filed by lawyer Christian S. Monsod, Cardinal Pablo Virgilio David, lawyer Grizelda Mayo-Anda, and the Environment Legal Assistance Center (ELAC).

Named respondents were Mercidar Fishing Corporation (MFC), RTC Judte Zaldy B. Docena, Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (DA-BFAR), and the Office of the Solicitor General.

The petition challenged the Dec. 11, 2023 ruling by the Malabon City RTC which invalidated key provisions of Republic Act No. 8550, the Fisheries Code.

In its decision that granted the case filed by MFC, the RTC declared “unconstitutional and without any legal and binding force and effect” Section 4 (66), Section 16, Section 17 and Section 18, Rule 18.1 of the Department of Agriculture Administrative Order No. 10, s. 2015 as well as Section 4 (58), Section 16, and Section 18 of [Republic Act No.] 8550, as amended….”

The government agencies concerned were also “enjoined from enforcing the provisions of the law, with emphasis on the 15-kilometer limit on municipal waters insofar as the petitioner MFC in the instant case is concerned.”

At the same time, the RTC ruled: “Finally, and in line with the declaratory relief sought in the instant Petition, in coordination with the pertinent government agencies, the petitioner MFC be allowed to operate on all territorial waters of the Philippines without regard to the 15-kilometer limit provided, however, that such bodies of water are seven fathoms, or more, deep in line with the grant of its license as a large commercial fishing operator pursuant to Section 26 of Republic Act No. 8550, as amended.”

The petitioners told the SC that the RTC decision struck down local government jurisdiction over municipal waters and the law's mandate to give preferential access to small-scale fishers and “effectively erasing” what they described as "wholesale constitutional and statutory protections" for coastal communities.

They also brought to the attention of the SC what they called as “sluggish” defense of the Fisheries Code by the DA-BFAR and the OSG which “contributed to the RTC ruling with far-reaching consequences.”

They told the SC that respondents DA-BFAR and OSG “failed to timely respond to the complaint filed by Respondent Mercidar Fishing Corporation before the RTC, thus leading to an Order of Default.

They also said: 

“Worse still, Respondents DA-BFAR and OSG failed to file a notice of appeal in a timely manner, which resulted in the outright dismissal of their petition before the Supreme Court in Unsigned Resolution dated 19 August 2024 from the First Division of the Supreme Court.

“The Petitioners -- being Filipinos, concerned citizens, and stewards of nature – come to the Supreme Court invoking its power of expanded judicial review.

“No factual issues are presented in this petition. In invoking this Court’s certiorari jurisdiction and the exercise of its power of expanded judicial review under Section 1 Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution, the Petitioners seek extraordinary recourse for the Supreme Court to determine with finality the following legal issues whose answers are plainly and painfully manifest:

          “a. May Respondent Mercidar Fishing Corporation opt to ignore indispensable parties in assailing the Fisheries Code?

          “b. May Respondent Judge Docena interpret the 1987 Constitution to defeat the intent of the framers and of Congress?

          “c. May Respondents Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and the Office of the Solicitor General be allowed to ‘nonchalantly choose to look the other way’ while commercial fishing corporations raid the commons at the expense of the Filipino People?”

The petitioners then pleaded the SC to give “due course, reverse the decision dated 11 December 2023, to remand the case for trial before the RTC, and to order the private respondent Mercidar Fishing Corporation to implead all indispensable parties.”