Supreme Court decision to reverse ruling on commercial fishing sought (2025)

MANILA, Philippines–One of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, a church leader, and environmental advocate on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court’s ruling allowing commercial fishingwithin 15-kilometer municipal waters, which are exclusively reserved for small-scale fishers under the country’s laws.

“Allowing commercial vessels to operate within municipal waters jeopardizes the livelihoods of thousands of subsistence fishers and accelerates the depletion of already fragile fish stocks,” said the petitioners led by Atty. Christian Monsod, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, Cardinal Pablo Virgilio David, and Atty. Grizelda Mayo-Anda, a veteran environmental lawyer and advocate for coastal communities.

The petition named Mercidar Fishing Corporation, Judge Zaldy Docena, the Department of Agriculture—Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, and the Office of the Solicitor General as respondents.

Reversal sought

In their 31-page petition, they specifically sought reversal of the December 11, 2023 decision issued by the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City granting the petition filed by Mercidar Fishing Corporation to declare as unconstitutional Section 4 (66), Section 16, Section 1 and Section 18, Rule 181 of the Department of Agriculture(DA) Order No. 10 issued in 2015 as well as Section 4 (58), Section 16, and Section 18 of Republic Act 8550 or The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998.

The Malabon Court struck down local government jurisdiction over municipal waters and the law’s mandate to give preferential access to small-scale fishers—effectively erasing what the petitioners describe as “wholesale constitutional and statutory protections” for coastal communities.

READ:Romualdez vows to help challenge ruling on commercial fishing in municipal waters

Petitioners said the trial court’s decision threatens the constitutional rights of small-scale fishers and puts the country’s marine ecosystems at risk.

Three grounds were specifically raised by petitioners:(1) the failure of the DA-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to discharge the public trust for the welfare of the people (2) Malabon RTC Presiding Judge Zaldy Docena violated the doctrine o separation of powers, and (3) failure of the respondent Mercidar Fishing Corporation to implead indispensable partices which rendered all proceedings and orders before the Malabon RTC branch 170 void.

Far-reaching consequences

Petitioners said BFAR and the OSGmade a “sluggish” defense of the Fisheries Code that contributed to the RTC ruling’s far-reaching consequences.

READ:DA appeals SC rule allowing commercial fishing in municipal waters

“As ‘public service providers,’ the lackadaisical defense of the Public Respondents DA-BFAR and OSG of their mandates leave much to be desired, and the petitioners are now constrained to directly defend their own interests as Filipinos, concerned citizens, and stewards of nature, on behalf of the Filipino people,” the petitioners said.

The petitioners also branded the RTC ruling as a“judicial legislation” and a gross violation of the constitutional separation of powers.

“As can be gleaned from the inordinate haste of the proceedings below, his procedural lapses, and his questionable conclusions, it is clear that Public Respondent Judge Zaldy Docena refused to extend any measure of deference to either Congress or the Executive,” the petitioners stressed.

Despite this, BFAR and several local governments have sought further legal remedies, citing the case’s unresolved environmental and constitutional implications.

The petitioners expressed hope that the Court will uphold constitutional principles, protect marine ecosystems, and reaffirm the rights of small-scale fishers.

“This is not only a legal issue,” said the petitioners, “but a matter of social justice, sustainability, and the future of our coastal communities.”