INQUIRER FILES
MANILA, Philippines—A small courtroom decision in 2023, quietly affirmed on a technicality, could unravel decades of protection for the Philippines’ smallest fishers.
At the heart of the issue: Who really controls municipal waters? And do small fishers still have the right to call them their own?
What’s this case about?
On October 5, 2023, Mercidar Fishing Corporation, a commercial fishing company, filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief before the Malabon Regional Trial Court (RTC).
A Petition for Declaratory Relief is a legal move where someone asks the court to clarify whether a law or regulation is valid — even before it’s enforced against them. In this case, Mercidar wanted the court to declare certain fisheries laws as unconstitutional, meaning they believed these laws go against what the Philippine Constitution says.
Mercidar challenged parts of the Philippine Fisheries Code (RA 8550, as amended) and its implementing rules, specifically Department Administrative Order (DAO) No. 10, series of 2015.
According to lawyer Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio, acting vice president of Oceana, the case focused on two main issues:
“(a) Limit the users of municipal waters to municipal fisherfolk, and (b) give LGUs jurisdiction over municipal waters and the authority to allow limited access to commercial fishers under specific conditions.”
In simpler terms, Mercidar questioned why the law allows only small-scale fishers (not big commercial boats) to fish in waters up to 15 kilometers from the shore (called municipal waters).
They also challenged the power of local government units (LGUs) to control these waters and set the rules for who can fish there.
What did the Malabon RTC rule?
On December 11, 2023, the Malabon RTC declared unconstitutional the following provisions:
From the Fisheries Code:
- Section 4(58): Definition of municipal waters
- Section 16: Jurisdiction of LGUs over municipal waters
- Section 18: Preferential access for municipal fisherfolk
From DAO 10-2015:
- Section 4(66): Definition of municipal waters
- Sections 16: Jurisdiction of municipalities and cities over municipal waters
- Section 17: Grant of fishing privileges in municipal waters
- Section 18, Rule 18.1: Guidelines when to allow entry of commercial fishing boats within the 10.1 to 15 km area of the municipal waters
The RTC held that these provisions violated constitutional supremacy.
In its ruling, the court emphasized that control over natural resources belongs to the national government — not local governments. As summarized by Atty. Osorio, the decision stated:
“The Constitution provides that municipal water is a natural resource that is owned by the State, and the authority over such resources is vested and delegated by the Constitution to the concerned national government agency, not with the LGUs.”
It further held that the Fisheries Code’s provision for “preferential treatment” did not expressly exclude commercial fishing operations.
Why was this ruling uncontested?
The Malabon RTC’s decision went unchallenged at the lower court level — not because the government agreed with it, but because the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), which represents the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) and the Department of Agriculture (DA), failed to file a timely response.
During a hearing on November 10, 2023, the OSG made an oral motion asking for more time to submit its answer. But instead of acting on it directly, the court proceeded without granting a clear extension. The OSG later filed a written Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer, but again, the court did not approve it.
“Kahit may rules tayo, under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, kapag may mga ganitong kaso dapat yung korte [ang] magbibigay ng kaalaman sa lahat ng apektadong ahensya […]. Hindi nila ginawa,” said Atty. Osorio.
(Even though we have rules under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, in cases like this, the court is supposed to inform all affected agencies […]. They didn’t do that.)
With no official response from the government, the court issued an Order of Default on December 7, 2023, which allowed Mercidar Fishing Corporation, the petitioner, to present its evidence ex parte — meaning without the participation of the other side. Mercidar also withdrew its request for a temporary restraining order (TRO), submitted affidavits and documents, and rested its case.
The RTC granted Mercidar’s motion and declared the petition submitted for decision, without any input from the government.
This move raised serious questions among legal experts and environmental advocates. As Atty. Osorio pointed out, under Section 2(d) of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, motions to declare a defendant in default are not allowed. Despite this clear rule, the court proceeded with the default ruling — a highly unusual and controversial step in a case with national implications.
“Sana kung binigyan ng pagkakataon mag file ng answer yung gobyerno, nandoon yung mga substantibong argumento na pwede nilang ipasok sa kaso,” Atty. Osorio explained.
(If the government had been given the chance to file an answer, they could’ve included substantive arguments in the case.)
That same day, the OSG filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration, asking the court to reverse the Order of Default and allow them to submit their response. An Omnibus Motion is a legal filing that asks for multiple forms of relief in one motion. In this case, the OSG was trying to cancel the default ruling and participate in the case.
But on December 20, the RTC denied the motion, calling it “moot and academic”—a legal term meaning it was no longer relevant because the court had already ruled—and “lacking in merit,” meaning the court didn’t find the arguments convincing.
