Tano Vs Socrates

1/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 278
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tano vs. Socrates
*
G.R. No. 110249. August 21, 1997.
ALFREDO TANO, BALDOMERO TANO, DANILO TANO,

ROMUALDO TANO, TEOCENES MIDELLO, ANGEL DE
MESA, EULOGIO TREMOCHA, FELIPE ONGONION, JR.,
ANDRES LINIJAN, ROBERT LIM, VIRGINIA LIM, FELIMON
DE MESA, GENEROSO ARAGON, TEODORICO ANDRE,
ROMULO DEL ROSARIO, CHOLITO ANDRE, ERICK
MONTANO, ANDRES OLIVA, VITTORIO SALVADOR,
LEOPOLDO ARAGON, RAFAEL RIBA, ALEJANDRO
LEONILA, JOSE DAMACINTO, RAMIRO MANAEG, RUBEN
MARGATE, ROBERTO REYES, DANILO PANGARUTAN, NOE
GOLPAN, ESTANISLAO ROMERO, NICANOR DOMINGO,
ROLDAN TABANG, ADRIANO TABANG, FREDDIE
SACAMAY, MIGUEL TRIMOCHA, PACENCIO LABABIT,
PABLO H. OMPAD, CELESTINO A. ABANO, ALLAN
ALMODAL, BILLY D. BARTOLAY, ALBINO D. LIQUE,
MELCHOR J. LAYSON, MELANIE AMANTE, CLARO E.
YATOC, MERGELDO B. BALDEO, EDGAR M. ALMASETA,
JOSELITO MANAEG, LIBERATO ANDRADA, JR., ROBERTO
BERRY, RONALD VILLANUEVA, EDUARDO VALMORIA,
WILFREDO MENDOZA, NAPOLEON BABANGGA, ROBERTO
TADEPA, RUBEN ASINGUA, SILVERIO GABO, JERRY
ROMERO, DAVID PANGGARUTAN, DANIEL
PANGGARUTAN, ROMEO AGAWIN, FERNANDO EQUIZ,
DITO LEQUIZ, RONILO MODERABLE, BENEDICTO TORRES,
ROSITO A. VALDEZ, CRESENCIO A. SAYANG, NICOMEDES
S. ACOSTA, ERENEO A. SEGARINO, JR., WILFREDO A.
RAUTO, DIOSDADO A. ACOSTA, BONIFACIO G. SISMO,
TACIO ALUBA, DANIEL B. BATERZAL, ELISEO YBAÑEZ,
DIOSDADO E. HANCHIC, EDDIE ESCALICAS, ELEAZAR B.
BATERZAL, DOMINADOR HALICHIC, ROOSEVELT RISMO-
AN, ROBERT C. MERCADER, TIRSO ARESGADO, DANIEL
CHAVEZ, DANILO CHAVEZ, VICTOR VILLAROEL, ERNESTO
C. YBAÑEZ, ARMANDO T. SANTILLAN,
__________________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fa98f39a1e63def0c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/51
* EN BANC.
155
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 155

Tano vs. Socrates
RUDY S. SANTILLAN, JODJEN ILUSTRISIMO, NESTOR

SALANGRON, ALBERTO SALANGRON, ROGER L. ROXAS,
FRANCISCO T. ANTICANO, PASTOR SALANGRON,
BIENVENIDO SANTILLAN, GILBUENA LADDY, FIDEL
BENJAMIN, JOVELITO BELGANO, HONEY PARIOL,
ANTONIO SALANGRON, NICASIO SALANGRON, & AIRLINE
SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION OF PALAWAN, petitioners, vs. HON.
GOV. SALVADOR P. SOCRATES, MEMBERS OF
SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF PALAWAN, namely,
VICE-GOVERNOR JOEL T. REYES, JOSE D. ZABALA,
ROSALINO R. ACOSTA, JOSELITO A. CADLAON, ANDRES R.
BAACO, NELSON P. PENEYRA, CIPRIANO C. BARROMA,
CLARO E. ORDINARIO, ERNESTO A. LLACUNA, RODOLFO
C. FLORDELIZA, GILBERT S. BAACO, WINSTON G.
ARZAGA, NAPOLEON F. ORDONEZ and GIL P. ACOSTA, CITY
MAYOR EDWARD HAGEDORN, MEMBERS OF
SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD NG PUERTO PRINCESA, ALL
MEMBERS OF BANTAY DAGAT, MEMBERS OF PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL POLICE OF PALAWAN, PROVINCIAL AND CITY
PROSECUTORS OF PALAWAN and PUERTO PRINCESA CITY,
and ALL JUDGES OF PALAWAN, REGIONAL, MUNICIPAL
AND METROPOLITAN, respondents.
Remedial Law; Special Civil Action; Certiorari; The general rule is

that where a motion to quash is denied, the remedy therefrom is not
certiorari, but for the party aggrieved thereby to go to trial without
prejudice to reiterating special defenses involved in said motion, and if,
after trial on the merits an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom
in the manner authorized by law.—As to the first set of petitioners, this
special civil for certiorari must fail on the ground of prematurity amounting
to a lack of cause of action. There is no showing that said petitioners, as the
accused in the criminal cases, have filed motions to quash the informations
therein and that the same were denied. The ground available for such
motions is that the facts charged therein do not constitute an offense because
the ordinances in question are unconstitutional. It cannot then be said that
the lower courts acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion to justify recourse to the extraordinary remedy of
certiorari or prohibition. It must further be
156
Tano vs. Socrates
stressed that even if petitioners did file motions to quash, the denial thereof
would not forthwith give rise to a cause of action under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court. The general rule is that where a motion to quash is denied, the
remedy therefrom is not certiorari, but for the party aggrieved thereby to go
to trial without prejudice to reiterating special defenses involved in said
motion, and if, after trial on the merits an adverse decision is rendered, to
appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law. And, even where in an
exceptional circumstance such denial may be the subject of a special civil
action for certiorari, a motion for reconsideration must have to be filed to
allow the court concerned an opportunity to correct its errors, unless such
motion may be dispensed with because of existing exceptional
circumstances. Finally, even if a motion for reconsideration has been filed
and denied, the remedy under Rule 65 is still unavailable absent any
showing of the grounds provided for in Section 1 thereof. For obvious
reasons, the petition at bar does not, and could not have, alleged any of such
grounds.
Same; Same; Same; While the Court has concurrent jurisdiction with
Regional Trial Courts and with the Court of Appeals to issue writs of
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and
injunction, such concurrence gives petitioners no unrestricted freedom of
choice of court forum.—Even granting arguendo that the first set of
petitioners have a cause of action ripe for the extraordinary writ of
certiorari, there is here a clear disregard of the hierarchy of courts, and no
special and important reason or exceptional and compelling circumstance
has been adduced why direct recourse to us should be allowed. While we
have concurrent jurisdiction with Regional Trial courts and with the Court
of Appeals to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence gives petitioners
no unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum.
Same; Same; Same; The judicial policy that the Court will not
entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in
the appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling circumstances
justify availment of a remedy within and calling for the exercise of a
primary jurisdiction.—In Santiago v. Vasquez, this Court forcefully
expressed that the propensity of litigants and lawyers to disregard the
hierarchy of courts must be put to a halt, not only because of the imposition
upon the precious time of this Court, but also because of the inevitable and
resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of the case which
often has to be
157
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 157
Tano vs. Socrates
remanded or referred to the lower court, the proper forum under the rules of
procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues since this Court is not
a trier of facts. We reiterated “the judicial policy that this Court will not
entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in
the appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling circumstances
justify availment of a remedy within and calling for the exercise of [its]
primary jurisdiction.”
Same; Same; Declaratory Relief; Supreme Court is not possessed of

original jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief even if only
questions of law are involved.—As to the second set of petitioners, the
instant petition is obviously one for DECLARATORY RELIEF, i.e., for a
declaration that the Ordinances in question are a “nullity. . . for being
unconstitutional.” As such, their petition must likewise fail, as this Court is
not possessed of original jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief
even if only questions of law are involved, it being settled that the Court
merely exercises appellate jurisdiction over such petitions.
Constitutional Law; Statute; Statutory Construction; It is settled that

laws (including ordinances enacted by local government units) enjoy the
presumption of constitutionality.—It is of course settled that laws (including
ordinances enacted by local government units) 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. Where doubt exists, even if well-
founded, there can be no finding of unconstitutionality. To doubt is to
sustain.
Same; Same; Same; Court finds petitioners’ contentions baseless and

holds that the Ordinances do not suffer from any infirmity both under the
Constitution and applicable laws.—After a scrutiny of the challenged
Ordinances and the provisions of the Constitution petitioners claim to have
been violated, we find petitioners’ contentions baseless and so hold that the
former do not suffer from any infirmity, both under the Constitution and
applicable laws.
MENDOZA, J., Concurring Opinion:
Municipal Corporations; Local Government Code; Statutes; The

ordinances in question are police power measures, enacted by the
158
Tano vs. Socrates
Province of Palawan and the City of Puerto Princesa, pursuant to the Local
Government Code of 1991.—The ordinances in question are police power
measures, enacted by the Province of Palawan and the City of Puerto
Princesa, pursuant to the Local Government Code of 1991 which makes it in
fact their duty to enact measures to “protect the environment and impose
appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the environment, such as
dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing. . . .” There is no
basis for the claim in the dissenting opinion that the subject of these
ordinances lies within the competence of the national government. For the
matter concerns a local problem, namely, the destruction of aquatic
resources in the Province of Palawan.
Same; Same; Same; The presumption of constitutionality must prevail

in the absence of some factual foundation of record for over-throwing the
statute.—It has been held that “as underlying questions of fact may
condition the constitutionality of legislation of this character, the
presumption of constitutionality must prevail in the absence of some factual
foundation of record for overthrowing the stat-ute.” No evidence has been
presented by petitioners to overthrow the factual basis of the ordinances—
that, as a result of the use of cyanide and other noxious substances for
fishing, only 5% of the coral reefs in Palawan was in excellent condition,
that 75% had been heavily destroyed, and that because of the thriving
market for live fish and lobster here and abroad there was rampant illicit
trade in live fish.
Same; Same; Same; If the laws passed are seen to have a reasonable
relation to a proper legislative purpose, and are neither arbitrary nor
discriminatory, the requirements of due process are satisfied, and judicial
determination to that effect renders a court functus officio.—Nor has it been
shown by petitioners that the local legislation here involved is arbitrary or
unreasonable. It has been held: “If the laws passed are seen to have a
reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose, and are neither arbitrary
nor discriminatory, the requirements of due process are satisfied, and
judicial determination to that effect renders a court functus officio. . . . With
the wisdom of the policy adopted, with the adequacy or practicability of the
law enacted to forward it, the courts are both incompetent and unauthorized
to deal. . . .”
159
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 159

Tano vs. Socrates
BELLOSILLO, J., Dissenting Opinion:
Statutes; Statutory Construction; Municipal Ordinances; Well-

established tests of a valid ordinance.—In Magtajas v. Pryce Properties
Corporation, we reiterated that the well-established tests of a valid
ordinance are: (a) It must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (b)
It must not be unfair or oppressive; (c) It must not be partial or
discriminatory; (d) It must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (e) It must be
general and consistent with public policy; and, (f) It must not be
unreasonable.
Same; Same; Same; Special law should prevail over the general law.—
Further, while the Local Government Code is a general law on the powers,
responsibilities and composition of different local government units, P.D.
No. 704 is a special law dealing with the protection and conservation of
fishing and aquatic resources including those in the municipal waters.
Hence, the special law should prevail over the general law.
Same; Same; Same; P.D. No. 704 imposes a mandatory requirement

directing municipal or city governments to submit ordinances enacted
pertinent to fishing and fishery resources to the Secretary of Agriculture.—
There is no doubt that under P.D. No. 704 fishing, fishery and aquatic
resources in municipal waters are under the jurisdiction of the municipal or
city government concerned. However, the same decree imposes a mandatory
requirement directing municipal or city governments to submit ordinances
enacted pertinent to fishing and fishery resources to the Secretary of
Agriculture who now has control and supervision over the Bureau of
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR). The ordinances will attain full
force and effect only upon the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture.
Same; Same; Same; Admittedly, Ordinance 15-92 of Puerto Princesa

