SC voids vessel tracking rule for commercial fishers

By Francis Allan L. Angelo

The Supreme Court has struck down the government order requiring commercial fishing vessels to carry tracking devices, removing the state’s main tool for detecting illegal incursions into the 15-kilometer municipal waters that coastal towns in Iloilo and the rest of Western Visayas are supposed to reserve for small-scale fishers.

The High Court declared Fisheries Administrative Order No. 266 unconstitutional, citing violations of commercial fishing operators’ rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, due process, and equal protection of the law.

The decision was promulgated on Jan. 21, but it was only reported by the media on Thursday, July 30, more than six months later.

The vote was 13-2, with the decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh.

FAO 266 was signed by then Agriculture Secretary William Dar on Oct. 12, 2020. It required commercial Philippine-flagged fishing vessels to install vessel monitoring devices and to comply with electronic reporting before engaging in fishing activity.

Ocean conservation group Oceana, which intervened in the case, called the ruling a death blow to municipal fisherfolk.

“With the Supreme Court decision striking down FAO 266, commercial vessels can now operate largely unseen and with impunity,” Oceana Vice President Von Hernandez said in a statement issued after the decision surfaced.

The Court held that the government failed to show that the vessel monitoring system is effective in detecting illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and said less intrusive and more effective alternatives were available, making round-the-clock monitoring “unduly restrictive.”

The Court also found that commercial operators were singled out even though vessel monitoring covers municipal and distant-water fishers as well, and that the government acquired the transceivers before conducting public consultations.

The ruling was not a permanent bar on vessel monitoring. The Court directed the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources to correct the deficiencies in the order.

The decision lands on a region where commercial encroachment is already documented.

Carles, Iloilo appears on Oceana’s list of municipal-water hotspots. Satellite monitoring under the group’s Karagatan Patrol platform recorded 3,853 apparent commercial fishing detections inside municipal waters nationwide in March 2026, the highest monthly figure logged since 2022, and 317,315 detections from January 2017 through March 2026.

The 15th Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Iloilo adopted Resolution 2026-642 on June 24, urging Congress to pass House Bill 5606, or the Atin Ang Kinse Kilometro Bill, which seeks to strengthen legal protection for the 15-kilometer municipal waters.

Oceana linked the ruling to the loss of the American market for Philippine blue swimming crab, an industry with processing operations in Iloilo, Bacolod, and Cebu.

The United States National Marine Fisheries Service announced on May 12 that imports of Philippine blue swimming crab products would be restricted because of inadequate documentation on mandatory marine mammal protection and bycatch monitoring programs. The ban took effect June 11.

The trade is valued at USD 50 million to USD 60 million a year, with the United States buying about 90 percent of Philippine crab exports.

A Bacolod-based exporter placed potential annual losses at PHP 6 billion to PHP 7 billion and estimated that 10,000 fishermen and 4,000 to 5,000 crab meat pickers across Negros, Panay, Bicol, Samar, Leyte, and parts of Mindanao could be affected, with the Visayan Sea and Guimaras Strait among the major production areas.

Seafood exporter Phil-Union Frozen Foods Inc. cut 245 agency-based workers in Lapu-Lapu City on May 16, attributing the reduction entirely to the lost market access.

The restriction, however, was imposed under the United States Marine Mammal Protection Act rather than under illegal fishing rules. Among the deficiencies cited by American regulators was insufficient proof that mitigation measures protect vulnerable species such as the Irrawaddy dolphin.

The ruling is the second Supreme Court action in two years to weaken protections for municipal fisherfolk.

In a resolution dated Aug. 19, 2024, the Court affirmed a Dec. 11, 2023 decision of the Malabon Regional Trial Court that invalidated provisions of the Fisheries Code and effectively removed the 15-kilometer municipal water limit. The government’s appeal was dismissed for having been filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period.

The FAO 266 ruling affirmed a 2021 decision of the same trial court, Malabon Regional Trial Court Branch 170.

Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen dissented, faulting the Court for denying fisherfolk the chance to intervene.

Oceana quoted Leonen as saying the fisherfolk who sought to intervene were “grievously deprived of the opportunity to… be heard on the merits of this case,” and that “the court’s failure to look beyond the arguments of the original parties is a denial of equal access to justice, one that must never be repeated.”

The case began with a petition filed by Royale Fishing Corp., Bonanza Fishing and Market Resources, and RBL Fishing Corp. The companies argued that vessel position and catch timing were trade secrets and proprietary information, and that the order violated the equal protection clause by regulating only commercial vessels.

Oceana called on the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources to appeal without delay.

“A government that cannot see cannot enforce its laws, and a government that will not enforce its rules has abandoned the fisherfolk it swore to protect,” Hernandez said.

The Department of Agriculture, the bureau, and the Office of the Solicitor General had not issued a statement on the ruling as of press time.