[G.R. No. 110249.

August 21, 1997]

ALFREDO TANO, et al, petitioners, vs. GOV. SALVADOR P. SOCRATES, et

al, respondents.

FACTS:
On December 15, 1992, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto Princesa enacted
Ordinance no. 15-92 which banned the shipment of live fish and lobster outside Puerto
Princesa City from January 1, 1993 to January 1, 1998. Likewise, on February 19, 1993,
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan enacted Resolution No. 33, Ordinance No. 2,
Series of 1993. Said resolution prohibits the catching, gathering, possessing, buying,
selling and shipment of live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms for a period of 5
years in and coming from Palawan waters. Charged for violating the above laws by the
city and provincial governments were the petitioners Airline Shippers Association of
Palawan, together with several marine merchants. The petitioners assert that they have
the preferential rights as marginal fishermen granted with privileges provided by the
Local Government Code, specifically in Section 149 thereof, invoking the invalidity of
the above-stated enactments as violative of their rights.

ISSUE:
Were the enacted laws by the said local government units or LGUs [(1) The City
Government of Puerto Princesa, and (2) The Provincial Government of Palawan]
violative of the preferential rights of the fishermen?

HELD:
NO. The enacted resolution and ordinance of the LGU were not violative of their
preferential rights. The court recognized these laws as a valid exercise of the police
power of the LGUs to protect public interests.

More importantly, the right to a balanced and healthful ecology has been emphasized, as
enshrined in Section 16, Article II, 1987 Philippine Constitution, which states:

1
The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

The court decided that such right carries with it a correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment.

The rights and privileges invoked by the petitioners are not absolute. Though Congress
may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as
well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers
in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons (as stated in Section 2, Article XII, 1987 Philippine
Constitution), there has been absolutely no showing that any of the petitioners qualifies
as a subsistence or marginal fisherman (in the petition, one petitioner was even
described as a private association composed of Marine Merchants). The general welfare
provisions in the Local Government Code of 1991 shall be liberally interpreted to give
more powers to local government units in accelerating economic development and
upgrading the quality of life for the people in the community. Power is given to the
LGUs to enact fishery laws in its municipal waters which necessarily includes the
enactment of ordinances in order to effectively carry out the enforcement of fishery laws
in their local community. The ordinances in question are meant precisely to protect and
conserve marine resources to the end that their enjoyment by the people may be
guaranteed not only for the present generation, but also for the generations to come, as
what has been provided for in Section 7 of Article XIII of the Constitution. Thus, aside
from dismissing the petition for lack of merit, the court even commended the
Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto Princesa and Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan
for exercising the requisite political will to enact urgently needed legislation to protect
and enhance the marine environment.