City was not submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture through the BFAR for
approval.—Ordinance 15-92 of Puerto Princesa City, admittedly, was not
submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture through the BFAR for approval.
Such failure of compliance with the law prevented it from becoming valid
and effective. Consequently, Office Order No. 23 of the Mayor of Puerto
Princesa City which seeks to implement and enforce Ordinance No. 15-92 is
also ineffective as there is nothing to implement.
160
Tano vs. Socrates
Same; Same; Police Power; In order that a local government may

exercise police power, there must be a legislative grant which necessarily
sets the limits for the exercise of the power.—It is true that police power can
be exercised through the general welfare clause. But, while police power is
inherent in a state, it is not so in municipal corporations or local
governments. In order that a local government may exercise police power,
there must be a legislative grant which necessarily sets the limits for the
exercise of the power. In this case, Congress has enacted the Local
Government Code which provides the standards as well as the limitations in
the exercise of the police power by the local government unit.
Same; Municipal Ordinances; While a local government unit may

adopt ordinances upon subjects covered by law or statute, such ordinances
should be in accordance with and not repugnant to the law.—The power
devolved upon the municipality under the Local Government Code is the
enforcement of existing fishery laws of the State and not the enactment
thereof. While a local government unit may adopt ordinances upon subjects
covered by law or statute, such ordinances should be in accordance with and
not repugnant to the law. In view thereof, ordinances which may be enacted
by the municipality or city should be pursuant to the provisions of P.D. Nos.
704, 1015 and 1219. Thus, under the provisions of Secs. 447, par. 1 (vi),
458, par. 1 (vi) and 468, par. 1 (vi), the municipality, city and province
respectively may approve ordinances protecting the environment by
specifically penalizing only those acts which endanger the environment such
as dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing which are already
prohibited under P.D. Nos. 704 and 1219, and other laws on illegal fishing.
Same; Same; The questioned ordinances may also be struck down for
being not only a prohibitory legislation but also an unauthorized exercise of
delegation of powers.—The questioned ordinances may also be struck down
for being not only a prohibitory legislation but also an unauthorized exercise
of delegation of powers. An objective, however worthy or desirable it may
be, such as the protection and conservation of our fisheries in this case, can
be attained by a measure that does not encompass too wide a field. The
purpose can be achieved by reasonable restrictions rather than by absolute
prohibition. Local governments are not possessed with prohibitory powers
but only regulatory powers under the general welfare clause. They cannot
therefore exceed the powers granted to them by the Code by altogether
prohibiting fishing and selling for five (5) years
161
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 161

Tano vs. Socrates
all live fishes through Ordinance No. 15-92 and coral organisms through
Ordinance No. 2-93 involving even lawful methods of fishing.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and

Prohibition.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Arturo S. Santos for petitioners.
Agustin M. Rocamora for Edward S. Hagedorn, Sanggunian
Panlungsod of Puerto Princesa City and Bantay Dagat of Puerto
Princesa City.
Romeo M. Seratubas, Robert Y. Peneyra and Martin E. Ruelo
for Salvador P. Socrates.
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
Petitioners caption their petition as one for “Certiorari, Injunction

With Preliminary and Mandatory Injunction, with Prayer for
Temporary Restraining Order” and pray that this Court: (1) declare
as unconstitutional: (a) Ordinance No. 15-92, dated 15 December
1992, of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto Princesa; (b) Office
Order No. 23, Series of 1993, dated 22 January 1993, issued by
Acting City Mayor Amado L. Lucero of Puerto Princesa City; and
(c) Resolution No. 33, Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993, dated 19
February 1993, of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan; (2)
enjoin the enforcement thereof; and (3) restrain respondents
Provincial and City Prosecutors of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City1
and Judges of the Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Palawan from assuming
jurisdiction over and hearing cases concerning the violation of the
Ordinances and of the Office Order.
More appropriately, the petition is, and shall be treated as, a
special civil action for certiorari and prohibition.
_________________
1 None, however, exists in Puerto Princesa City.
162

Tano vs. Socrates
The following is petitioners’ summary of the factual antecedents

giving rise to the petition:
1. On December 15, 1992, the Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Puerto Princesa

City enacted Ordinance No. 15-92 which took effect on January 1, 1993
entitled: “AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE
FISH AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA CITY FROM
JANUARY 1, 1993 TO JANUARY 1, 1998 AND PROVIDING
EXEMPTIONS, PENALTIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
THEREOF,” the full text of which reads as follows:
“Section 1. Title of the Ordinance.—This Ordinance is entitled: AN ORDINANCE

BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE FISH AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE
PUERTO PRINCESA CITY FROM JANUARY 1, 1993 TO JANUARY 1, 1998
AND PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS, PENALTIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
THEREOF.
Section 2. Purpose, Scope and Coverage.—To effectively free our City Sea
Waters from Cyanide and other Obnoxious substance[s], and shall cover all persons
and/or entities operating within and outside the City of Puerto Princesa who is are
(sic) directly or indirectly in the business or shipment of live fish and lobster outside
the City.
Section 3. Definition of terms.—For purpose of this Ordinance the following are
hereby defined:
A. SEA BASS—A kind of fish under the family of Centropomidae, better

known as APAHAP;
B. CATFISH—A kind of fish under the family of Plotosidae, better known as
HITO-HITO;
C. MUDFISH—A kind of fish under the family of Orphicaphalisae better
known as DALAG;
D. ALL LIVE FISH—All alive, breathing not necessarily moving of all
specie[s] use[d] for food and for aquarium purposes.
E. LIVE LOBSTER—Several relatively, large marine crusteceans [sic] of the
genus Homarus that are alive and breathing not necessarily moving.
Section 4. It shall be unlawful [for] any person or any business enterprise or

company to ship out from Puerto Princesa City to any point of destination either via
aircraft or
163
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 163

Tano vs. Socrates
seacraft of any live fish and lobster except SEA BASS, CATFISH, MUDFISH, AND
MILKFISH FRIES.
Section 5. Penalty Clause.—Any person/s and or business entity violating this
Ordinance shall be penalized with a fine of not more than P5,000.00 or
imprisonment of not more than twelve (12) months, cancellation of their permit to do
business in the City of Puerto Princesa or all of the herein stated penalties, upon the
discretion of the court.
Section 6. If the owner and/or operator of the establishment found violating the
provisions of this ordinance is a corporation or a partnership, the penalty prescribed
in Section 5 hereof shall be imposed upon its president and/or General Manager or
Managing Partner and/or Manager, as the case maybe [sic].
Section 7. Any existing ordinance or any provision of any ordinance inconsistent
to [sic] this ordinance is deemed repealed.
Section 8. This Ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 1993.
SO ORDAINED.”
xxx
2. To implement said city ordinance, then Acting City Mayor Amado L.

Lucero issued Office Order No. 23, Series of 1993 dated January 22, 1993
which reads as follows:
“In the interest of public service and for purposes of City Ordinance No. PD426-14-
74, otherwise known as ‘AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING ANY PERSON
ENGAGED OR INTENDING TO ENGAGE IN ANY BUSINESS, TRADE,
OCCUPATION, CALLING OR PROFESSION OR HAVING IN HIS POSSESSION
ANY OF THE ARTICLES FOR WHICH A PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO BE HAD,
TO OBTAIN FIRST A MAYOR’S PERMIT” and “City Ordinance No. 15-92, AN
ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE FISH AND LOBSTER
OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA CITY FROM JANUARY 1, 1993 TO JANUARY
1, 1998, you are hereby authorized and directed to check or conduct necessary
inspections on cargoes containing live fish and lobster being shipped out from the
Puerto Princesa Airport, Puerto Princesa Wharf or at any port within the jurisdiction
of the City to any point of destinations [sic] either via aircraft or seacraft.
164

Tano vs. Socrates
The purpose of the inspection is to ascertain whether the shipper possessed the
required Mayor’s Permit issued by this Office and the shipment is covered by
invoice or clearance issued by the local office of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources and as to compliance with all other existing rules and regulations on the
matter.
Any cargo containing live fish and lobster without the required documents as
stated herein must be held for proper disposition.
In the pursuit of this Order, you are hereby authorized to coordinate with the PAL
Manager, the PPA Manager, the local PNP Station and other offices concerned for
the needed support and cooperation. Further, that the usual courtesy and diplomacy
must be observed at all times in the conduct of the inspection.
Please be guided accordingly.”
xxx
3. On February 19, 1993, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Provincial

Government of Palawan enacted Resolution No. 33 entitled: “A
RESOLUTION PROHIBITING THE CATCHING, GATHERING,
POSSESSING, BUYING, SELLING AND SHIPMENT OF LIVE

MARINE CORAL DWELLING AQUATIC ORGANISMS, TO WIT:
FAMILY: SCARIDAE (MAMENG), EPINE PHELUS FASCIATUS (SUNO).
CROMILEPTES ALTIVELIS (PANTHER OR SENORITA), LOBSTER
BELOW 200 GRAMS AND SPAWNING, TRIDACNA GIGAS
(TAKLOBO), PINCTADA MARGARITEFERA (MOTHER PEARL,
OYSTERS, GIANT CLAMS AND OTHER SPECIES), PENAEUS
MONODON (TIGER PRAWN-BREEDER SIZE OR MOTHER),
EPINEPHELUS SUILLUS (LOBA OR GREEN GROUPER) AND
FAMILY: BALISTIDAE (TROPICAL AQUARIUM FISHES) FOR A
PERIOD FIVE (5) YEARS IN AND COMING FROM PALAWAN
WATERS,” the full text of which reads as follows:
“WHEREAS, scientific and factual researches [sic] and studies disclose that only
five (5) percent of the corals of our province remain to be in excellent condition as
[a] habitat of marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms;
WHEREAS, it cannot be gainsaid that the destruction and devastation of the
corals of our province were principally due to illegal fishing activities like dynamite
fishing, sodium cyanide fishing, use of other obnoxious substances and other related
activities;
165
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 165

Tano vs. Socrates
WHEREAS, there is an imperative and urgent need to protect and preserve the
existence of the remaining excellent corals and allow the devastated ones to
reinvigorate and regenerate themselves into vitality within the span of five (5) years;
WHEREAS, Sec. 468, Par. 1, Sub-Par. VI of the [sic] R.A. 7160 otherwise
known as the Local Government Code of 1991 empowers the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan to protect the environment and impose appropriate penalties [upon]
acts which endanger the environment such as dynamite fishing and other forms of
destructive fishing, among others.
NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Kagawad Nelson P. Peneyra and upon
unanimous decision of all the members present;
Be it resolved as it is hereby resolved, to approve Resolution No. 33, Series of
1993 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and to enact Ordinance No. 2 for the
purpose, to wit:
ORDINANCE NO. 2
Series of 1993
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN IN SESSION

ASSEMBLED:
Section 1. TITLE—This Ordinance shall be known as an “Ordinance Prohibiting

the catching, gathering, possessing, buying, selling and shipment of live marine coral
dwelling aquatic organisms, to wit: 1. Family: Scaridae (Mameng), 2. Epinephelus
Fasciatus (Suno), 3. Cromileptes altivelis (Panther or Senorita), lobster below 200
grams and spawning), 4. Tridacna Gigas (Taklobo), 5. Pinctada Margaretefera

(Mother Pearl, Oysters, Giant Clams and other species), 6. Penaeus Monodon (Tiger
Prawn-breeder size or mother), 7. Epinephelus Suillus (Loba or Green Grouper) and
8. Family: Balistidae (T[r]opical Aquarium Fishes) for a period of five (5) years in
and coming from Palawan Waters.
Section II. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
1. Sec. 2-A (Rep. Act 7160). It is hereby declared, the policy of the state that the
territorial and political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful
local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as selfreliant
communities and make them more effective partners in
166