What happened at the Supreme Court?
After the Malabon RTC declared parts of the Fisheries Code and its implementing rules unconstitutional on December 11, 2023, the OSG attempted to reverse the decision.
But the process got off to a late start.
On January 2, 2024, the OSG filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court. This type of petition is a formal request asking the high court to examine the decision of a lower court (in this case, the RTC), but only if there’s a legal question involved — such as whether the lower court misinterpreted the law or went beyond its authority.
But on August 19, 2024, the Supreme Court’s First Division dismissed the petition — not because it disagreed with the arguments, but because it was filed too late. The Court said the deadline to appeal had passed, and that the RTC ruling had already become “final and executory.”
In legal terms, “final and executory” means that a court’s decision is closed, settled, and can no longer be changed or appealed—unless a very narrow exception applies, such as correcting a clerical mistake or invalidating a clearly void judgment.
As Atty. Osorio explained during the “Atin ang Kinse: A Convergence Summit for the Protection of Municipal Waters” held on March 20:
“The Supreme Court reiterated the long-standing rule that when a judgment becomes final and executory, it becomes immutable, unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, except to correct clerical errors or to make nunc pro tunc entries or when it is a void judgment.”
(Nunc pro tunc is a Latin legal term that means a correction made to reflect what should have been recorded earlier in the official record.)
The Supreme Court also pointed out that BFAR and DA, through the OSG, failed to prove that the RTC had made a reversible error — a serious legal mistake that would justify canceling the original decision.
However, Oceana and other petitioners are questioning the Supreme Court’s timeline.
According to Atty. Osorio, the Court considered December 11, 2023 as the date the RTC decision became final and started counting the 15-day appeal period from there. However, the government had filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration, which the RTC only denied on December 20.
“Sabi nila out of time na yung appeal na finile ng DA [at] BFAR [through] OSG noong December 11, 2023 […] Pero maalala natin, nag-file ng Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration pero sinasabi nila out of time na eh kasi December 11 […] Pero if you go back to the timeline, noong December 20 may decision sila […],” said Atty. Osorio.
(They said the appeal filed by the DA and BFAR through the OSG was out of time, using December 11, 2023, as the start date. But if you recall, the government filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration, and the court only gave a decision on December 20.)
She explained that if the court had used December 20 as the starting point, the OSG’s January 2 filing would have been within the 15-day limit for appeals. Instead, the Court followed the December 11 date — even though the motion for reconsideration was still pending at the time.
“So dapat ang counting nila na finile noong January 2, within the timeline, which is 15 days. Pero pag kinount mo from December 11, parang out of time kasi 20 days na yun… So yun yung isa sa mga katanungan,” she added.
(So if they had counted from December 20, the January 2 filing would be within the 15-day timeline. But if you count from December 11, it looks late—20 days, beyond the 15-day rule. That’s one of our questions.)
In simpler terms, Osorio argues that if the RTC decision wasn’t yet final until December 20, then the OSG’s January 2 appeal should have been considered on time.
Because the Court chose to stick with the December 11 timeline, the petition was rejected, and the ruling that struck down key legal protections for municipal waters remains final and binding — unless the Supreme Court later agrees to reopen the case.
What’s the fallout?
The full impact of the court ruling has yet to be felt — and could still shift, depending on how the Supreme Court rules on the pending motions and interventions filed by government agencies, coastal communities, and advocacy groups.
For now, the decision by the Malabon RTC stands. With key provisions of the Fisheries Code and its implementing rules struck down, local governments have lost their legal footing to regulate municipal waters—those stretching up to 15 kilometers from shore.
These powers once allowed LGUs to issue permits, limit access to commercial fishing boats, and enforce local ordinances meant to protect coastal ecosystems and support small fishers.
Also gone is the legal basis for giving municipal fisherfolk first rights to these waters. That opens the door for commercial fishing operations to enter the 10.1 to 15 kilometer zone — an area previously subject to restrictions and LGU oversight. Whether or not that will happen widely remains to be seen, but the uncertainty alone has left many small-scale fishers anxious.
“Hindi ako sang-ayon, kasi kawawa talaga ang ating maliliit na mangingisda — lalo na kung papayagan ang mga commercial fishing vessel na pumasok. Gumagamit sila ng mga gear na talagang nakakasira sa ating pangisdaan. Mas lalong mahihirapan ang maliliit na mangingisda,” said Tomas Limboc Jr., barangay captain at Barangay Papaya in Nasugbu, Batangas.
(I don’t agree with it, because our small fishers will really suffer—especially if commercial fishing vessels are allowed in. They use gear that seriously damages our fishing grounds. That puts small fishers at an even bigger disadvantage.)
