Cardinal, Constitution Framer Petition Supreme Court to Protect Fishers

Prominent social and environmental justice advocates have filed a petition before the Supreme Court en banc seeking to overturn a lower court ruling that permits commercial fishing within the 15-kilometer municipal waters traditionally reserved for small-scale fishers.

Leading the petition are Cardinal Pablo Virgilio David, constitutional framer Atty. Christian S. Monsod, and veteran environmental lawyer Atty. Grizelda Mayo-Anda.

The petition challenges a December 2023 decision by the Malabon Regional Trial Court (RTC) that invalidated key protections under Republic Act No. 8550, or the Fisheries Code of 1998.

The RTC ruling struck down local government authority over municipal waters and erased the preferential treatment granted to small-scale fishers, which petitioners describe as “wholesale constitutional and statutory protections” for coastal communities.

The petitioners criticized the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for what they called a “sluggish” defense of the Fisheries Code.

They argued that the agencies’ inaction contributed to the RTC ruling’s devastating consequences for fisherfolk and marine ecosystems.

“Allowing commercial vessels to operate within municipal waters jeopardizes the livelihoods of thousands of subsistence fishers and accelerates the depletion of already fragile fish stocks,” the petition reads.

Atty. Monsod, who helped draft the 1987 Constitution, emphasized that constitutional framers intended to shield marginalized fisherfolk from exploitation.

“It was a deliberate move towards ecological balance and social justice,” Monsod said.

Cardinal David joined the petition to take a moral stand, invoking the Church’s “preferential option for the poor” and responsibility to safeguard both people and nature from exploitation.

Atty. Mayo-Anda warned that the RTC’s decision could open municipal waters nationwide to commercial operations and weaken protections against illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.

The RTC ruling stemmed from a constitutional challenge filed by Mercidar Fishing Corporation, a Navotas-based commercial fishing company.

Mercidar sought to nullify prohibitions against commercial fishing within 15 kilometers from the shore, arguing the restrictions violated constitutional rights.

The Malabon RTC sided with the corporation, undermining principles of local autonomy and devolved environmental management that have long governed Philippine fisheries.

The Office of the Solicitor General filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, but the Court’s First Division dismissed it on procedural grounds, citing a late filing and rendering the RTC ruling final.

Despite the setback, BFAR and several local governments continued to seek further remedies, citing the case’s wide-reaching environmental and constitutional consequences.

In their newly filed petition, the advocates are asking the Supreme Court en banc to reverse the RTC ruling, calling it an act of “judicial legislation” and a violation of the separation of powers.

Filed at the Supreme Court in Padre Faura, Manila, the petition urges the justices to uphold constitutional rights, protect marine ecosystems, and reaffirm the nation’s commitment to social justice.

“This is not only a legal issue,” the petitioners said, “but a matter of social justice, sustainability, and the future of our coastal communities.”

The outcome of the case could impact thousands of subsistence fishers across the country, who depend on protected municipal waters for their daily survival.

Small-scale fishing remains a critical part of the Philippine economy, contributing significantly to food security, local employment, and the preservation of marine biodiversity.