Tano vs. Socrates
the attainment of national goals. Toward this end, the State shall provide for [a] more
responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of
decentralization whereby local government units shall be given more powers,
authority, responsibilities and resources.
2. Sec. 5-A (R.A. 7160). 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 government
units. “Any fair and reasonable doubts as to the existence of the power shall be
interpreted in favor of the Local Government Unit concerned.”
3. Sec. 5-C (R.A. 7160). The general welfare provisions in this Code 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.
4. Sec. 16 (R.A. 7160). 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.
Section III. DECLARATION OF POLICY.—It is hereby declared to be the
policy of the Province of Palawan to protect and conserve the marine resources of
Palawan not only for the greatest good of the majority of the present generation but
with [the] proper perspective and consideration of [sic] their prosperity, and to attain
this end, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan henceforth declares that is [sic] shall be
unlawful for any person or any business entity to engage in catching, gathering,
possessing, buying, selling and shipment of live marine coral dwelling aquatic
organisms as enumerated in Section 1 hereof in and coming out of Palawan Waters
for a period of five (5) years;
Section IV. PENALTY CLAUSE.—Any person and/or business entity violating
this Ordinance shall be penalized with a fine of not more than Five Thousand Pesos
(P5,000.00), Philippine Currency, and/or imprisonment of six (6) months to twelve
(12) months and confiscation and forfeiture of paraphernalias [sic] and equipment in
favor of the government at the discretion of the Court;
167
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 167

Tano vs. Socrates
Section V. SEPARABILITY CLAUSE.—If for any reason, a Section or provision of

this Ordinance shall be held as unconditional [sic] or invalid, it shall not affect the
other provisions hereof.
Section VI. REPEALING CLAUSE.—Any existing Ordinance or a provision of
any ordinance inconsistent herewith is deemed modified, amended or repealed.
Section VII. EFFECTIVITY.—This Ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days after its
publication.
SO ORDAINED.”
xxx
4. The respondents implemented the said ordinances, Annexes “A” and
“C” hereof thereby depriving all the fishermen of the whole province of
Palawan and the City of Puerto Princesa of their only means of livelihood
and the petitioners Airline Shippers Association of Palawan and other
marine merchants from performing their lawful occupation and trade;
5. Petitioners Alfredo Tano, Baldomero Tano, Teocenes Midello, Angel
de Mesa, Eulogio Tremocha, and Felipe Ongonion, Jr. were even charged
criminally under criminal case no. 93-05-C in the 1st Municipal Circuit
Trial Court of Cuyo-Agutaya-Magsaysay, an original carbon copy of the
criminal complaint dated April 12, 1993 is hereto attached as Annex “D”;
while xerox copies are attached as Annex “D” to the copies of the petition;
6. Petitioners Robert Lim and Virginia Lim, on the other hand, were
charged by the respondent PNP with the respondent City Prosecutor of
Puerto Princesa City, a xerox copy of the complaint is hereto attached as
Annex “E”;
Without seeking redress from the concerned local government units,

prosecutor’s office and courts, petitioners directly invoked our
original jurisdiction by filing this petition on 4 June 1993. In sum,
petitioners contend that:
First, the Ordinances deprived them of due process of law, their
livelihood, and unduly restricted them from the practice of their
trade, in violation of Section 2, Article XII and Sections 2 and 7 of
Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution.
Second, Office Order No. 23 contained no regulation nor
condition under which the Mayor’s permit could be granted or
168

Tano vs. Socrates
denied; in other words, the Mayor had the absolute authority to

determine whether or not to issue the permit.
Third, as Ordinance No. 2 of the Province of Palawan “altogether
prohibited the catching, gathering, possession, buying, selling and
shipping of live marine coral dwelling organisms, without any
distinction whether it was caught or gathered through lawful fishing
method,” the Ordinance took away the right of petitioners-fishermen
to earn their livelihood in lawful ways; and insofar as petitioners-
members of Airline Shippers Association are concerned, they were
unduly prevented from pursuing their vocation and entering “into
contracts which are proper, necessary, and essential to carry out their
business endeavors to a successful conclusion.”
Finally, as Ordinance No. 2 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan is
null and void, the criminal cases based thereon against petitioners
Tano and the others have to be dismissed.
In the Resolution of 15 June 1993 we required respondents to
comment on the petition, and furnished the Office of the Solicitor
General with a copy thereof.
In their comment filed on 13 August 1993, public respondents
Governor Socrates and Members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
of Palawan defended the validity of Ordinance No. 2, Series of
1993, as a valid exercise of the Provincial Government’s power
under the general welfare clause (Section 16 of the Local
Government Code of 1991 [hereafter, LGC]), and its specific power
to protect the environment and impose appropriate penalties for acts
which endanger the environment, such as dynamite fishing and other
forms of destructive fishing under Section 447(a)(1)(vi), Section
458(a)(1)(vi), and Section 468(a)(1)(vi), of the LGC. They claimed
that in the exercise of such powers, the Province of Palawan had
“the right and responsibility. . . to insure that the remaining coral
reefs, where fish dwells [sic], within its territory remain healthy for
the future generation.” The Ordinance, they further asserted, covered
only live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms which were
enumerated in the ordinance and excluded other kinds of live marine
aquatic organisms not dwelling in coral reefs; besides the prohibition
169
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 169

Tano vs. Socrates
was for only five (5) years to protect and preserve the pristine coral
and allow those damaged to regenerate.
Aforementioned respondents likewise maintained that there was
no violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the
Constitution. As to the former, public hearings were conducted
before the enactment of the Ordinance which, undoubtedly, had a
lawful purpose and employed reasonable means; while as to the
latter, a substantial distinction existed “between a fisherman who

catches live fish with the intention of selling it live, and a fisherman
who catches live fish with no intention at all of selling it live,” i.e.,
“the former uses sodium cyanide while the latter does not.” Further,
the Ordinance applied equally to all those belonging to one class.
On 25 October 1993 petitioners filed an Urgent Plea for the
Immediate Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, claiming that
despite the pendency of this case, Branch 50 of the Regional Trial
Court of Palawan was bent on proceeding with Criminal Case No.
11223 against petitioners Danilo Tano, Alfredo Tano, Eulogio
Tremocha, Romualdo Tano, Baldomero Tano, Andres Linijan and
Angel de Mesa for violation of Ordinance No. 2 of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Palawan. Acting on said plea, we issued on 11
November 1993 a temporary restraining order directing Judge Angel
Miclat of said court to cease and desist from proceeding with the
arraignment and pre-trial of Criminal Case No. 11223.
On 12 July 1994, we excused the Office of the Solicitor General
from filing a comment, considering that as claimed by said office in
its Manifestation of 28 June 1994, respondents were already
represented by counsel.
The rest of the respondents did not file any comment on the
petition.
In the resolution of 15 September 1994, we resolved to consider
the comment on the petition as the Answer, gave due course to the
petition and required the parties to submit their respective
2
memoranda.
_________________
2 Petitioners filed their Memorandum on 24 October 1994, respondents City

Mayor Hagedorn and Members of the Sangguniang
170

Tano vs. Socrates
On 22 April 1997 we ordered impleaded as party respondents the

Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources and required the Office of the Solicitor General to
comment on their behalf. But in light of the latter’s motion of 9 July
1997 for an extension of time to file the comment which would only
result in further delay, we dispensed with said comment.
After due deliberation on the pleadings filed, we resolved to
dismiss this petition for want of merit, and on 22 July 1997, assigned
it to the ponente to write the opinion of the Court.
There are actually two sets of petitioners in this case. The first is
composed of Alfredo Tano, Baldomero Tano, Danilo Tano,
Romualdo Tano, Teocenes Midello, Angel de Mesa, Eulogio
Tremocha, Felipe Ongonion, Jr., Andres Linijan, and Felimon de
Mesa, who were criminally charged with violating Sangguniang
Panlalawigan Resolution No. 33 and Ordinance No. 2, Series of
1993, of the Province of Palawan, in Criminal Case No. 93-05-C of
3
the 1st Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Palawan; and
Robert Lim and Virginia Lim who were charged with violating City
Ordinance No. 15-92 of Puerto Princesa City and Ordinance No. 2,
Series of 1993, of the Province of Palawan before the Office of the
4
City Prosecutor of Puerto Princesa. All of them, with the exception
of Teocenes Midello, Felipe Ongonion, Jr., Felimon de Mesa, Robert
Lim and Virginia Lim, are likewise the accused in Criminal Case
No. 11223 for the violation of Ordinance No. 2 of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Palawan, pending before Branch 50 of the
5
Regional Trial Court of Palawan.
__________________
Panlungsod of the City of Puerto Princesa filed their Memorandum on 25 January

1995, while respondents Governor Socrates and Members of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Palawan filed their Memorandum on 31 January 1995.
3 Annex “D” of Petition, Rollo, 35.
4 Annex “E” of Petition; id., 36.
5 Annex “A” to “A-5” of Urgent Plea for the Immediate Issuance of Temporary
Restraining Order, Rollo, 86 et seq.
171
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 171

Tano vs. Socrates
The second set of petitioners is composed of the rest of the

petitioners numbering seventy-seven (77), all of whom, except the
Airline Shippers Association of Palawan—an alleged private
association of several marine merchants—are natural persons who
claim to be fishermen.
The primary interest of the first set of petitioners is, of course, to
prevent the prosecution, trial and determination of the criminal cases
until the constitutionality or legality of the Ordinances they
allegedly violated shall have been resolved. The second set of
petitioners merely claim that being fishermen or marine merchants,
they would be adversely affected by the ordinances.
As to the first set of petitioners, this special civil for certiorari

must fail on the ground of prematurity amounting to a lack of cause
of action. There is no showing that said petitioners, as the accused in
the criminal cases, have filed motions to quash the informations
therein and that the same were denied. The ground available for such
motions is that the facts charged therein do not constitute an offense
6
because the ordinances in question are unconstitutional. It cannot
then be said that the lower courts acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion to justify recourse to
the extraordinary remedy of certiorari or prohibition. It must further
be stressed that even if petitioners did file motions to quash, the
denial thereof would not forthwith give rise to a cause of action
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The general rule is that where a
motion to quash is denied, the remedy therefrom is not certiorari,
but for the party aggrieved thereby to go to trial without prejudice to
reiterating special defenses involved in said motion, and if, after trial
on the merits an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in
7
the manner authorized by law. And, even where in an excep-
___________________
6 VICENTE J. FRANCISCO, THE REVISED RULES OF COURT IN THE

PHILIPPINES, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 582 (2nd ed. 1969), citing U.S. v.
Pompeya, 31 Phil. 245 [1915].
7 Acharon v. Purisima, 13 SCRA 309, 311 [1965]; Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 194
SCRA 145, 152-153 [1991]; Yap v. Intermediate
172

Tano vs. Socrates
tional circumstance such denial may be the subject of a special civil

action for certiorari, a motion for reconsideration must have to be
filed to allow the court concerned an opportunity to correct its errors,
unless such motion may be dispensed with because of existing
8
exceptional circumstances. Finally, even if a motion for
reconsideration has been filed and denied, the remedy under Rule 65
is still unavailable absent any showing of the grounds provided for
9
in Section 1 thereof. For obvious reasons, the petition at bar does
not, and could not have, alleged any of such grounds.
As to the second set of petitioners, the instant petition is
obviously one for DECLARATORY RELIEF, i.e., for a declaration
that the Ordinances in question are a “nullity. . . for being
10
unconstitutional.” As such, their petition must likewise fail, as this
Court is not possessed of original jurisdiction over petitions for
11
declaratory relief even if only questions of law are involved, it
being settled that the Court merely exercises appellate jurisdiction

12
over such petitions.
Even granting arguendo that the first set of petitioners have a
cause of action ripe for the extraordinary writ of certiorari, there is
here a clear disregard of the hierarchy of courts, and no special and
important reason or exceptional and compelling circumstance has
been adduced why direct recourse to
_________________
Appellate Court, 220 SCRA 245, 253 [1993]; People v. Bans, 239 SCRA 48, 54-
55 [1994].
8 Liberty Insurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 37, 47 [1993];
Lasco v. United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration, 241
SCRA 681, 684 [1995].
9 See Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, 201 SCRA 343 [1991]; People v. Bans, supra
note 7.
10 Rollo, 25.
11 Macasiano v. National Housing Authority, 224 SCRA 236, 243 [1993], citing
Remotigue v. Osmeña, 21 SCRA 837 [1967]; Rural Bank of Olongapo v.
Commissioner of Land Registration, 102 SCRA 794 [1981]; and Allied Broadcasting
Center v. Republic of the Philippines, 190 SCRA 782 [1990].
12 Philnabank Employees Association v. Hon. Estanislao, 227 SCRA 804, 811
[1993].
173
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 173

Tano vs. Socrates
us should be allowed. While we have concurrent jurisdiction with