“Sa pinatutupad na [desisyon] ng Supreme Court sa commercial fishing, tutol ako kasi kapag nakapasok yan dito sa pangisdaan namin, sigurado ang maapektuhan ang maliliit na mangingisda. Pag pumasok iyan sa ating area, wala nang isda pa na madadatnan [yung mga maliliit na mangingisda],” he added.
(I’m against the Supreme Court’s ruling on commercial fishing. If those boats enter our fishing area, it’s the small fishers who will be affected. By the time they head out to sea, there might be no fish left for them to catch.)
The fear is that increased competition in nearshore waters will push already vulnerable fishing communities further to the margins. Some groups say it’s not just a legal issue — it’s a question of survival.
“Para sa aming maliliit na mangingisda, napakalaki talaga ng epekto nito. Ngayon pa lang, ramdam na namin ang mga panahong wala kaming nahuhuli. May mga gamit silang (commercial fishers) [modernong] gear, samantalang kami mano-mano lang. Alam pa nila kung saan maraming isda,” said Mang Jin, a fisherfolk.
“Inaagawan nila yung mga tulad naming mahihirap na mangingisda, maliit na nga ang kita, kukunin pa nila [ang mga isda],” he added.
(For small fishers like us, this has a huge impact. Even now, there are days we catch nothing. The commercial fishers have advanced gear, while we rely on our bare hands. They know exactly where the fish are — and they take them before we can. We’re already poor, and they’re taking away what little we earn)
At the national level, the concern comes as fish production continues to slide. Data from the BFAR show that fish harvests in the third quarter of 2023 were the lowest in a decade, raising questions about sustainability and long-term food security.
Doesn’t the Constitution protect small fishers?
Yes — and this question lies at the heart of the petitions now being filed by fisherfolk, local governments, and environmental advocates.
According to Atty. Osorio, both the Constitution and the Local Government Code uphold the rights of small fishers and empower local government units (LGUs) to protect marine resources and manage their municipal waters.
Several constitutional provisions support this:
- The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth and give priority to subsistence fishermen;
- The preferential use of communal fishing grounds by small-scale fishers is recognized;
- Local autonomy is a fundamental principle;
- Congress is empowered to allow Filipino citizens to access and manage natural resources on a small scale.
In addition, Osorio points to the General Welfare Clause in the Local Government Code, which gives LGUs specific powers related to coastal governance:
“Under the General Welfare Clause, all local government units are granted the power to exercise express and implied powers, including inherent powers:
- To enact ordinances that promote health, safety, economic prosperity, social justice, peace and order, including the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology.
- To grant fishery privileges within municipal waters, with preferential rights to duly registered organizations and cooperatives of marginal fishermen.
- To issue licenses for the operation of fishing vessels of three (3) tons or less.
- To enforce and prosecute any violation of the provisions of applicable fishery laws.”
What happens now?
On January 2, 2025, the OSG filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Supreme Court, asking it to revisit and reverse its August 2024 decision, which had allowed the lower court’s ruling to stand.
A Motion for Reconsideration is a formal request asking the Court to take a second look at its decision, usually when new arguments or overlooked facts are presented.
That same day, several groups also asked to formally join the case through what’s called a Petition-in-Intervention. These were filed by Oceana, a municipality fisherfolk, and concerned citizens.
A Petition-in-Intervention allows someone who wasn’t originally part of a case to step in — if they can show that the outcome directly affects them or that public interest is at stake.
These petitioners argue that:
- The case was decided without “indispensable parties” — meaning, important groups like municipal fishers and LGUs were not included, even though the ruling directly impacts them.
- The decision weakens environmental protections and undermines the public interest, particularly for poor coastal communities.
- The Supreme Court still has the authority to revisit a final ruling in exceptional cases, especially when justice or the environment is at risk.
As Atty. Osorio emphasized in her presentation:
“The Supreme Court has, in several instances, allowed petitions-in-intervention even after the trial court has rendered judgment to, inter alia, protect public interest, to facilitate the administration of justice.”
In simpler terms, it’s not too late for the Court to reopen the case — if it believes doing so is necessary to serve justice and protect the rights of those most affected.
The bigger picture
What began as a single petition by a commercial fishing firm has now exposed deep cracks in the country’s environmental governance and access to justice for the marginalized.
With municipal fishers left out of the courtroom, the burden now falls on the Supreme Court to determine whether a ruling made without them can stand.
This case has become a test of how far the country is willing to go to uphold the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology — and to deliver on the promise of social justice for small fishing communities.
Graphics by Ed Lustan/Inquirer.net. Source: Oceana / Atty. Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio