In a significant move, the municipality of Sta. Fe on Bantayan Island, Cebu, together with environmental advocates, has petitioned the Supreme Court to reconsider its recent decision that supported a commercial fishing company’s right to operate in municipal waters designated for local fishermen. The petition, spanning 28 pages, was filed by Sta. Fe’s Mayor Ithamar Espinosa and Oceana Phils. Intl., urging the court to overturn its previous ruling and return the case to the Malabon Regional Trial Court (RTC) for further review.
The Supreme Court’s decision on August 19 upheld the Malabon RTC’s earlier judgment, which controversially declared certain sections of the Fisheries Code (Republic Act 8550) unconstitutional. This ruling came after the court found that the Office of the Solicitor General’s submissions were untimely and lacked legal foundation.
The original lawsuit was initiated by Mercidar Fishing Corp., a commercial fishing entity based in Navotas, which sought declaratory relief on October 25, 2023. The Malabon RTC swiftly decided the case on December 11 of the same year, invalidating key provisions of the Fisheries Code, including Section 16, which grants municipal governments the authority to regulate commercial fishing within 15 kilometers of the shoreline. Additionally, the court nullified the prohibition on commercial fishing in waters shallower than seven fathoms.
The petitioners criticized the Malabon RTC’s decision for its lack of judicial restraint and for hastily undermining the legislative intent to protect local fishermen and empower local government units. They argued that the court’s interpretation of the Constitution was reckless and detrimental to established policies.
Furthermore, the petitioners contended that the proceedings and decisions of the Malabon RTC, including its ruling on December 11, 2023, were invalid due to violations of due process and a lack of jurisdiction, stemming from the failure to include indispensable parties in the lawsuit. They emphasized that the case should be remanded to the RTC because the plaintiff did not involve all necessary parties during the appeal process.