Regional Trial courts and with the Court of Appeals to issue writs of
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus
and injunction, such concurrence gives petitioners no unrestricted
freedom of13 choice of court forum, so we held in People v.
Cuaresma:
This concurrence of jurisdiction is not . . . to be taken as according to parties

seeking any of the writs an absolute unrestrained freedom of choice of the
court to which application therefor will be directed. There is after all
hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals,
and should also serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for
petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial
hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of
extraordinary writs against first level (“inferior”) courts should be filed with
the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of
Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to
issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and
important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.
This is established policy. It is a policy necessary to prevent inordinate
demands upon the Court’s time and attention which are better devoted to
those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-
crowding of the Court’s docket. . . .
The Court feels the need to reaffirm that policy at this time, and to enjoin
strict adherence thereto in the light of what it perceives to be a growing
tendency on the part of litigants and lawyers to have their applications for
the so-called extraordinary writs, and sometimes even their appeals, passed
upon and adjudicated directly and immediately by the highest tribunal of the
land. . . .
14
In Santiago v. Vasquez, this Court forcefully expressed that the
propensity of litigants and lawyers to disregard the hierarchy of
courts must be put to a halt, not only because of the imposition upon
the precious time of this Court, but also because of the inevitable
and resultant delay, intended or
_________________
13 172 SCRA 415, 423-424 [1989], reiterated in Manalo v. Gloria, 236 SCRA 130,
138-139 [1994].
14 217 SCRA 633, 652 [1993].
174

Tano vs. Socrates
otherwise, in the adjudication of the case which often has to be

remanded or referred to the lower court, the proper forum under the
rules of procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues since
this Court is not a trier of facts. We reiterated “the judicial policy
that this Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress
desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where
exceptional and compelling circumstances justify availment of a
remedy within and calling for the exercise of [its] primary
jurisdiction.”
III
Notwithstanding the foregoing procedural obstacles against the first

set of petitioners, we opt to resolve this case on its merits
considering that the lifetime of the challenged Ordinances is about to
end. Ordinance No. 15-92 of the City of Puerto Princesa is effective
only up to 1 January 1998, while Ordinance No. 2 of the Province of
Palawan, enacted on 19 February 1993, is effective for only five (5)
years. Besides, these Ordinances were undoubtedly enacted in the
exercise of powers under the new LGC relative to the protection and
preservation of the environment and are thus novel and of
paramount importance. No further delay then may be allowed in the
resolution of the issues raised.
It is of course settled that laws (including ordinances enacted by
15
local government units) 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
16
Constitution must be shown beyond reasonable doubt. Where
doubt exists, even if well-founded,
______________
15 La Union Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Yaranon, 179 SCRA 828, 836 [1989];
Francisco v. Permskul, 173 SCRA 324, 333 [1989].
16 See Peralta v. Commission on Elections, 82 SCRA 30, 55 [1978].
175
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 175

Tano vs. Socrates
there can be no finding of unconstitutionality. To doubt is to

17
sustain.
After a scrutiny of the challenged Ordinances and the provisions
of the Constitution petitioners claim to have been violated, we find
petitioners’ contentions baseless and so hold that the former do not
suffer from any infirmity, both under the Constitution and applicable
laws.
Petitioners specifically point to Section 2, Article XII and
Sections 2 and 7, Article XIII of the Constitution as having been
transgressed by the Ordinances.
The pertinent portion of Section 2 of Article XII reads:
SEC. 2. x x x
The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic
waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and
enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The 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.
Sections 2 and 7 of Article XIII provide:
SEC. 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to

create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-
reliance.
xxx
SEC. 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen,
especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal
marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide
support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research,
adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services.
The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The
protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen
against
_______________
17 Paredes v. Executive Secretary, 128 SCRA 6, 11 [1984], citing Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad,
47 Phil. 385 [1925]. See also Aris (Phil.), Inc. v. NLRC, 200 SCRA 246, 255-256 [1991].
176

Tano vs. Socrates
foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in
the utilization of marine and fishing resources.
There is absolutely no showing that any of the petitioners qualifies

as a subsistence or marginal fisherman. In their petition, petitioner
Airline Shippers Association of Palawan is self-described as “a
private association composed of Marine Merchants;” petitioners
Robert Lim and Virginia Lim, as “merchants;” while the rest of the
petitioners claim to be “fishermen,” without any qualification,
however, as to their status.
Since the Constitution does not specifically provide a definition
18
of the terms “subsistence” or “marginal” fishermen, they should be
construed in their general and ordinary sense. A 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
19
sufficient to yield a profit or cover the cost of gathering the fish,
while a subsistence fisherman is one whose catch yields but the
20
irreducible minimum for his livelihood. Section 131(p) of the LGC
(R.A. No. 7160) defines a marginal farmer or fisherman as “an
individual engaged in subsistence farming or fishing which shall be
limited to the sale, barter or exchange of agricultural or marine
products produced by himself and his immediate family.” It bears
repeating that nothing in the record supports a finding that any
petitioner falls within these definitions.
Besides, Section 2 of Article XII aims primarily not to bestow
any right to subsistence fishermen, but to lay stress on the duty of
the State to protect the nation’s marine wealth. What the provision
merely recognizes is that the State may allow, by law, cooperative
fish farming, with priority to sub-
_______________
18 Although the intent of the framers was to have the terms refer to those “who
lived a hand-to-mouth existence.,” JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, THE INTENT OF THE
1986 CONSTITUTION WRITERS 964 (1995).
19 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1381 [1993].
20 Webster’s, supra, 2279.
177
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 177

Tano vs. Socrates
sistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays and

lagoons. Our survey of the statute books reveals that the only
provision of law which speaks of a preferential right of marginal
fishermen is Section 149 of the LGC, which pertinently provides:
SEC. 149. Fishery Rentals, Fees and Charges.—x x x
(b) The sangguniang bayan may:
(1) Grant fishery privileges to erect fish corrals, oyster, mussels or

other aquatic beds or bangus fry areas, within a definite zone of the
municipal waters, as determined by it: Provided, however, That
duly registered organizations and cooperatives of marginal
fishermen shall have the preferential right to such fishery
privileges. . . .
In a Joint Administrative Order No. 3 dated 25 April 1996, the

Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and the Secretary of the
Department of Interior and Local Government prescribed guidelines
concerning the preferential treatment of small fisherfolk relative to
the fishery right mentioned in Section 149. This case, however, does
not involve such fishery right.
Anent Section 7 of Article XIII, it speaks not only of the use of
communal marine and fishing resources, but of their protection,
development and conservation. As hereafter shown, the ordinances
in question are meant precisely to protect and conserve our marine
resources to the end that their enjoyment may be guaranteed not
only for the present generation, but also for the generations to come.
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 first paragraph of Section 2, Article
XII of the Constitution, their “exploration, development and
utilization . . . shall be under the full control and supervision of the
State.” Moreover, their mandated protection, development and
conservation as necessarily recognized by the framers of the

Constitution, imply certain re-
178

Tano vs. Socrates
strictions on whatever right of enjoyment there may be in favor of

anyone. Thus, as to the curtailment of the preferential treatment of
marginal fishermen, the following exchange between Commissioner
Francisco Rodrigo and Commissioner Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr., took
place at the plenary session of the Constitutional Commission:
MR. RODRIGO:
Let us discuss the implementation of this because I would not
raise the hopes of our people, and afterwards fail in the
implementation. How will this be implemented? Will there be a
licensing or giving of permits so that government officials will
know that one is really a marginal fisherman? Or if policeman say
that a person is not a marginal fisherman, he can show his permit,
to prove that indeed he is one.
MR. BENGZON:
Certainly, there will be some mode of licensing insofar as this is
concerned and this particular question could be tackled when we
discuss the Article on Local Governments—whether we will leave
to the local governments or to Congress on how these things will
be implemented. But certainly, I think our congressmen and our
local offic ials will not be bereft of ideas on how to implement this
mandate.
x x x
MR. RODRIGO:
So, once one is licensed as a marginal fisherman, he can go
anywhere in the Philippines and fish in any fishing grounds.
MR. BENGZON:
Subject to whatever rules and regulations and local laws that may
21
be passed, may be existing or will be passed. (italics supplied)
What must likewise be borne in mind is the state policy enshrined in

the Constitution regarding the duty of the State to protect and
advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology
in accord with the rhythm and harmony of
___________________
21 III Record of the Constitutional Commission, 50.
179
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 179

Tano vs. Socrates
22 23
nature. On this score, in Oposa v. Factoran, this Court declared:
While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the
Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights,
it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political
rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different category
of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and
self-perpetuation—aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners—the
advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and
constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written
in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of
humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter,
it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a
balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies
by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance
and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and
protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else
would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come
—generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of
sustaining life.
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it a correlative
duty to refrain from impairing the environment. . .
The LGC provisions invoked by private respondents merely seek to

give flesh and blood to the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology. In fact, the General Welfare Clause, expressly
mentions this right:
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. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government
units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and
enrichment
_________________
22 Section 16, Article II.

23 224 SCRA 792, 804-805 [1993].
180

Tano vs. Socrates
of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a
balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate
and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public
morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full
employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve
the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants. (italics supplied).
Moreover, Section 5(c) of the LGC explicitly mandates that the

general welfare provisions of the LGC “shall be liberally interpreted
to give more powers to the local government units in accelerating
economic development and upgrading the quality of life for the
people of the community.”
The LGC vests municipalities with the power to grant fishery
privileges in municipal waters and impose rentals, fees or charges
therefor; to penalize, by appropriate ordinances, the use of
explosives, noxious or poisonous substances, electricity, muro-ami,
and other deleterious methods of fishing; and to prosecute any
24
violation of the provisions of applicable fishery laws. Further, the
sangguniang bayan, the sangguniang panlungsod and the
sangguniang panlalawigan are directed to enact ordinances for the
general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants, which shall
include, inter alia, ordinances that “[p]rotect the environment and
impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the
environment such as dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive
fishing. . . and such other activities which result in pollution,
acceleration of eutrophication of rivers and lakes, or of ecological
25
imbalance.”
26
Finally, the centerpiece of LGC is the system of decentralization
27
as expressly mandated by the Constitution. Indispensable to
decentralization is devolution and the LGC expressly provides that
“[a]ny provision on a power of a local
_________________
24 Section 149.
25 Section 447 [a][1][vi]; Section 458[a][1][vi]; Section 468[a][1] [vi].
26 Section 2(a).
27 Section 3, Article X.
181
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 181

Tano vs. Socrates
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 local government unit. Any

fair and reasonable doubt as to the existence of the power shall be
28
interpreted in favor of the local government unit concerned.”
Devolution refers to the act by which the National Government
confers power and authority upon the various local government units
29
to perform specific functions and responsibilities.
One of the devolved powers enumerated in the section of the
LGC on devolution is the enforcement of fishery laws in municipal
30
waters including the conservation of mangroves. This necessarily
includes the enactment of ordinances to effectively carry out such
fishery laws within the municipal waters.
The term “municipal waters,” in turn, includes not only streams,
lakes, and tidal waters within the municipality, not being the subject
of private ownership and not comprised within the national parks,
public forest, timber lands, forest reserves, or fishery reserves, but
also marine waters included between two lines drawn
perpendicularly to the general coastline from points where the
boundary lines of the municipality or city touch the sea at low tide
and a third line parallel with the general coastline and fifteen
31
kilometers from it. Under P.D. No. 704, the marine waters included
in municipal waters is limited to three nautical miles from the
general coastline using the above perpendicular lines and a third
parallel line.
These “fishery laws” which local government units may enforce
under Section 17(b)(2)(i) in municipal waters include: (1) P.D. No.
704; (2) P.D. No. 1015 which, inter alia, authorizes the
establishment of a “closed season” in any Philippine water if
necessary for conservation or ecological purposes; (3) P.D.
__________________
28 Section 5(a).
29 Section 17(e).
30 Section 17[b][2][i].
31 Section 131[r], LGC.
182

