University of the Philippines College of Law | LocGov | D2021

Topic Part II. Book I: General Provisions Title One: Basic Principles -> A. Policy and Application Rep. Act No. 7160,
§§ 1-4 -> Rules of Interpretation, § 5
Case Name Tano v. Socrates
Case No. & Date G.R. No. 110249. August 21, 1997
Ponente Davide

Summary (recit- SPP of Puerto Princesa and SP of Palawan enacted Ordinances prohibiting the shipment/catching et al of
friendly) certain marine animals/organisms in Palawan. The fishermen/merchants were charged criminally for violating
the Ordinances. They directly petitioned SC for redress but SC ruled that the LGUs acts were NOT
Unconstitutional since they are authorized by the Constitution as well as the Local Government Code
Doctrine/s Section 5(c) of the LGC explicitly mandates that the general welfare provisions of the LGC shall be liberally
interpreted to give more powers to the local government units in accelerating economic development and
upgrading the quality of life for the people of the community . Indispensable thereto is devolution and the
LGC expressly provides that [a]ny provision on a power of a local government unit shall be liberally
interpreted in its favor, and in case of doubt, any question thereon shall be resolved in favor of devolution of
powers and of the lower local government unit.

RELEVANT FACTS
o Sangguniang Panlungsod (SPP) ng Puerto Princesa City enacted Ordinance No. 15-92 which took effect on January 1, 1993
banning the shipment of all live fish and lobster outside Puerto Princesa from Jan. 1 1993-1995.
o To implement such ordinance, Acting City Mayor Amado L. Lucero issued Office Order No. 23 permitting the checking, and
inspecting of cargoes containing live fish and lobster to be shipped out from the Airport, Wharf to check that there is a
corresponding Mayor’s Permit, and clearance from BFAR.
o It also authorized the confiscation of the fish and lobster if the shippers do not possess the necessary documents.
o Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Palawan enacted Resolution No. 33 prohibiting catching, gathering, possessing, buying, selling,
and shipment of live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms: Mameng, Suno, Panther, lobster below 200g and spawning,
Taklobo, Mother Pearl, Oysters, Giant Clams, Tiger-prawn, Loba, tropical aquarium fishes for 5 years in and coming from
Palawan waters.
o It was alleged that the implementation of the ordinances deprived all the fishermen of Palawan and Puerto Princesa of their
only means of livelihood and Airline Shippers Association of Palawan and other marine merchants from performing their lawful
occupation and trade.
o Further Tano et al were charged criminally for violations of the ordinances.
o Thus w/o seeking redress with LGU, Prosecutors, and lower courts, Tanos et al filed a Rule 65 petition with SC.

TANO’S ARGUMENTS SOCRATES’ ARGUMENTS

First, the Ordinances deprived them of due process of law, Ordinance No. 2 is a valid exercise of the Provincial
their livelihood, and unduly restricted them from the practice Governments power under the general welfare clause Section
of their trade, in violation of Section 2 1, Article XII and Sections 16 LGC and its specific power to protect the environment and
22 and 73 of Article XIII of the Comstitution impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the
environment, such as dynamite fishing and other forms of
Second, Office Order No. 23 contained no regulation nor destructive fishing under Section 447 (a) (1) (vi), Section 458 (a)
condition under which the Mayors permit could be granted or (1) (vi), and Section 468 (a) (1) (vi), of the LGC.
denied; in other words, the Mayor had the absolute authority
to determine whether or not to issue permit. The Ordinance covered only live marine coral dwelling aquatic
1
SEC. 2. x x x
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its
use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming,
with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
2
Sec. 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative
and self-reliance.
3
SEC. 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the
communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate
technology and research, adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also protect,
develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign
intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources.
 University of the Philippines College of Law | LocGov | D2021

