LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE Tano v.

Socrates

2nd Sem, AY 09-10, Prof. La V !a Tano v. Socrates

DIGEST #113

G.R. No. 110249 August 21, 1997 Alfredo Tano et al, petitioners v. Hon. Gov. Salvador Socrates et al., respondents NATURE of Case: special civil action for certiorari and prohibition PONENTE, J: Davide Jr. Facts: etitioners assail the constitutionalit! of the ff" a# $rdinance No. 1%&92 'an ordinance banning the ship(ent of all live fish and lobster outside uerto prinsesa cit! fro( )anuar! 1, 199* to )anuar! 1, 199+ enacted b! ,angguniang panglungsod ng uerto rincesa b# $ffice $rder No. 2*, ,eries of 199*, issued b! cit! (a!or -ucero for chec.ing or conducting necessar! inspections on cargoes containing live fish and lobster being shipped out fro( the uerto rincesa Airport, uerto rincesa /harf or at an! port 0ithin the 1urisdiction of the 2it! to an! point of destination either via aircraft or seacraft. 3he purpose of the inspection is to ascertain 0hether the shipper possessed the re4uired 5a!or6s er(it issued b! this $ffice and the ship(ent is covered b! invoice or clearance issued b! the local office of the 7ureau of 8isheries and A4uatic Resources c# Resolution No. **, issued b! ,angguniang anlala0igan of pala0an 'resolution prohibiting the catching, gathering, possessing, bu!ing, selling, and ship(ent of live (arine coral d0elling a4uatic organis(s# 3he! contend that the, the $rdinances deprived the( of due process of la0, their livelihood, and undul! restricted the( fro( the practice of their trade, in violation of ,ection 2, Article 9:: and ,ections 2 and 7 of Article 9::: of the 19+7 2onstitution. ,econd, $ffice $rder No. 2* contained no regulation nor condition under 0hich the 5a!or6s per(it could be granted or denied; in other 0ords, the 5a!or had the absolute authorit! to deter(ine 0hether or not to issue the per(it.

3hird, as $rdinance No. 2 of the rovince of ala0an <altogether prohibited the catching, gathering, possession, bu!ing, selling and shipping of live (arine coral d0elling organis(s, 0ithout an! distinction 0hether it 0as caught or gathered through la0ful fishing (ethod,< the $rdinance too. a0a! the right of petitioners&fisher(en to earn their livelihood in la0ful 0a!s. 8inall!, as $rdinance No. 2 of the ,angguniang anlala0igan is null and void, the cri(inal cases based thereon against petitioners 3ano and the others have to be dis(issed. 3he -G= contends that this 0as a valid e>ercise of po0er under the general 0elfare clause and the specific po0er to protect the environ(ent Issue/s /$N the said ordinances and resolutions are unconstitutional Held/Ratio: No. As hereafter sho0n, the ordinances in 4uestion are (eant precisel! to protect and conserve our (arine resources to the end that their en1o!(ent (a! be guaranteed not onl! for the present generation, but also for the generations to co(e. 3he so&called <preferential right< of subsistence or (arginal fisher(en to the use of (arine resources is not at all absolute. :n accordance 0ith the Regalian ?octrine, (arine resources belong to the ,tate, and, pursuant to the first paragraph of ,ection 2, Article 9:: of the 2onstitution, their <e>ploration, develop(ent and utili@ation shall be under the full control and supervision of the ,tate.< 5oreover, their (andated protection, develop(ent and conservation as necessaril! recogni@ed b! the fra(ers of the 2onstitution, i(pl! certain restrictions on 0hatever right of en1o!(ent there (a! be in favor of an!one. /hat (ust li.e0ise be borne in (ind is the state polic! enshrined in the 2onstitution regarding the dut! of the ,tate to protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecolog! in accord 0ith the rh!th( and har(on! of nature 3he -G2 provisions invo.ed b! private respondents (erel! see. to give flesh and blood to the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecolog!. :n fact, the General /elfare 2lause, e>pressl! (entions this right +en Go Sorr, %",' med,o ma-a#a ' ,a