Tano vs. Socrates
No. 1219 which provides for the exploration, exploitation,

utilization and conservation of coral resources; (4) R.A. No. 5474, as
amended by B.P. Blg. 58, which makes it unlawful for any person,
association or corporation to catch or cause to be caught, sell, offer
to sell, purchase, or have in possession any of the fish specie called
gobiidae or “ipon” during closed season; and (5) R.A. No. 6451
which prohibits and punishes electrofishing, as well as various

issuances of the BFAR.
To those specifically devolved insofar as the control and
regulation of fishing in municipal waters and the protection of its
marine environment are concerned, must be added the following:
1. Issuance of permits to construct fish cages within municipal

waters;
2. Issuance of permits to gather aquarium fishes within
municipal waters;
3. Issuance of permits to gather kapis shells within municipal
waters;
4. Issuance of permits to gather/culture shelled mollusks
within municipal waters;
5. Issuance of licenses to establish seaweed farms within
municipal waters;
6. Issuance of licenses to establish culture pearls within
municipal waters;
7. Issuance of auxiliary invoice to transport fish and fishery
products; and
8. Establishment of “closed season” in municipal waters.
These functions are covered in the Memorandum of Agreement of 5

April 1994 between the Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Interior and Local Government.
In light then of the principles of decentralization and devolution
enshrined in the LGC and the powers granted therein to local
government units under Section 16 (the General Welfare Clause),
and under Sections 149, 447(a)(1)(vi), 458(a)(1)(vi) and 468(a)(1)
(vi), which unquestionably involve the exercise of police power, the
validity of the questioned Ordinances cannot be doubted.
183
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 183

Tano vs. Socrates
Parenthetically, we wish to add that these Ordinances find full

support under R.A. No. 7611, otherwise known as the Strategic
Environmental Plan (SEP) for Palawan Act, approved on 19 June
1992. This statute adopts a “comprehensive framework for the
sustainable development of Palawan compatible with protecting and
enhancing the natural resources and endangered environment of the
province,” which “shall serve to guide the local government of
Palawan and the government agencies concerned in the formulation
and implementation of plans, programs and projects affecting said
32
province.”
At this time then, it would be appropriate to determine the

relation between the assailed Ordinances and the aforesaid powers
of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Puerto Princesa and
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Palawan to
protect the environment. To begin, we ascertain the purpose of the
Ordinances as set forth in the statement of purposes or declaration of
policies quoted earlier.
It is clear to the Court that both Ordinances have two principal
objectives or purposes: (1) to establish a “closed season” for the
species of fish or aquatic animals covered therein for a period of five
years; and (2) to protect the coral in the marine waters of the City of
Puerto Princesa and the Province of Palawan from further
destruction due to illegal fishing activities.
The accomplishment of the first objective is well within the
devolved power to enforce fishery laws in municipal waters, such as
P.D. No. 1015, which allows the establishment of “closed seasons.”
The devolution of such power has been expressly confirmed in the
Memorandum of Agreement of 5 April 1994 between the
Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior and Local
Government.
The realization of the second objective clearly falls within both
the general welfare clause of the LGC and the express mandate
thereunder to cities and provinces to protect the
_____________
32 Sec. 4, R.A. No. 7611.
184

Tano vs. Socrates
environment and impose appropriate penalties for acts which

33
endanger the environment.
The destruction of coral reefs results in serious, if not irreparable,
ecological imbalance, for coral reefs are among nature’s life-support
34
systems. They collect, retain and recycle nutrients for adjacent
nearshore areas such as mangroves, seagrass beds, and reef flats;
provide food for marine plants and animals; and serve as a
35
protective shelter for aquatic organisms. It is said that
“[e]cologically, the reefs are to the oceans what forests are to
continents: they are shelter and breeding grounds for fish and plant
36
species that will disappear without them.”
The prohibition against catching live fish stems, in part, from the
modern phenomenon of live-fish trade which entails the catching of
so-called exotic species of tropical fish, not only for aquarium use in
the West, but also for “the market for live banquet fish [which] is
37
37
virtually insatiable in ever more affluent Asia. These exotic species
are coral-dwellers, and fishermen catch them by “diving in shallow
water with corraline habitats and squirting sodium cyanide poison at
passing fish directly or onto coral crevices; once affected the fish
38
are
immobilized [merely stunned] and then scooped by hand.” The
diver then surfaces and dumps his catch into a submerged net
attached to the skiff. Twenty minutes later, the fish can swim
normally. Back on shore, they are placed in holding pens, and within
a few weeks, they expel the cyanide from their system and are ready
to be hauled. They are then placed in saltwater
_________________
33 Section 458[a][1][vi]; Section 468[a][1][vi].

34 Section 3[3], R.A. No. 7611.
35 Jay Batongbacal, Note, The Coastal Environment and the Small-Scale
Fisherfolk: Advocacy for Community-Based Coastal Zone Management, 66 Phil. L.J.
149, 162 (December 1991).
36 Anthony Spaeth, Reef Killers, TIME Magazine, 3 June 1996, 49, 50.
37 Anthony Spaeth, Reef Killers, TIME Magazine, 3 June 1996, 49, 50.
38 Batongbacal, 168.
185
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 185

Tano vs. Socrates
tanks or packaged in plastic bags filled with seawater for shipment

39
by air freight to major markets for live food fish. While the fish are
meant to survive, the opposite holds true for their former home as
“[a]fter the fisherman squirts the cyanide, the first thing to perish is
the reef algae, on which fish feed. Days later, the living coral starts
to expire. Soon the reef loses its function as habitat for the fish,
which eat both the algae and invertebrates that cling to the coral.
The reef becomes an underwater graveyard, its skeletal remains
brittle, bleached of all color and vulnerable to erosion from the
40
pounding of the waves.” It has been found that cyanide fishing kills
most hard and soft corals within three months of repeated
41
application.
The nexus then between the activities barred by Ordinance No.
15-92 of the City of Puerto Princesa and the prohibited acts provided
in Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993 of the Province of Palawan, on
one hand, and the use of sodium cyanide, on the other, is painfully
obvious. In sum, the public purpose and reasonableness of the
Ordinances may not then be controverted.
As to Office Order No. 23, Series of 1993, issued by Acting City
Mayor Amado L. Lucero of the City of Puerto Princesa, we find
nothing therein violative of any constitutional or statutory provision.
The Order refers to the implementation of the challenged ordinance

and is not the Mayor’s Permit.
The dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Josue N. Bellosillo relies
upon the lack of authority on the part of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Puerto Princesa to enact Ordinance No. 15, Series of
1992, on the theory that the subject thereof is within the jurisdiction
and responsibility of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
(BFAR) under P.D. No. 704, otherwise known as the Fisheries
Decree of 1975; and that, in any event, the Ordinance is
unenforceable for lack of approval
_______________
39 Spaeth, 51.
40 Id.
41 Batongbacal, 168.
186

Tano vs. Socrates
by the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR),

likewise in accordance with P.D. No. 704.
The majority is unable to accommodate this view. The
jurisdiction and responsibility of the BFAR under P.D. No. 704, over
the management, conservation, development, protection, utilization
and disposition of all fishery and aquatic resources of the country is
not all-encompassing. First, Section 4 thereof excludes from such
jurisdiction and responsibility municipal waters, which shall be
under the municipal or city government concerned, except insofar as
fishpens and seaweed culture in municipal centers are concerned.
This section provides, however, that all municipal or city ordinances
and resolutions affecting fishing and fisheries and any disposition
thereunder shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Department of
Natural Resources for appropriate action and shall have full force
42
and effect only upon his approval.
Second, it must at once be pointed out that the BFAR is no longer
under the Department of Natural Resources (now Department of
Environment and Natural Resources). Executive Order No. 967 of
30 June 1984 transferred the BFAR from the
__________________
42 Said section reads:
SEC. 4. Jurisdiction of the Bureau.—The Bureau shall have jurisdiction and responsibility in
the management, conservation, development, protection, utilization and disposition of all
fishery and aquatic resources of the country except municipal waters which shall be under the
municipal or city government concerned: Provided, That fishpens and seaweed culture in
municipal centers shall be under the jurisdiction of the Bureau: Provided, further, That all
municipal or city ordinances and resolutions affecting fishing and fisheries and any disposition
thereunder shall be submitted to the Secretary for appropriate action and shall have full force
and effect only upon his approval. The Bureau shall also have authority to regulate and
supervise the production, capture and gathering of fish and fishery/aquatic products.
The Bureau shall prepare and implement, upon approval of the Fishery Industry
Development Council, a Fishery Industry Development Program.
187
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 187

Tano vs. Socrates
control and supervision of the Minister (formerly Secretary) of

Natural Resources to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (MAF)
and converted it into a mere staff agency thereof, integrating its
functions with the regional offices of the MAF.
In Executive Order No. 116 of 30 January 1987, which
reorganized the MAF, the BFAR was retained as an attached agency
43
of the MAF. And under the Administrative Code of 1987, the
BFAR is placed under the Title concerning the Department of
44
Agriculture.
Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the challenged Ordinance of
the City of Puerto Princesa is invalid or unenforceable because it
was not approved by the Secretary of the DENR. If at all, the
approval that should be sought would be that of the Secretary of the
Department of Agriculture. However, the requirement of approval
by the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture (not DENR) of
municipal ordinances affecting fishing and fisheries in municipal
waters has been dispensed with in view of the following reasons: (1)
Section 534 (Repealing Clause) of the LGC expressly repeals or
45
amends Sections 16 and 29 of P.D. No. 704 insofar as they are
inconsistent with the provisions of the LGC.
_________________
43 Executive Order No. 292.

44 Section 20, Chapter 4, Title IV, Book IV.
45 These sections read as follows:
SEC. 16. License, lease, and permit.—No person shall exploit, occupy, produce, culture,
capture or gather fish, or fry or fingerling of any species of fish or fishery/aquatic products, or
engage in any fishery activity in Philippine or municipal waters without a license, lease or
permit: Provided, That when due to destruction wrought upon fishponds, fishpens or fish
nurseries, by typhoons, floods and other fortuitous events, or due to speculation, monopolistic
and other pernicious practices which tend to create an artificial shortage of fry and/or
fingerling, the supply of fish and fishery/aquatic products can reasonably be expected to fall
below the usual demand therefor and the price thereof, to increase, the Secretary, upon
recommendation of the Director, is hereby authorized to fix a fair and reasonable price for fry
and fingerling of any species of
188

Tano vs. Socrates
(2) As discussed earlier, 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.
It likewise specifically vests municipalities
_______________
fish, and in so doing and when necessary, fix different price levels for various areas or regions
taking into account such variable factors as availability, accessibility to transportation facilities,
packing and crating, and to regulate the movement, shipment and transporting of such fry and
fingerling: Provided, Further, That the price so fixed shall guarantee the gatherers of fry a just
and equitable return for their labor: Provided, Finally, That any administrative order issued by
the Secretary to implement the foregoing shall take effect immediately, the provisions of
Section 7 hereof to the contrary notwithstanding.
xxx
C. MUNICIPAL FISHERIES
SEC. 29. Grant of fishery privileges.—A municipal or city council, conformably with an
ordinance duly approved by the Secretary pursuant to Section 4 hereof may:
a. grant to the highest qualified bidder the exclusive privilege of constructing and operating
fish corrals, oyster culture beds, or of gathering “bangus” fry, or the fry of other species, in
municipal waters for a period not exceeding five (5) years: Provided, That in the zoning and
classification of municipal waters for purposes of awarding, through public bidding, areas for
the construction or operation of fish corrals, oyster culture beds, or the gathering of fry, the
municipal or city council shall set aside not more than one-fifth (1/5) of the area, earmarked for
the gathering of fry, as may be designated by the Bureau, as government “bangus” fry
reservation: Provided, Further, That no fish corral shall be constructed within two hundred
(200) meters of another fish corral in marine fisheries, or one hundred (100) meters in
freshwater fisheries, unless they belong to the same licensee, but in no case shall the distance
be less than sixty (60) meters, except in waters less than two (2) meters deep at low tide, or
unless previously approved by the Secretary;
b. authorize the issuance to qualified persons of license for the operation of fishing boats
three (3) gross tons or less, or
189
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 189

