The Supreme Court has been asked to overturn a 2021 trial court ruling that declared unconstitutional Fisheries Administrative Order (FAO) No. 266.
The order mandates operators of big fishing vessels to report their catches through a vessel monitoring system (VMS) and an electronic reporting system (ERS) to curb illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing (IUUF).
The Office of the Solicitor General made the plea to reverse the ruling of the Malabon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) during the oral arguments conducted by the High Court.
The petitions were filed by the government and Oceana Philippines International, a group “advocating the protection and restoration of oceans on a global scale.”
The government, through Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra, also prodded the SC to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) or a writ of preliminary injunction that would stop immediately the implementation of the RTC’s decision.
In his presentation, Guevarra argued that the Malabon City RTC committed “jurisdictional trespass” when it declared FAO 266 unconstitutional.
FAP 266 was issued by the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) on Oct. 12, 2020.
“A regional trial court arrogated upon itself a power reserve exclusively to this Honorable court…. Though the issue of preliminary injunction has been mooted by the issuance of judgment by the trial court, it behooves this court to make a ruling in order to guide the bench, the bar and the public in future environmental cases that may arise,” he said.
According to Guevarra, the VMS and ERS serve as management tools for conservation of marine resources, which are globally recognized.
The chief state lawyer noted that the tools help government agencies and enable them to monitor all duly registered commercial fishing vessels to ensure they are operating within authorized fishing grounds and guide them in the prosecution of violators of fisheries law.
“Irresponsible use of marine resources endangers their very existence. Enjoining FAO 266 removes one of the most effective tools of the government against IUUF,” Guevarra stressed.
He said the with the issuance of FAO 266, the BFAR acted within its mandate under the Fisheries Code to ensure a healthy marine environment, using its technical expertise and based on scientific findings.
The Solicitor General stressed that commercial fishing puts a greater burden on marine resources due to use of larger vessels and fishing gears.
“Municipal fishing uses light vessels and is carried out in shallow waters and regulated primarily by the local government units…. These substantial distinctions germane to the purpose of the law justifies differential treatment of municipal and commercial fishing,” he said.
He said FAO 266 was not issued in violation of the right to privacy and unreasonable searches against big commercial fishing operators.
Since then, Guevarra said, the fishing vessel’s fishing area, fish catches and spoilage, landing points and estimated quantity and value of fish caught have long been required to be recorded and reported to BFAR upon the completion of its fishing trips.
Thus, he said, those against FAO 266 cannot claim of illegal intrusion since the order merely seeks “to digitize and report in real time” their activities.
Guevarra also told the SC that $320 million worth of fish products bound to Europe every year are in danger of being rejected if the Philippine government fails to certify that such fish products were not caught IUUF.
He reminded the court that the Philippines is a state party to various treaties and agreements recognizing the right and duty of states to adopt conservation and management measures for the protection of the marine environment and the long-term sustainable use of living marine resources.
“A declaration of unconstitutionality of FAO 266 frustrates the State’s effort to honor its international commitments and render it powerless to uphold the shared goals these commitments represent,” Guevarra stressed.
“For failure to honor such commitments, the country may lose access to foreign markets for its fish exports which have declined from around $1 billion in 2021,” he warned.
The consolidated petitions that challenged the trial court’s ruling before the SC were filed by Department of Agriculture, BFAR, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) and Oceana Philippines International.
Named respondents in the consolidated petitions were commercial fishing operators such as the Royale Fishing Corporation, Bonanza Fishing and Market Resources, Inc., RBL Fishing Corporation.