-$2G$A

HEADING - S"#-$ead n% & Ca'e(' S)e* f * $ead n%

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE Tano v. Socrates

2nd Sem, AY 09-10, Prof. La V !a Tano v. Socrates

DIGEST #113

3he -G2 vests (unicipalities 0ith the po0er to grant fisher! privileges in (unicipal 0aters and i(pose rentals, fees or charges therefor; to penali@e, b! appropriate ordinances, the use of e>plosives, no>ious or poisonous substances, electricit!, muro-ami, and other deleterious (ethods of fishing; and to prosecute an! violation of the provisions of applicable fisher! la0s. 8urther, the sangguniang ba!an, the sangguniang panlungsod and the sangguniang panlala0igan are directed to enact ordinances for the general 0elfare of the (unicipalit! and its inhabitants, 0hich shall include, inter alia, ordinances that <BpCrotect the environ(ent and i(pose appropriate penalties for acts 0hich endanger the environ(ent such as d!na(ite fishing and other for(s of destructive fishing and such other activities 0hich result in pollution, acceleration of eutrophication of rivers and la.es, or of ecological i(balance.< 8inall!, the centerpiece of -G2 is the s!ste( of decentrali@ation as e>pressl! (andated b! the 2onstitution. :ndispensable to decentrali@ation is devolution and the -G2 e>pressl! provides that <BaCn! provision on a po0er of a local govern(ent unit shall be liberall! interpreted in its favor, and in case of doubt, an! 4uestion thereon shall be resolved in favor of devolution of po0ers and of the lo0er local govern(ent unit. An! fair and reasonable doubt as to the e>istence of the po0er shall be interpreted in favor of the local govern(ent unit concerned.< ?evolution refers to the act b! 0hich the National Govern(ent confers po0er and authorit! upon the various local govern(ent units to perfor( specific functions and responsibilities. $ne of the devolved po0ers enu(erated in the section of the -G2 on devolution is the enforce(ent of fisher! la0s in (unicipal 0aters including the conservation of (angroves. 3his necessaril! includes the enact(ent of ordinances to effectivel! carr! out such fisher! la0s 0ithin the (unicipal 0aters. :n light then of the principles of decentrali@ation and devolution enshrined in the -G2 and the po0ers granted therein to local govern(ent units under ,ection 1D 'the General /elfare 2lause#, and under ,ections 149, 447'a# '1# 'vi#, 4%+ 'a# '1# 'vi# and 4D+ 'a# '1# 'vi#, 0hich un4uestionabl! involve the e>ercise of police po0er, the validit! of the 4uestioned $rdinances cannot be doubted. arentheticall!, these $rdinances find full support under R.A. No. 7D11, other0ise .no0n as the ,trategic Environ(ental lan ',E # for ala0an Act, approved on 19 )une 1992. 3his statute adopts a

<co(prehensive fra(e0or. for the sustainable develop(ent of ala0an co(patible 0ith protecting and enhancing the natural resources and endangered environ(ent of the province,< 0hich <shall serve to guide the local govern(ent of ala0an and the govern(ent agencies concerned in the for(ulation and i(ple(entation of plans, progra(s and pro1ects affecting said province.< :t is clear to the 2ourt that both $rdinances have t0o principal ob1ectives or purposes" '1# to establish a <closed season< for the species of fish or a4uatic ani(als covered therein for a period of five !ears; and '2# '2# to protect the coral in the (arine 0aters of the 2it! of uerto rincesa and the rovince of ala0an fro( further destruction due to illegal fishing activities. 3he re4uire(ent of approval b! the ,ecretar! of the ?epart(ent of Agriculture 'not ?ENR# of (unicipal ordinances affecting fishing and fisheries in (unicipal 0aters has been dispensed 0ith in vie0 of the follo0ing reasons" '1# ,ection %*4 'Repealing 2lause# of the -G2 e>pressl! repeals or a(ends ,ections 1D and 29 of .?. No. 704 45 insofar as the! are inconsistent 0ith the provisions of the -G2. '2# As discussed earlier, under the general 0elfare clause of the -G2, local govern(ent units have the po0er, inter alia, to enact ordinances to enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecolog!. 8inall!, it i(poses upon the sangguniang ba!an, the sangguniang panlungsod, and the sangguniang panlala0igan the dut! to enact ordinances to <BpCrotect the environ(ent and i(pose appropriate penalties for acts 0hich endanger the environ(ent such as d!na(ite fishing and other for(s of destructive fishing . . . and such other activities 0hich result in pollution, acceleration of eutrophication of rivers and la.es or of ecological i(balance

