REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES, AND THE NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, PETITIO…

Republic versus Royale Fishing Corporation

The Case

This is a consolidated case in which the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, and the National Telecommunications Commission, challenged the rulings of a Regional Trial Court in Malabon City that stopped and then struck down a fisheries administrative order. The private respondents are Royale Fishing Corporation, Bonanza Fishing and Market Resources, Inc., and RBL Fishing Corporation, operators of commercial fishing vessels, who brought a petition for declaratory relief to invalidate Fisheries Administrative Order Number 266, Series of 2020. A second set of petitioners, Oceana Philippines International, Pablo Rosales, and Ronaldo Reyes, sought to intervene in that case and were rebuffed by the trial court. The case matters because it tests whether a mere administrative order requiring vessel monitoring and electronic reporting on commercial fishing vessels can survive constitutional scrutiny, and because it teaches how a court should treat a regulatory measure enacted to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.

Procedural History

Royale Fishing and the other commercial fishing operators filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with an application for a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction before Branch 170 of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City, docketed as SCA20-002-MAL. On January 22, 2021, the trial court, through Presiding Judge Zaldy Docena, issued an Order granting the application and issuing a writ of preliminary injunction that directed the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, and the National Telecommunications Commission to cease and desist from implementing Fisheries Administrative Order Number 266 until the question of its constitutionality was finally resolved. The Republic moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. The Republic then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 directly with the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. 256282.

Meanwhile, the trial court proceeded to trial on the main case. On June 1, 2021, it rendered a Decision granting the Petition for Declaratory Relief, declaring Fisheries Administrative Order Number 266 unconstitutional, and making the writ of preliminary injunction permanent. The Republic appealed that Decision to the Supreme Court through a Petition for Review under Rule 45, docketed as G.R. No. 256559. Before the Decision was issued, Oceana Philippines International, Pablo Rosales, and Ronaldo Reyes filed a Motion to Intervene, which the trial court denied on May 25, 2021, and later denied their Motion for Reconsideration on June 23, 2021. Oceana and the two individuals then filed their own Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, docketed as G.R. No. 257049, assailing both the denial of their intervention and the June 1, 2021 Decision. The Supreme Court consolidated the three petitions and, after oral arguments, resolved them together.

Facts

On February 25, 1998, Republic Act Number 8550, the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, was enacted to achieve food security as the overriding consideration in the utilization, management, development, conservation, and protection of fishery resources. On February 27, 2015, Republic Act Number 10654 amended that law to strengthen the prevention, deterrence, and elimination of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. Section 14 of the amended law directed the Department of Agriculture to establish a monitoring, control, and surveillance system in coordination with local government units and other agencies, while Section 119 required all municipal, commercial, and distant water fishing vessels to comply with vessel monitoring measures promulgated by the Department of Agriculture. These measures include the Vessel Monitoring System, which tracks, monitors, and manages fishing vessels, and the Electronic Reporting System, which records, reports, processes, stores, and sends fisheries data.

On October 5, 2018, the Department of Agriculture, through the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, issued Fisheries Administrative Order Number 260, which applied the vessel monitoring and electronic reporting rules only to commercial Philippine-flagged fishing vessels targeting straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. More than two years later, on October 12, 2020, the Department issued Fisheries Administrative Order Number 266 to update the earlier order. The key change was the removal of the limitation to vessels targeting straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, so that the rules would apply to all commercial Philippine-flagged fishing vessels.

The issuance of Fisheries Administrative Order Number 266 prompted Royale Fishing and the other operators to file their Petition for Declaratory Relief. They argued that the order violated their constitutional right to privacy and their right against unlawful searches because it would disclose trade secrets, that it violated the equal protection clause by singling out commercial fishing vessels while leaving municipal and distant water vessels unregulated, that it violated due process because no scientific study and no prior consultation with stakeholders were conducted, and that its implementation was premature because Section 86 of the amended law, which prohibits commercial fishing vessels from fishing in municipal waters, had not yet been given effect since no municipal waters had been delineated. The trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction and later declared the order unconstitutional, prompting the three consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the direct recourse to the Supreme Court by the Republic and by Oceana and the two individuals is allowed under the Rules of Court.
• Whether or not Royale Fishing and the other operators correctly availed of the Petition for Declaratory Relief in assailing the constitutionality of Fisheries Administrative Order Number 266.
• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction.
• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court erred in denying the Motion to Intervene filed by Oceana Philippines International and the two individuals.
• Whether or not Fisheries Administrative Order Number 266 is unconstitutional.