Tano vs. Socrates
with the power to grant fishery privileges in municipal waters, and

impose rentals, fees or charges therefor; to penalize, by appropriate
ordinances, the use of explosives, noxious or poisonous substances,
electricity, muro-ami, and other deleterious methods of fishing; and
to prosecute any violation of the provisions of applicable fishery
46
laws. Finally, it imposes upon the sangguniang bayan, the
sangguniang panlungsod, and the sangguniang panlalawigan the
duty to enact ordinances to “[p]rotect the environment and impose
appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the environment such
as dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing. . . and
such other activities which result in pollution, acceleration of
47
eutrophication of rivers and lakes or of ecological imbalance.”
In closing, we commend the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the
City of Puerto Princesa and Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the
Province of Palawan for exercising the requisite political will to
enact urgently needed legislation to protect and enhance the marine
environment, thereby sharing in the herculean task of arresting the
tide of ecological destruction. We hope that other local government
units shall now be
_________________
for the privilege of fishing in municipal waters with nets, traps or other fishing
gear: Provided, That it shall be beyond the power of the municipal or city council to
impose a license for the privilege of gathering marine mollusca or the shells thereof,
for pearling boats and pearl divers, or for prospecting, collecting, or gathering
sponges or other aquatic products, or for the culture of fishery/aquatic products:
Provided, Further, That a licensee under this paragraph shall not operate within two
hundred (200) meters of any fish corral licensed by the municipality except when the
licensee is the owner or operator of the fish corral but in no case within sixty (60)
meters of said corral. The municipality or city council shall furnish the Bureau, for
statistical purposes, on forms which shall be furnished by the Bureau, such
information and data on fishery matters as are reflected in such forms.
46 Section 149.
47 Section 447[a][1][vi]; Section 458[a][1][vi]; Section 468[a][1] [vi].
190

Tano vs. Socrates
roused from their lethargy and adopt a more vigilant stand in the
battle against the decimation of our legacy to future generations. At
this time, the repercussions of any further delay in their response
may prove disastrous, if not, irreversible.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of

merit and the temporary restraining order issued on 11 November
1993 is LIFTED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa (C.J.), Padilla, Vitug, Panganiban and Torres, Jr.,

JJ., concur.
Regalado, J., On official leave.
Romero, Melo, Puno and Francisco, JJ., We join the
ponencias of Justices Davide and Mendoza.
Bellosillo, J., Please see Dissenting Opinion.
Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., We join Justice
Bellosillo in his dissenting opinion.
Mendoza, J., See concurring opinion.
MENDOZA, J., concurring:
I fully concur in the opinion of the Court written by Justice Davide. I

write separately to emphasize two points which I believe are
important. The first is the need to uphold the presumption of validity
of the ordinances in this case in view of the total absence of
evidence to undermine their factual basis. The second is the need not
to allow a shortcircuiting of the normal process of adjudication on
the mere plea that unless we take cognizance of petitions like this,
by-passing the trial courts, alleged violations of constitutional rights
will be left unprotected, when the matter can very well be looked
into by trial courts and in fact should be brought there.
The ordinances in question in this case are conservation measures
which the local governments of Palawan have adopted in view of the
widespread destruction caused by cya-
191
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 191

Tano vs. Socrates
nide fishing of corals within their territorial waters. At the very least,
these ordinances must be presumed valid in the absence of evidence
to show that the necessary factual foundation for their enactment
does not exist. Their invalidation at this point can result in the
untimely exoneration of otherwise guilty parties on the basis of
doubtful constitutional claims.
Ordinance No. 2-93, which the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Palawan adopted in 1993, prohibits, for a period of five years, the
“catching, gathering, possessing, buying, selling and shipment” of
live fish and lobsters. As originally enacted, the prohibition applied
to eight species of fish and lobsters caught in the waters of Palawan,
namely, “1. Family: Scaridae (Mameng), 2. Epinephelus Fasciatus

(Suno), 3. Cromileptes altivelis (Panther or Señorita), lobster (below
200 grams and spawning), 4. Tridacna Gigas (Giant Clams or
Taklobo and other species), 5. Pinctada Margaritifera (Mother Pearl
Oysters), 6. Penaeus Monodon (Tiger Prawn—breeder size or
mother), 7. Epinephelus Suillus (Loba or Green Grouper) and 8.
1
Family: Balistidae (Tropical Aquarium Fishes).” Later, however,
the ordinance was amended to limit the ban to three species only,
namely: mameng (scaridae), panther or señorita (cromileptes
altivelis) and ornamental or aquarium fishes (balistidae). Violation
of the ordinance is punishable by a fine of P5,000.00 and/or
imprisonment of not less than 6 nor more than 12 months and
confiscation of the paraphernalia and equipment used in the
2
commission of the offense.
Ordinance No. 2-93 was adopted by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan on the basis of a 1992 study submitted by the
3
Department of Agriculture, showing that, as a result of the use of
cyanide and other noxious substances for fishing, only 5% of the
coral reefs in the Province of Palawan remained in excellent
condition as fish sanctuaries and habitats, while 75% was heavily
damaged.
_________________
1 §§I and III.

2 §IV.
3 Quoted in Respondents’ Comment on the Petition, p. 7.
192

Tano vs. Socrates
The rampant use of cyanide has been encouraged by the lucrative

trade in live fishes which are shipped not only to Manila but also
abroad, principally to Hongkong, Taiwan and Malaysia. The fishes
are sold to gourmet restaurants because of the great demand for
exotic food, to aquariums and to pet shops. In its issue of July 19,
4
1993, Time Magazine reported that the illicit trade in live animals is
the third biggest contraband business in the world, after drugs and
arms, and identified the Philippines as a major source of tropical
fishes for the global traffic in live fishes.
The use of cyanide enables fishermen to catch fish alive and in
commercial quantity in a way not possible with the use of such
traditional methods as hook and line, fish traps, baklad and the like,
which allows only limited catch and often results in injuries to fishes
and the loss of their scales, thereby reducing their survival for
5
transportation abroad. Cyanide does not kill fish but only stuns
them. The stunned creatures are then scooped up and placed in

containers ready for shipment across borders, national and
transnational. What cyanide does, however, is poison the fragile
6
reefs and cause them to die and cease as fish habitats.
Concern over the use of cyanide in fishing and its ill effect on the
marine environment also prompted the Sangguniang Panlungsod of
Puerto Princesa to pass Ordinance No. 15-92, which makes it
unlawful for any person or business enterprise or company “to ship
out from Puerto Princesa City to any point of destinations either via
aircraft or seacraft of any live fish and lobster 7except SEA BASS,
CATFISH, MUDFISH and MILKFISH FRIES.” The ban is for five
years, from January 1, 1993 to January 1, 1998. The penalty for
violation of the
__________________
4 Toufexis. All God’s Creatures Priced to Sell, Time, July 19, 1993, p. 32.
5 Supra, note 3 at p. 8.
6 Supra note 4 at p. 34.
7 §4.
193
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 193

Tano vs. Socrates
ordinance is a fine of not more than P5,000.00 or imprisonment of

8
not more than 12 months.
To enforce the ordinance, the mayor of Puerto Princesa ordered
the inspection of cargoes of live fish and lobsters leaving the city by
air or sea. Inspectors are to ascertain if the shipper has a permit
issued by the office of the city mayor. Any cargo of live fish and
lobster without a permit from the mayor’s office will be “held for
9
proper disposition.”
The ordinances in question are police power measures, enacted
by the Province of Palawan and the City of Puerto Princesa,
pursuant to the Local Government Code of 1991 which makes it in
fact their duty to enact measures to “protect the environment and
impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the
environment, such as dynamite fishing and other forms of
10
destructive fishing. . . .” There is no basis for the claim in the
dissenting opinion that the subject of these ordinances lies within the
competence of the national government. For the matter concerns a
local problem, namely, the destruction of aquatic resources in the
Province of Palawan. For this reason the Solicitor General asked for
leave to withdraw from this case. On the other hand, the Department
of Agriculture submitted its report on the extent of the devastation of
coral reefs caused by illegal fishing to the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Palawan and thereby left the solution of the

problem to be worked out by the local authorities. It would therefore
set back the policy of decentralization were this Court to sustain
such a claim. Indeed, petitioners’ challenge to the validity of the
ordinances does not rest on the claim that the ordinances are beyond
the power of local governments to enact but on the ground that they
deprive petitioners of their means of livelihood and occupation and
for that reason violate the Constitution of the Philippines. For
support, petitioners invoke the following constitutional provisions:
__________________
8 §5.
9 Office Order No. 33, s. 1993.
10 R.A. No. 7160, §458(a)(1)(vi) and §468(a)(1)(vi).
194

Tano vs. Socrates
ART. XII, §2. . . .

The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic
waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and
enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens. The 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.
ART. XIII, §1: The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment
of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human
dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove
cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the
common good.
Id., §7: The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen,
especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal
marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide
support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research,
adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services.
The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The
protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen
against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their
labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources.
I cannot see how these provisions can, in any way, lend support to
petitioners’ contention that the ordinances violate the Constitution.
These provisions refer to the duty of the State to protect the nation’s
marine resources for the exclusive use and enjoyment of Filipino
citizens, to the preferential right of subsistence fishermen in the use
of such communal marine resources, and to their right to be

protected, even in offshore fishing grounds, against foreign
intrusion. There is no question here of Filipino preference over
aliens in the use of marine resources. What is in issue is the
protection of marine resources in the Province of Palawan. It was
precisely to implement Art. XII, §2 that the ordinances in question
were enacted. For, without these marine resources, it would be idle
to talk of the rights of subsistence fishermen to be preferred in the
use of these resources.
195
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 195

Tano vs. Socrates
It has been held that “as underlying questions of fact may condition
the constitutionality of legislation of this character, the presumption
of constitutionality must prevail in the absence of some factual
11
foundation of record for overthrowing the statute.” No evidence
has been presented by petitioners to overthrow the factual basis of
the ordinances—that, as a result of the use of cyanide and other
noxious substances for fishing, only 5% of the coral reefs in Palawan
was in excellent condition, that 75% had been heavily destroyed,
and that because of the thriving market for live fish and lobster here
and abroad there was rampant illicit trade in live fish.
Nor has it been shown by petitioners that the local legislation
here involved is arbitrary or unreasonable. It has been held: “If the
laws passed are seen to have a reasonable relation to a proper
legislative purpose, and are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, the
requirements of due process are satisfied, and judicial determination
to that effect renders a court functus officio. . . . With the wisdom of
the policy adopted, with the adequacy or practicability of the law
enacted to forward it, the courts are both incompetent and
12
unauthorized to deal. . . .”
It is contended that neither Provincial Ordinance No. 2-93 nor
City Ordinance No. 15-92 prohibits cyanide fishing and therefore the
prohibition against catching certain species of fish and their
transportation is “excessive and irrational.” It is further argued that
the ban is unreasonable because it is not limited to cyanide fishing
but includes even legitimate fishing.
The ban on the use of cyanide and other noxious substances is
already provided for in other legislation. P.D. No. 534, §2 punishes
fishing by means of “explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substances
or by the use of electricity.” Consequently,
________________
11 Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Ass’n. v. City Mayor, 20 SCRA 849,
857 (1967), citing O’ Gozman & Young v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 282 U.S. 255, 257,
75 L. Ed. 324, 328 (1931).
12 Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934). See also Lansang v. Garcia, 42
SCRA 448, 481 (1971); People v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382 (1972).
196

Tano vs. Socrates
the ordinances in question can be seen as a necessary corollary of

the prohibition against illegal fishing contained in this Decree. By
prohibiting the catching of certain fishes and lobsters, Ordinance No.
2-93 in effect discourages cyanide fishing because, as already stated,
cyanide is preferred in catching fishes because it does not kill but
only stuns them and thus preserves them for export to the world
market.
On the other hand, the claim that the ordinance sweeps
overbroadly by “absolutely prohibit[ing] the catching, gathering,
buying and shipment of live fishes and marine coral resources by
any and all means including those lawfully executed or done in the
pursuit of legitimate occupation” misconceives the principal purpose
of the ordinance, which is not so much to prohibit the use of cyanide
for fishing as to rebuild corals because of their destruction by
cyanide fishing. This is clear from the “whereas” clauses of
Resolution No. 33, accompanying Ordinance No. 2-93:
WHEREAS, scientific and factual researches and studies disclose that only
five (5) percent of the corals of our province remain to be in excellent
condition as habitat of marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms;
WHEREAS, it cannot be gainsaid that the destruction and devastation of
the corals of our province were principally due to illegal fishing activities
like dynamite fishing, sodium cyanide fishing, use of other obnoxious
substances and other related activities;
WHEREAS, there is an imperative and urgent need to protect and
preserve the existence of the remaining excellent corals and allow the
devastated ones to reinvigorate and regenerate themselves into vitality
within the span of five (5) years;
WHEREAS, Sec. 468, Par. 1, Sub-Par. VI of R.A. 7160 otherwise known
as the Local Government Code of 1991 empowers the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan to protect the environment and impose appropriate penalties
[for] acts which endanger the environment such as dynamite fishing and
other forms of destructive fishing, among others;
The principal aim of the ordinance is thus the preservation and

rehabilitation of the corals. Only indirectly is it also concerned with
prohibiting the use of cyanide. That this is the
197
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 197