organisms which were enumerated in the ordinance and

Third, as Ordinance No. 2 of the Province of Palawan altogether excluded other kinds of live marine aquatic organisms not
prohibited the catching, gathering, possession, buying, selling dwelling in coral reefs; besides the prohibition was for only five
and shipping of live marine coral dwelling organisms, without (5) years to protect and preserve the pristine coral and allow
any distinction whether it was caught or gathered through those damaged to regenerate.
lawful fishing method, the Ordinance took away the right of
petitioners-fishermen to earn their livelihood in lawful ways; No violation of due process and EQP Clause since public
and insofar as petitioners-members of Airline Shippers hearings were conducted before the enactment of the
Association are concerned, they were unduly prevented from Ordinance, and a substantial distinction existed between a
pursuing their vocation and entering into contracts which are fisherman who catches live fish with the intention of selling it
proper, necessary, and essential to carry out their business live, and a fisherman who catches live fish with no intention at
endeavors to a successful conclusion. all of selling it live, i.e., the former uses sodium cyanide while
the latter does not. Ordinance applied equally to all those
Finally, as Ordinance No. 2 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan is belonging to one class.
null and void, the criminal cases based thereon against
petitioners Tano and the others have to be dismissed.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
W/N the ordinances o Laws (including ordinances enacted by local government units) enjoy the presumption of
are unconstitutional constitutionality.
since the ordinances o To invalidate them, the conflict with the Constitution must be shown beyond reasonable doubt.
affect o They cited numerous Constitutional provisions (SEE FOOTNOTES) but there is absolutely no showing
marginal/subsistence that any of the petitioners qualifies as a subsistence or marginal fisherman. 
fishermen as defined o Since the Constitution does not specifically provide a definition of the terms subsistence or marginal
under the Constitution fishermen, ordinary meaning will govern.
and LGC? NO. o  A marginal fisherman is an individual engaged in fishing whose margin of return or reward in his
harvest of fish as measured by existing price levels is barely sufficient to yield a profit or cover the
cost of gathering the fish, while a subsistence fisherman is one whose catch yields but the
irreducible minimum for his livelihood.
o Section 131(p) of the LGC (R.A. No. 7160) defines a marginal farmer or fisherman as an individual
engaged in subsistence farming or fishing which shall be limited to the sale, barter or exchange of
agricultural or marine products produced by himself and his immediate family.
o Besides, Section 2 of Article XII aims primarily not to bestow any right to subsistence fishermen, but
to lay stress on the duty of the State to protect the nations marine wealth. 
o What the provision merely recognizes is that the State may allow, by law, cooperative fish
farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and
lagoons. 
o Section 1494 LGC speaks of preferential right of marginal fishermen.
o Anent Section 7 of Article XIII, it speaks not only of the use of communal marine and fishing
resources, but of their protection, development, and conservation.
o The ordinances are meant precisely to protect and conserve our marine resources to the
end that their enjoyment by the people may be guaranteed not only for the present
generation, but also for the generations to come.
o The so-called preferential right of subsistence or marginal fishermen to the use of marine resources
is not at all absolute. 
o In accordance with the Regalian Doctrine, marine resources belong to the State, and,
pursuant to the first paragraph of Section 2, Article XII,  their exploration, development and
utilization ... shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. 
o Moreover, their mandated protection, development, and conservation as necessarily
recognized by the framers of the Constitution, imply certain restrictions on whatever right
4
SEC. 149. Fishery Rentals, Fees and Charges. -- x x x
(b) The sangguniang bayan may:
(1) Grant fishery privileges to erect fish corrals, oyster, mussels or other aquatic beds or bangus fry areas, within a definite zone of the
municipal waters, as determined by it: Provided, however, That duly registered organizations and cooperatives of marginal fishermen
shall have preferential right to such fishery privileges 
 University of the Philippines College of Law | LocGov | D2021

of enjoyment there may be in favor of anyone.

o SC cited Oposa  duty of the State to protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
o LGC Section 165 (General Welfare) mentions this duty of the State.

RELEVANT TO TOPIC  How to interpret LGC Section 16? LGC?