Applicable Provisions

Section 14 of Republic Act Number 8550, as amended, provides:

Section 14. Monitoring, Control and Surveillance. The Department shall establish a monitoring, control and surveillance system in coordination with the local government units and other agencies concerned to ensure that the fisheries and aquatic resources in Philippine waters are judiciously and wisely utilized and managed on a sustainable basis.

This provision is the statutory basis for the vessel monitoring measures that Fisheries Administrative Order Number 266 implements, and the Court examined whether the order stayed within its bounds.

Section 119 of Republic Act Number 8550, as amended, provides:

Section 119. Vessel Monitoring Measures. All municipal, commercial and distant water fishing vessels shall comply with the vessel monitoring measures promulgated by the Department in coordination with the local government units.

This provision imposes the compliance obligation on all fishing vessels and anchors the authority of the Department of Agriculture to issue the implementing rules.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the direct recourse to the Supreme Court by the Republic and by Oceana and the two individuals is allowed under the exceptions to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. The Court found that the issues raised are of transcendental importance and that the case involves a matter of public interest affecting the country's fisheries and its international obligations.

On the second issue, the Court held that Royale Fishing and the other operators correctly availed of the Petition for Declaratory Relief. The Court found that the petition raised a justiciable controversy because the operators had a direct and substantial interest in the implementation of Fisheries Administrative Order Number 266, which would affect their operations and their alleged trade secrets.

On the third issue, the Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari in G.R. No. 256282 for being moot and academic. Since the trial court had already rendered its June 1, 2021 Decision declaring the order unconstitutional and making the writ of preliminary injunction permanent, the challenge to the issuance of the writ had been overtaken by subsequent events.

On the fourth issue, the Court partly granted the Petition for Review on Certiorari in G.R. No. 257049, finding that the Regional Trial Court erred in denying the Motion to Intervene. The Court held that Oceana and the two individuals had sufficiently shown their legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation, and that their intervention would not cause undue delay.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that Fisheries Administrative Order Number 266 is unconstitutional. The Court found that the order violated the constitutional rights of Royale Fishing and the other operators to privacy and against unlawful searches, as it would expose their trade secrets, including the locations of their fishing grounds, without sufficient safeguards. The Court also found that the order violated the equal protection clause because it regulated only commercial fishing vessels while leaving the regulation of municipal fishing vessels to the discretion of their respective local government units. The Court further found that the order violated the right to due process and the right to participate in decision-making processes because no scientific study and no prior consultation with stakeholders were conducted before its issuance. Finally, the Court found that the order exceeded the bounds provided in Section 14 of Republic Act Number 8550, as amended, as regards the monitoring, control, and surveillance of Philippine waters by the Department of Agriculture.

Doctrine

A Petition for Declaratory Relief is the proper remedy to assail the constitutionality of an administrative order when the petitioner has a direct and substantial interest in the implementation of that order and the issue is ripe for judicial determination. The doctrine of hierarchy of courts may be relaxed when the issues raised are of transcendental importance and involve matters of public interest.

An administrative order that requires the installation of a vessel monitoring system and an electronic reporting system on commercial fishing vessels must not violate the constitutional right to privacy and the right against unlawful searches. The State has a legitimate interest in preventing illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, but the means employed must not unnecessarily expose the trade secrets of the regulated entities.

An administrative order that regulates only commercial fishing vessels while leaving the regulation of municipal fishing vessels to the discretion of their respective local government units violates the equal protection clause when the law it seeks to implement covers all municipal, commercial, and distant water fishing vessels.

An administrative order that is issued without the required scientific study and without prior consultation with stakeholders violates the right to due process and the right to participate in decision-making processes. An administrative order that exceeds the bounds of the statutory authority granted by the law it seeks to implement is ultra vires and void.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari in G.R. No. 256282 for being moot and academic, denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari in G.R. No. 256559, declared Fisheries Administrative Order Number 266 unconstitutional, and partly granted the Petition for Review on Certiorari in G.R. No. 257049, finding that the Regional Trial Court erred in denying the Motion to Intervene.

Remember This

An administrative order that regulates only commercial fishing vessels while leaving municipal fishing vessels unregulated violates the equal protection clause, and an order that exposes trade secrets without sufficient safeguards violates the right to privacy. Examiners like to use this case to test the validity of administrative regulations, the requisites of a valid exercise of police power, and the relaxation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts in cases of transcendental importance.