Judgment : petition dis(issed Separate Opinion NAME, J:Mendoza 3he ordinances in 4uestion are police po0er (easures, enacted b! the rovince of ala0an and the 2it! of uerto rincesa, pursuant to the +en Go Sorr, %",' med,o ma-a#a ' ,a

-$2G$A

HEADING - S"#-$ead n% & Ca'e(' S)e* f * $ead n%

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE Tano v. Socrates

2nd Sem, AY 09-10, Prof. La V !a Tano v. Socrates

DIGEST #113

-ocal Govern(ent 2ode of 1991 0hich (a.es it in fact their dut! to enact (easures to <protect the environ(ent and i(pose appropriate penalties for acts 0hich endanger the environ(ent, such as d!na(ite fishing and other for(s of destructive fishing. . . .< 3here is no basis for the clai( in the dissenting opinion that the sub1ect of these ordinances lies 0ithin the co(petence of the national govern(ent. 8or the (atter concerns a local proble(, na(el!, the destruction of a4uatic resources in the rovince of ala0an. . :t has been held" <:f the la0s passed are seen to have a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose, and are neither arbitrar! nor discri(inator!, the re4uire(ents of due process are satisfied, and 1udicial deter(ination to that effect renders a court functus officio. . . . /ith the 0isdo( of the polic! adopted, 0ith the ade4uac! or practicabilit! of the la0 enacted to for0ard it, the courts are both inco(petent and unauthori@ed to deal :ndeed, the burden of sho0ing that there is no reasonable relation bet0een the end and the (eans adopted in this case is not on the local govern(ents but on petitioners because of the presu(ption that a regulator! statute is valid in the absence of factual evidence to the contrar!. Dissentin Opinion: J. !ellosillo 3he general 0elfare clause is not the sole criterion to deter(ine the validit! or constitutionalit! of the ordinances. :n Ma ta"as v. #r$ce #roperties %orporation, 3 0e reiterated that the 0ell&established tests of a valid ordinance are" 'a# &t must not contravene the 2onstitution or an$ statute; 'b# :t (ust not be unfair or oppressive; 'c# :t (ust not be partial or discri(inator!; 'd# &t must not pro'i(it (ut ma$ re ulate trade; 'e# :t (ust be general and consistent 0ith public polic!; and, 'f# :t (ust not be unreasonable. 3here is no doubt that under .?. No. 704 fishing, fisher! and a4uatic resources in (unicipal 0aters are under the 1urisdiction of the (unicipal or cit! govern(ent concerned. Fo0ever, the sa(e decree i(poses a (andator! re4uire(ent directing (unicipal or cit! govern(ents to sub(it ordinances enacted pertinent to fishing and fisher! resources to the ,ecretar! of Agriculture 0ho no0 has control and supervision over the 7ureau of 8isheries and A4uatic Resources '78AR#. 3he ordinances 0ill attain full force and effect onl! upon the approval of the ,ecretar! of Agriculture.