Tano vs. Socrates
aim of the ordinance can also be inferred from the fact that the ban
imposed by it on the catching and gathering of fishes is for a limited
period (5 years) calculated to be the time needed for the growth and
regeneration of the corals. Were the purpose of the ordinance the
prohibition of the use of cyanide for fishing, the ban would not be
for a limited period only but for all time.
I am not much moved by the plea that the ordinances deprive
small fishermen of their means of livelihood and occupation. The
ban imposed by Ordinance No. 2-93, as amended, covers only three
species, i.e., mameng (scaridae), panther or señorita (cromileptes
altivelis) and ornamental aquarium fishes (balistidae), which are
prized in the black market. With respect to other species, it is open
season for legitimate fishermen. On the other hand, the ban imposed
by Ordinance No. 15-92 allows the transportation and shipment of
sea bass, catfish, mudfish and milkfish fries. The ban imposed by the
two ordinances is limited to five years. It is thus limited both as to
scope and as to period of effectivity. There is, on the other hand, the
imperative necessity for measures to prevent the extinction of
certain species of fish.
Indeed, the burden of showing that there is no reasonable relation
between the end and the means adopted in this case is not on the
local governments but on petitioners because of the presumption that
a regulatory statute is valid in the absence of factual evidence to the
13
contrary. As held in United States v. Salaveria. “The presumption
is all in favor of validity. . . . The councilors must, in the very nature
of things, be familiar with the necessities of their particular
municipality and with all the facts and circumstances which
surround the subject, and necessitate action. The local legislative
body, by enacting the ordinance, has in effect given notice that the
regulations are essential to the well being of the people. . . . The
Judiciary should not lightly set aside legislative action when there is
not a clear invasion of personal or property rights under the guise of
police regulation.”
_______________
13 39 Phil. 102, 111 (1918).
198

Tano vs. Socrates
Finally, petitioners question Office Order No. 23, s. of 1993, of the

city mayor of Puerto Princesa, for being allegedly vague. This order
prohibits the transportation of fish outside the city without permit
from the mayor’s office. Petitioners contend that the order does not
state under what condition a permit may be granted and,
consequently, leaves it to the absolute discretion of the mayor when
to grant and when to deny a permit. The questioned paragraph of the
order states:
The purpose of the inspection is to ascertain whether the shipper possessed

the required Mayor’s Permit issued by this Office and the shipment is
covered by invoice or clearance issued by the local office of the Bureau of
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and as to compliance with all other
existing rules and regulations on the matter.
This contention is untenable. As the office order is intended to

implement City Ordinance No. 15-92, resort must be made to the
ordinance in order to determine the scope of such office order. As
already noted, the ordinance prohibits the shipment out of Puerto
Princesa of live fish and lobsters, with the exception of catfish,
mudfish and milkfish fries. Consequently, a permit may be denied if
it is for the transportation of fishes which are covered by the ban, but
not for those not covered by it. This is the common sense meaning
of the office order in question. Criminal laws must be precisely
drawn, but, as Justice Holmes once said, “We agree to all the
generalities about not supplying criminal laws with what they omit,
but there is no canon against using common sense in construing laws
14
as saying what they obviously mean.”
One final point. This case was brought to this Court on the bare
bones of the ordinances, on the mere claim of petitioner Alfredo
Tano and his 83 copetitioners that they are subsis-
_________________
14 Roschen v. Ward, 279 U.S. 337, 339, 73 L. Ed. 722, 728 (1929), quoted by this
Court in Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Ass’n. v. City Mayor, 20 SCRA at
867.
199
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 199

Tano vs. Socrates
tence fishermen. The constitutional protection refers to small

fishermen who depend on the sea for their existence. Ten of the
petitioners, led by Alfredo Tano, are accused in the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court of possession of the species covered by
Provincial Ordinance No. 2-93, while two, Roberto Lim and
Virginia Lim, are charged with violation of the two ordinances in the
City Prosecutor’s Office. There is no telling from the records of this
case whether petitioners are subsistence fishermen or simply
impecunious individuals selling their catch to the big businessmen.
The other petitioners are admittedly fish traders, members of an
association of airline shippers, to whom the constitutional provisions
obviously do not apply.
The judicial invalidation of the ordinances in this case could
undermine the on-going trial of some of petitioners. Instead of
leaving the determination of the validity of the ordinances to the trial
court, where some of petitioners are facing charges, this Court will
be shortcircuiting the criminal process by prematurely passing upon
the constitutional questions and indirectly on the criminal liability of
some of the petitioners. This is a task which should await the
development of evidence of record.
Indeed because of the unsatisfactory abstractness of the record,
this case should not have been brought here. The mere fact that
some of petitioners are facing prosecution for violation of the
ordinances is no reason for entertaining their suit. Our jurisdiction is
limited to cases and controversies. Who are petitioners? What is the
impact of the ordinance on their economic situation? Are the factual
bases of the two ordinances supported by evidence? These questions
must be raised in the criminal trial or in a suit brought in the trial
court so that facts necessary to adjudicate the constitutional
questions can be presented. Nothing can take the place of the flesh
and blood of litigation to assess the actual operation of a statute and
thus ground the judicial power more firmly.
Petitioners justify the filing of the present action in this Court on
the ground that constitutional questions must be raised at the earliest
time. That is true, but it does not mean
200

Tano vs. Socrates
that the questions should be presented to the Supreme Court first

hand. Moreover, the rule is not absolute. Constitutional questions
like those invoked by petitioners can be raised any time, even in a
motion for reconsideration, if their resolution is necessary to the
15
decision of an actual case or controversy, as our recent resolution
of the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7659, reimposing the death
penalty, amply demonstrates.
DISSENTING OPINION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
It is settled rule that where the provisions of the law are clear and
unambiguous there is no room for interpretation. The duty of the
court is only to apply the law. The exception to such rule cannot be
justified on the sole basis of good motives or noble objectives. For it
is also basic that the end does not justify the means.
The petition raises significant constitutional questions. While
petitioners apparently instituted the action to enjoin their criminal
prosecution, the issue boils down to whether the subject ordinances
of Palawan and Puerto Princesa are valid and enforceable as to
authorize the criminal prosecution of those charged with violation
thereof.
Notwithstanding the procedural limitations strictly applied in the
majority opinion to render the petition dismissible on grounds of
prematurity and lack of real interest in the controversy, the case
clearly falls under the exceptions allowed by law. The petition, I
submit, can be properly treated as a special civil action for certiorari
and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to correct errors
of jurisdiction committed by the lower court arising from the
implementation of a void ordinance. Even if the purpose of the
petition is for declara-
____________________________
15 People v. Echegaray, G.R. No. 117472, Feb. 7, 1997 (death penalty statute
valid).
201
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 201

Tano vs. Socrates
tory relief, if the petition has far-reaching implications and raises

questions that should be resolved as they involve national interest, it
1
may be treated as a special civil action under Rule 65. The mere
absence of a prior motion to quash the Information in the trial court
should not prevent the accused, petitioners herein, from seeking to
render null and void the criminal proceedings below.
In criminal cases, when the constitutionality or validity of a law
or ordinance is essentially involved, the same may be raised at any
stage of the proceedings. It can also be considered by the appellate
2
court at any time if it involves the jurisdiction of the lower court.
Further, under Sec. 8, Rule 117, of the Rules on Criminal Procedure,
the failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash
before he pleads to the Complaint or Information either because he
did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in the
motion shall be deemed a waiver of the grounds of a motion to
quash, except the grounds of no offense charged, lack of jurisdiction
over the offense charged, extinction of the offense or penalty, and

jeopardy.
Petitioners are proper parties to set aside the proceedings in the
trial court. A proper party is one who has sustained or is in
immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act
complained of. Petitioners have been criminally charged and
arrested for alleged violation of the ordinances in question.
Consequently, unless the trial court is enjoined from continuing with
the proceedings, petitioners are in danger of being convicted and
punished under ordinances which they allege to be invalid and
ineffective. In fact this Court initially recognized the real interest of
petitioners in instituting the action when it issued a restraining order
directing Judge Angel R. Miclat to cease and desist until further
orders from proceeding with the arraignment and pre-trial of People
v.
____________________________
1 Alliance of Government Workers v. Minister of Labor, G.R. No. 60403, 3 August

1983, 124 SCRA 1.
2 San Miguel Brewery, Inc. v. Magno, No. L-2187, 29 September 1967, 21 SCRA
292.
202

Tano vs. Socrates
Alfredo Tano, et al., Crim. Case No. 11223, for violation of

Resolution No. 2-93 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan,
and Ordinance No. 15-92 of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto
Princesa City.
The question to be resolved is whether Resolution No. 2-93,
Office Order No. 23 and Ordinance No. 15-92 are constitutional,
valid and enforceable. By considering the purpose and objective of
the ordinances as laudable, the majority adopts the affirmative view
in consonance with the general welfare clause and principle of
devolution well-rooted in the Local Government Code of 1991.
While I agree with the majority that the local leaders of Palawan
and Puerto Princesa City be commended for their efforts to uplift
and protect the environment and natural resources within their areas,
the general welfare clause is not the sole criterion to determine the
validity or constitutionality of the ordinances. In Magtajas v. Pryce
3
Properties Corporation, we reiterated that the well-established tests
of a valid ordinance are: (a) It must not contravene the Constitution
or any statute; (b) It must not be unfair or oppressive; (c) It must not
be partial or discriminatory; (d) It must not prohibit but may regulate
trade; (e) It must be general and consistent with public policy; and,
(f) It must not be unreasonable.
As admitted by the majority, among our existing statutes on
fishing and fishery or aquatic resources are P.D. Nos. 704, 1015 and
1219. P.D. No. 704 is titled “Revising and Consolidating All Laws
and Decrees Affecting Fishing and Fisheries.” With the enactment
of the Local Government Code of 1991, only Secs. 16 and 29 of P.D.
No. 704 were expressly repealed. All the rest of the provisions of
P.D. No. 704 remain valid and effective, Sec. 4 of which is
enlightening—
SEC. 4. Jurisdiction of the Bureau (of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources).—

The Bureau shall have jurisdiction and responsibility in the management,
conservation, development, protection, utilization and disposition of all
fishery and aquatic resources of the coun-
____________________________
3 G.R. No. 111097, 20 July 1994, 234 SCRA 255.
203
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 203

Tano vs. Socrates
try except municipal waters which shall be under the municipal or city
government concerned: Provided, That fishpens and seaweed culture in
municipal centers shall be under the jurisdiction of the Bureau: Provided,
further, That all municipal or city ordinances and resolutions affecting
fishing and fisheries and any disposition there-under shall be submitted to
the Secretary for appropriate action and shall have full force and effect only
upon his approval. The Bureau shall also have authority to regulate and
supervise the production, capture and gathering of fish and fishery/aquatic
products.
There is no doubt that under P.D. No. 704 fishing, fishery and
aquatic resources in municipal waters are under the jurisdiction of
the municipal or city government concerned. However, the same
decree imposes a mandatory requirement directing municipal or city
governments to submit ordinances enacted pertinent to fishing and
fishery resources to the Secretary of Agriculture who now has
control and supervision over the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources (BFAR).
The ordinances will attain full force and effect only upon the
approval of the Secretary of Agriculture. Ordinance 15-92 of Puerto
Princesa City, admittedly, was not submitted to the Secretary of
Agriculture through the BFAR for approval. Such failure of
compliance with the law prevented it from becoming valid and
effective. Consequently, Office Order No. 23 of the Mayor of Puerto
Princesa City which seeks to implement and enforce Ordinance No.

