TANO V.

SOCRATES
Justice Davide

The “preferential right” of the subsistence/marginal fishermen is NOT ABSOLUTE, since in

accordance with the Regalian Doctrine, exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources
shall be under full control and supervision of the state. Section 2, Article XII aims primarily NOT TO
BESTOW any right to subsistence fishermen but to lay stress on duty of the state to protect the nation’s
wealth.

Facts:

The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of:

(1) Ordinance No. 15-92 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"

(2) Office Order No. 23, 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 and authorizing and directing to check or conduct necessary
inspections on cargoes containing live fish and lobster being shipped out from Puerto Princesa and,

(3) Resolution No. 33, Ordinance No. 2 entitled: "A RESOLUTION PROHIBITING THE CATCHING,
GATHERING, POSSESSING, BUYING, SELLING AND SHIPMENT OF LIVE MARINE CORAL
DWELLING AQUATIC ORGANISMS”

The petitioners contend that the aforementioned 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 and that the Mayor had the absolute authority
to determine whether or not to issue the permit.

They also claim that it took away their right to earn their livelihood in lawful ways; and insofar as
the 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

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; they likewise maintained that there was no violation
of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution.

Issue:

Whether or not the enacted resolutions and ordinances by the local government units are violative
of the preferential rights of the marginal fishermen.

Ruling:

NO. The enacted resolution and ordinance of the LGU were not violative of their preferential rights.
The enactment of these laws was a valid exercise of the police power of the LGU to protect public interests
and the public right to a balanced and healthier ecology. The rights and privileges invoked by the petitioners
are not absolute. The general welfare clause of the local government code mandates for the liberal
interpretation in giving the LGUs more power to accelerate economic development and to upgrade the life
of the people in the community. The LGUs are endowed with the power 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 “preferential right”of the subsistence/marginal fishermen is not absolute, since in accordance
with the Regalian Doctrine, exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under full
control and supervision of the state. Section 2, Article XII aims primarily not to bestow any right to
subsistence fishermen but to lay stress on duty of the state to protect the nation’s wealth.