$rdinance 1%&92 of uerto rincesa 2it!, ad(ittedl!, 0as not sub(itted to the ,ecretar! of Agriculture through the 78AR for approval. ,uch failure of co(pliance 0ith the la0 prevented it fro( beco(ing valid and effective. 2onse4uentl!, $ffice $rder No. 2* of the 5a!or of uerto rincesa 2it! 0hich see.s to i(ple(ent and enforce $rdinance No. 1%&92 is also ineffective as there is nothing to i(ple(ent. 8urther, 0hile the -ocal Govern(ent 2ode is a general la0 on the po0ers, responsibilities and co(position of different local govern(ent units, .?. No. 704 is a special la0 dealing 0ith the protection and conservation of fishing and a4uatic resources including those in the (unicipal 0aters. Fence, the special la0 should prevail over the general la0. :t is true that police po0er can be e>ercised through the general 0elfare clause. 7ut, 0hile police po0er is inherent in a state, it is not so in (unicipal corporations or local govern(ents. :n order that a local govern(ent (a! e>ercise police po0er, there (ust be a legislative grant 0hich necessaril! sets the li(its for the e>ercise of the po0er. :n this case, 2ongress has enacted the -ocal Govern(ent 2ode 0hich provides the standards as 0ell as the li(itations in the e>ercise of the police po0er b! the local govern(ent unit. 3he 4uestioned ordinances (a! also be struc. do0n for being not onl! a prohibitor! legislation but also an unauthori@ed e>ercise of delegation of po0ers. -ocal govern(ents are not possessed 0ith prohibitor! po0ers but onl! regulator! po0ers under the general 0elfare clause. 3he! cannot therefore e>ceed the po0ers granted to the( b! the 2ode b! altogether prohibiting fishing and selling for five '%# !ears all live fishes through $rdinance No. 1%&92 and coral organis(s through $rdinance No. 2&9* involving even la0ful (ethods of fishing. 3hese prohibitions are tanta(ount to the establish(ent of a closed season for fish and a4uatic resources 0hich authorit! is not a(ong those po0ers vested b! the -ocal Govern(ent 2ode to the local govern(ent units. 8or the authorit! to establish a closed season for fisheries is vested upon the ,ecretar! of Agriculture b! virtue of .?. Nos. 704 and 101% and in the ,ecretar! of Environ(ent and Natural resources pursuant to .?. No. 1219 in relation to coral resources. 3he po0er of the local govern(ents is confined and li(ited to ensuring +en Go Sorr, %",' med,o ma-a#a ' ,a

-$2G$A

HEADING - S"#-$ead n% & Ca'e(' S)e* f * $ead n%

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE Tano v. Socrates

2nd Sem, AY 09-10, Prof. La V !a Tano v. Socrates

DIGEST #113

that these national fisher! la0s are i(ple(ented and enforced 0ithin their territorial 1urisdictions. Fence, an! (e(orandu( of agree(ent 0hich (ight have been e>ecuted b! the ?epart(ent of Agriculture or ?epart(ent of Environ(ent and Natural Resources granting additional po0ers and functions to the local govern(ents 0hich are not vested upon the latter b! the -ocal Govern(ent 2ode because such po0ers are covered b! e>isting statutes, is an undue delegation of po0er and, conse4uentl!, null and void. : find unreasonable Resolution No. 2&9* of ala0an and $rdinance No. 1%&92 of uerto rincesa 2it!. 3he prohibitions set forth are not ger(ane to the acco(plish(ent of their goals. $rdinance No. 1%&92 is ai(ed to free effectivel! the (arine resources of uerto rincesa fro( c!anide and other obno>ious substances. 7ut the (eans to achieve this ob1ective borders on the e>cessive and irrational, for the edict 0ould absolutel! ban the ship(ent of live fishes and lobsters out of the cit! for a period of five '%# !ears 0ithout prohibiting c!anide fishing itself 0hich is the professed goal of the ordinance.

-$2G$A

HEADING - S"#-$ead n% & Ca'e(' S)e* f * $ead n%

+en Go Sorr, %",' med,o ma-a#a ' ,a