spot_img
27.5 C
Philippines
Friday, March 29, 2024

Fishing firms decry order on e-reporting tool for vessels

- Advertisement -

A group of commercial fishing companies on Monday criticized the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) and the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) for allegedly disregarding a court order enjoining them from implementing an administrative order requiring the installation of vessel monitoring measures and electronic reporting system for commercial Philippine-flagged fishing vessels.

The owners of commercial fishing vessels urged the Malabon City Regional Trial Court to cite BFAR, NTC, and other concerned agencies for contempt for ignoring its permanent injunction enjoining the government agencies from implementing their controversial Fisheries
Administrative Order No. 266-2020.

The owners of commercial Philippine-flagged fishing vessels were referring to the permanent injunction issued by the Malabon City Regional Trial Court against the enforcement of Fisheries Administrative Order (FAO) 266-2020, which amended FAO 260-2018, that requires the installation of VMS-100 transceivers in all commercial fishing vessels operating in domestic waters, in the high seas, and other distant waters. FAO 266 is supposedly being implemented to further intensify the campaign against illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.

However, in June 1, 2021, Presiding Judge Zaldy Docena of Malabon City RTC, Branch 170 declared FAO 266 as null and void for being unconstitutional.

Docena granted the petition of Royale Fishing Corporation, Bonanza Fishing and Market Resources, and RBL Fishing Corporation seeking to stop the Department of Agriculture, BFAR and NTC from implementing Section 14 and 119 of Republic Act No. 8550, as amended, as implemented by FAO 266 for being illegal and unconstitutional.

- Advertisement -

The petitioners, which are domestic corporations engaged in commercial deep-sea ishing in the Philippine waters, argued that Section 119 of RA 8550, which created the Vessel Mon toring Measures or VMM, and Section 14, which mandates monitoring, control and surveillance of fishing in all Philippine waters and Philippine-flagged distant water fishing vessels, violate their constitutional rights to privacy and against unlawful searches; that FAO 266 violates the equal protection clause and the law it seeks to implement.

The petitioners also said the issuance of FAO 266 violated petitioners’ constitutional rights to due process and to participate in the decision-making process and that the implementation of FAO 266 is premature.

The petitioners asserted that information to be recorded and reported via Electronic Reporting System, like position of the vessel where the fish was caught, date and time and vessel activity, are sensitive information and part of their trade secrets and proprietary information.

The petitioners also lamented that by requiring commercial fishing vessel to be equipped with VMS or vessel monitoring system violates their constitutional right against unlawful searches.

The public respondents through the Office of the Solicitor General, explained that FAO 266 was enacted to strengthen the monitoring, control and surveillance system of the country’s fishery resources for sustainable management and conservation of these resources.

FAO 266 is a regulatory measure that implements the Vessel Monitoring System and Electronic Reporting System, which was enacted to comply with the implementation of various conservation and management measures under the Regional Fisheries  Management Organizations and other International Fisheries Commissions, of which the Philippines is a party thereto.

The group said that the three agencies should be cited for contempt for ignoring a court order.

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles