[G.R. No. 110249. August 21, 1997] ALFREDO TANO, et al, petitioners, vs. GOV. SALVADOR P. SOCRATES, et al, respondents. FACTS: On December 15, 1992, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto Princesa enacted Ordinance no. 15-92 which banned the shipment of live fish and lobster outside Puerto Princesa City from January 1, 1993 to January 1, 1998. Likewise, on February 19, 1993, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan enacted Resolution No. 33, Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993. Said resolution prohibits the catching, gathering, possessing, buying, selling and shipment of live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms for a period of 5 years in and coming from Palawan waters. Charged for violating the above laws by the city and provincial governments were the petitioners Airline Shippers Association of Palawan, together with several marine merchants. The petitioners assert that they have the preferential rights as marginal fishermen granted with privileges provided by the Local Government Code, specifically in Section 149 thereof, invoking the invalidity of the above-stated enactments as violative of their rights. ISSUE: Were the enacted laws by the said local government units or LGUs [(1) The City Government of Puerto Princesa, and (2) The Provincial Government of Palawan] violative of the preferential rights of the fishermen? HELD: NO. The enacted resolution and ordinance of the LGU were not violative of their preferential rights. The court recognized these laws as a valid exercise of the police power of the LGUs to protect public interests. More importantly, the right to a balanced and healthful ecology has been emphasized, as enshrined in Section 16, Article II, 1987 Philippine Constitution, which states:
1
The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. The court decided that such right carries with it a correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. The rights and privileges invoked by the petitioners are not absolute. Though Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons (as stated in Section 2, Article XII, 1987 Philippine Constitution), there has been absolutely no showing that any of the petitioners qualifies as a subsistence or marginal fisherman (in the petition, one petitioner was even described as a private association composed of Marine Merchants). The general welfare provisions in the Local Government Code of 1991 shall be liberally interpreted to give more powers to local government units in accelerating economic development and upgrading the quality of life for the people in the community. Power is given to the LGUs to enact fishery laws in its municipal waters which necessarily includes the enactment of ordinances in order to effectively carry out the enforcement of fishery laws in their local community. The ordinances in question are meant precisely to protect and conserve marine resources to the end that their enjoyment by the people may be guaranteed not only for the present generation, but also for the generations to come, as what has been provided for in Section 7 of Article XIII of the Constitution. Thus, aside from dismissing the petition for lack of merit, the court even commended the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto Princesa and Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan for exercising the requisite political will to enact urgently needed legislation to protect and enhance the marine environment.
2