15-92 is also ineffective as there is nothing to implement.
To say that Sec. 4 of P.D. No. 704 was impliedly repealed by the
Local Government Code is gratuitous. For, if it was the intention of
the legislature to dispense with the requirement of prior approval by
the Secretary of Agriculture of ordinances pertinent to fishery
resources, it would have expressly repealed Sec. 4 when, in fact, it
did so with Secs. 16 and 29 of P.D. No. 704. Cases abound holding
that a repeal by implication is not presumed or favored considering
that the legislature is presumed to be aware of existing laws;
ordinarily, if it intends to revoke a statute it would manifest such
intention
204

Tano vs. Socrates
4
in express terms. Before such a repeal is deemed to exist it should
be shown that the statutes or statutory provisions deal with the same
subject matter and that the latter be inconsistent with the former.
There must be a showing of repugnancy clear and convincing in
character. The language used in the latter statute must be such as to
render it irreconcilable with what has been formerly enacted. An
inconsistency that falls short of that standard does not suffice. In
fact, there is no inconsistency between the Local Government Code
and P.D. No. 704 as amended. While the Local Government Code
vests power upon the local government to enact ordinances for the
general welfare of its inhabitants, such power is subject to certain
limitations imposed by the Code itself and by other statutes. When
the legislature failed to repeal Sec. 4 of P.D. No. 704 it accepted and
recognized a limitation on the power of the local government to
enact ordinances relative to matters affecting fishery and aquatic
resources. A reading of particular provisions of the Local
Government Code itself will reveal that devolution on the powers of
the local government pertaining to the protection of environment is
limited and not all-encompassing, as will be discussed in the
succeeding paragraphs.
Further, while the Local Government Code is a general law on
the powers, responsibilities and composition of different local
government units, P.D. No. 704 is a special law dealing with the
protection and conservation of fishing and aquatic resources
including those in the municipal waters. Hence, the special law
should prevail over the general law.
There is also P.D. No. 1015 which vests upon the Secretary of
Agriculture the authority to establish closed seasons. Another
existing law on fisheries which has not been repealed by the Local
Government Code is P.D. No. 1219, which provides for the
exploration, exploitation, utilization and conservation of coral

resources. Section 4 thereof provides that the decree shall be
implemented by the Secretary of Environment and
__________________
4 Almeda v. Florentino, No. L-23800, 21 December 1965, 15 SCRA 514.
205
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 205

Tano vs. Socrates
Natural Resources who shall have jurisdiction and responsibility in

the exploration, exploitation, utilization and conservation of coral
resources. Section 6 authorizes the Secretary to issue special permit
to any person or institution to gather in limited quantities any coral
for scientific or educational purposes. Section 10 empowers the
Secretary to promulgate rules and regulations for the implementation
of this law.
It is true that police power can be exercised through the general
welfare clause. But, while police power is inherent in a state, it is not
so in municipal corporations or local governments. In order that a
local government may exercise police power, there must be a
legislative grant which necessarily sets the limits for the exercise of
5
the power. In this case, Congress has enacted the Local Government
Code which provides the standards as well as the limitations in the
exercise of the police power by the local government unit.
Section 2 of the Local Government Code provides for a system
of decentralization whereby local government units are given more
powers, authority, responsibilities and resources, and the process
shall proceed from the national government to the local government
units. However, under Sec. 3, par. (i), of the Local Government
Code, the operative principles of decentralization upon the
environment and natural resources are not absolute when it is
provided therein that “local government units shall share with the
national government the responsibility in the management and
maintenance of ecological balance within their territorial
jurisdiction, subject to the provisions of this Code and national
policies.” The national policies mentioned here refer to existing
policies which the DENR and other government agencies concerned
with the environment may implement at any given moment. The
national policies are embodied in existing laws, rules and regulations
pertaining to environment and natural resources, such as P.D. Nos.
704 and 1219 relating to fishery resources. The above provision was
crafted to make sure that local govern-
___________________
5 Martin, Ruperto G., Public Corporations, Rev. Ed., p. 46, citing Elliot,
Municipal Corporations, p. 33.
206

Tano vs. Socrates
ment enactments do not supplant or negate national government

6
policies on environment. This is precisely the reason why the Local
Government Code did not repeal Sec. 4 of P.D. No. 704 requiring
prior submission to and approval by the Secretary of Agriculture of
ordinances relative to fishery and aquatic resources. Needless to
stress, the approval of the Secretary is necessary in order to ensure
that these ordinances are in accordance with the laws on fisheries
and national policies. Likewise, the jurisdiction of the Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources over coral resources under P.D.
No. 1219 remains.
The core of the devolution adopted by the Local Government
Code is found in Sec. 17 thereof which reiterates the basic services
and facilities to be rendered by the local governments. With respect
to the protection and conservation of fisheries, Sec. 17, par. 2 (i),
specifically provides that the municipality shall conduct “extension
and on-site research services and facilities related to agriculture and
fishery activities which include dispersal of livestock and poultry,
fingerlings and other seeding materials for aquaculture x x x x and
enforcement of fishery laws in municipal waters including the
conservation of mangroves x x x x.” The power devolved upon the
municipality under the Local Government Code is the enforcement
of existing fishery laws of the State and not the enactment thereof.
While a local government unit may adopt ordinances upon subjects
covered by law or statute, such ordinances should be in accordance
7
with and not repugnant to the law. In view thereof, ordinances
which may be enacted by the municipality or city should be pursuant
to the provisions of P.D. Nos. 704, 1015 and 1219. Thus, under the
provisions of Secs. 447, par. 1 (vi), 458, par. 1 (vi) and 468, par. 1
(vi), the municipality, city and province respectively may approve
ordinances protecting the environment by specifically penal-
_________________
6 Pimentel, Aquilino, The Local Government Code of 1991, Key to National

Development, 1993, p. 19.
7 See Note 5, p. 69, citing U.S. v. Chan Tienco, 25 Phil. 89 (1913).
207
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 207

Tano vs. Socrates
izing only those acts which endanger the environment such as

dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing which are
already prohibited under P.D. Nos. 704 and 1219, and other laws on
8
illegal fishing.
The questioned ordinances may also be struck down for being not
only a prohibitory legislation but also an unauthorized exercise of
delegation of powers. An objective, however worthy or desirable it
may be, such as the protection and conservation of our fisheries in
this case, can be attained by a measure that does not encompass too
wide a field. The purpose can be achieved by reasonable restrictions
rather than by absolute prohibition. Local governments are not
possessed with prohibitory powers
9
but only regulatory powers under
the general welfare clause. They cannot therefore exceed the
powers granted to them by the Code by altogether prohibiting
fishing and selling for five (5) years all live fishes through Ordinance
No. 15-92 and coral organisms through Ordinance No. 2-93
involving even lawful methods of fishing.
These prohibitions are tantamount to the establishment of a
closed season for fish and aquatic resources which authority is not
among those powers vested by the Local Government Code to the
local government units. For the authority to establish a closed season
for fisheries is vested upon the Secretary of Agriculture by virtue of
P.D. Nos. 704 and 1015 and in the Secretary of Environment and
Natural Resources pursuant to P.D. No. 1219 in relation to coral
resources. The power of the local governments is confined and
limited to ensuring that these national fishery laws are implemented
and enforced within their territorial jurisdictions. Hence, any
memorandum of agreement which might have been executed by the
Department of Agriculture or Department of Environment and
Natural Resources granting additional powers and functions to the
local governments which are not vested upon the latter by the Local
Government Code because such powers are
_______________
8 See Note 6, p. 73.

9 Cruz v. Paras, Nos. L-42571-72, 25 July 1983, 123 SCRA 569.
208

Tano vs. Socrates
covered by existing statutes, is an undue delegation of power and,

consequently, null and void.
The majority also cites R.A. No. 7611, otherwise known as the
Strategic Environmental Plan (SEP) for Palawan Act, as proof of
the power of the local governments of Palawan and Puerto Princesa
City to issue the assailed ordinances. Although the objectives of
R.A. No. 7611 and of the ordinances are one and the same, i.e., the
protection, conservation and development of natural resources, the
former does not grant additional powers to the local governments
pertaining to the environment. In fact, the law adopts a
comprehensive framework which shall serve to direct and guide
local governments and national government agencies in the
implementation of programs and projects affecting Palawan. With
the enactment of this Act, the local governments are mandated to
coordinate and align their developmental plans, projects and budgets
in accord with the framework of the SEP. It can be said that this is
another limitation on the exercise of police power by the local
governments of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City because the
governance, implementation and policy direction of the SEP shall be
exercised by the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development
(PCSD) which is under the Office of the President.
Finally, I find unreasonable Resolution No. 2-93 of Palawan and
Ordinance No. 15-92 of Puerto Princesa City. The prohibitions set
forth are not germane to the accomplishment of their goals.
Ordinance No. 15-92 is aimed to free effectively the marine
resources of Puerto Princesa from cyanide and other obnoxious
substances. But the means to achieve this objective borders on the
excessive and irrational, for the edict would absolutely ban the
shipment of live fishes and lobsters out of the city for a period of
five (5) years without prohibiting cyanide fishing itself which is the
professed goal of the ordinance. The purpose of Resolution No. 2-
93, on the other hand, is to protect and preserve all marine coral-
dwelling organisms from devastation and destruction by illegal
fishing activities, e.g., dynamite fishing, sodium cyanide fishing, and
the use of other obnoxious substances. But in absolutely prohibiting
the
209
VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 209

Del Castillo vs. Civil Service Commission
catching, gathering, buying and shipment of live fishes and marine

coral resources by any means including those lawfully executed or
done in the pursuit of legitimate occupation, the ordinance
overstepped the reasonable limits and boundaries of its raison d’
etre. This I cannot help viewing as plain arbitrariness masquerading
as police power. For the consequent deprivation of the main source
of livelihood of the people of Palawan can only be regarded as utter
depravation of this awesome power of the State.
For all the foregoing, I vote to grant the petition.

Petition dismissed, temporary restraining order lifted.
Note.—All laws (Presidential Decree No. 771 included) are

presumed valid and constitutional until or unless otherwise ruled by
the Court. (Lim vs. Pacquing, 240 SCRA 649 [1995])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Tano Vs Socrates

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tano Vs Socrates

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tano Vs Socrates

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 278

154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ALFREDO TANO, BALDOMERO TANO, DANILO TANO,

VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 155

RUDY S. SANTILLAN, JODJEN ILUSTRISIMO, NESTOR

Remedial Law; Special Civil Action; Certiorari; The general rule is

156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tano vs. Socrates

VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 157

Tano vs. Socrates

Same; Same; Declaratory Relief; Supreme Court is not possessed of

Constitutional Law; Statute; Statutory Construction; It is settled that

Same; Same; Same; Court ﬁnds petitioners’ contentions baseless and

MENDOZA, J., Concurring Opinion:

Municipal Corporations; Local Government Code; Statutes; The

158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tano vs. Socrates

Same; Same; Same; The presumption of constitutionality must prevail

VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 159

BELLOSILLO, J., Dissenting Opinion:

Statutes; Statutory Construction; Municipal Ordinances; Well-

Same; Same; Same; P.D. No. 704 imposes a mandatory requirement

Same; Same; Same; Admittedly, Ordinance 15-92 of Puerto Princesa

Tano vs. Socrates

Same; Same; Police Power; In order that a local government may

Same; Municipal Ordinances; While a local government unit may

VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 161

Tano vs. Socrates

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

Petitioners caption their petition as one for “Certiorari, Injunction

1 None, however, exists in Puerto Princesa City.

162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The following is petitioners’ summary of the factual antecedents

1. On December 15, 1992, the Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Puerto Princesa

“Section 1. Title of the Ordinance.—This Ordinance is entitled: AN ORDINANCE

A. SEA BASS—A kind of ﬁsh under the family of Centropomidae, better

Section 4. It shall be unlawful [for] any person or any business enterprise or

VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 163

2. To implement said city ordinance, then Acting City Mayor Amado L.

164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

3. On February 19, 1993, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Provincial

POSSESSING, BUYING, SELLING AND SHIPMENT OF LIVE

VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 165

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN IN SESSION

Section 1. TITLE—This Ordinance shall be known as an “Ordinance Prohibiting

grams and spawning), 4. Tridacna Gigas (Taklobo), 5. Pinctada Margaretefera

166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 167

Section V. SEPARABILITY CLAUSE.—If for any reason, a Section or provision of

Without seeking redress from the concerned local government units,

168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

denied; in other words, the Mayor had the absolute authority to

VOL. 278, AUGUST 21, 1997 169

latter, a substantial distinction existed “between a ﬁsherman who

2 Petitioners ﬁled their Memorandum on 24 October 1994, respondents City

170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

On 22 April 1997 we ordered impleaded as party respondents the