o Section 5(c) of the LGC explicitly mandates that the general welfare provisions of the LGC shall be
liberally interpreted to give more powers to the local government units in accelerating economic
development and upgrading the quality of life for the people of the community.
o LGC vests municipalities with the power to grant fishery privileges in municipal waters and to
impose rentals, fees or charges therefor; to penalize, by appropriate ordinances, the use of
explosives, noxious or poisonous substances, electricity, muro-ami, and other deleterious methods
of fishing; and to prosecute any violation of the provisions of applicable fishery laws.
o Further, the sangguniang bayan, the  sangguniang panlungsod and the  sangguniang
panlalawigan  are  directed to enact ordinances for the general welfare of the municipality and its
inhabitants, which shall include, inter alia, ordinances that [p]rotect the environment and impose
appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the environment such as dynamite fishing and other
forms of destructive fishing ... and such other activities which result in pollution, acceleration of
eutrophication of rivers and lakes or of ecological imbalance.
o Finally, the centerpiece of LGC is the system of decentralization, as mandated by the Constitution
o Indispensable thereto is devolution and the LGC expressly provides that [a]ny provision on
a power of a local government unit shall be liberally interpreted in its favor, and in case of
doubt, any question thereon shall be resolved in favor of devolution of powers and of the
lower local government unit. 
o Any fair and reasonable doubt as to the existence of the power shall be interpreted in favor
of the local government unit concerned
o Devolution refers to the act by which the National Government confers power and authority upon
the various local government units to perform specific functions and responsibilities.
o One of the devolved powers enumerated in the section of the LGC on devolution is the enforcement
of fishery laws in municipal waters including the conservation of mangroves.
o This necessarily includes enactment of ordinances to effectively carry out such fishery laws
within the municipal waters.
o The term municipal waters, in turn, include not only streams, lakes, and tidal waters within
the municipality, not being the subject of private ownership and not comprised within the
national parks, public forest, timber lands, forest reserves, or fishery reserves, but also
marine waters included between two lines drawn perpendicularly to the general coastline
from points where the boundary lines of the municipality or city touch the sea at low tide
and a third line parallel with the general coastline and fifteen kilometers from it.
o These fishery laws which local government units may enforce under Section 17(b), (2), (i) in
municipal waters include:
o (1) P.D. No. 704;
o (2) P.D. No. 1015 which, inter alia, authorizes the establishment of a closed season in any
Philippine water if necessary for conservation or ecological purposes;
o (3) P.D. No. 1219 which provides for the exploration, exploitation, utilization, and
conservation of coral resources;
o (4) R.A. No. 5474, as amended by B.P. Blg. 58, which makes it unlawful for any person,
association, or corporation to catch or cause to be caught, sell, offer to sell, purchase, or
have in possession any of the fish specie called gobiidae or ipon during closed season; and
o (5) R.A. No. 6451 which prohibits and punishes electrofishing, as well as various issuances
of the BFAR.
5
SEC. 16. General Welfare.-- Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied
therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are
essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure
and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the
people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological
capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their residents,
maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants. 
 University of the Philippines College of Law | LocGov | D2021

o To those specifically devolved insofar as the control and regulation of fishing in municipal waters
and the protection of its marine environment are concerned, must be added the following:
o 1. Issuance of permits to construct fish cages within municipal waters;
o 2. Issuance of permits to gather aquarium fishes within municipal waters;
o 3. Issuance of permits to gather kapis shells within municipal waters;
o 4. Issuance of permits to gather/culture shelled mollusks within municipal waters;
o 5. Issuance of licenses to establish seaweed farms within municipal waters;
o 6. Issuance of licenses to establish culture pearls within municipal waters;
o 7. Issuance of auxiliary invoice to transport fish and fishery products; and
o 8. Establishment of closed season in municipal waters.
o In light then of the principles of decentralization and devolution enshrined in the LGC and the
powers granted to local government units under Section 16 (the General Welfare Clause), and under
Sections 149, 447 (a) (1) (vi), 458 (a) (1) (vi) and 468 (a) (1) (vi), which unquestionably involve the
exercise of police power, the validity of the questioned Ordinances cannot be doubted.

NOTES
W/N the petitions filed should be dismissed on lack of cause of action? YES (PROCEDURAL)
FIRST SET OF PETITIONERS (TANOS et al  FISHERMEN charged criminally with violation of the Ordinance
o Their petition must fail on the ground of prematurity amounting to a lack of cause of action. 
o There is no showing that the said petitioners, as the accused in the criminal cases, have filed motions to quash the informations
therein and that the same were denied. 
o The ground available for such motions is that the facts charged therein do not constitute an offense because the
ordinances in question are unconstitutional.
o Even if he petitioners did file motions to quash, the denial thereof would not forthwith give rise to a cause of action under Rule
65.
o The general rule is that where a motion to quash is denied, the remedy therefrom is not certiorari, but for the party aggrieved
thereby to go to trial without prejudice to reiterating special defenses involved in said motion, and if, after trial on the merits of
adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom.
o Even where in an exceptional circumstance such denial may be the subject of a special civil action for  certiorari, a
motion for reconsideration must have to be filed to allow the court concerned an opportunity to correct its errors,
unless such motion may be dispensed with because of existing exceptional circumstances.
o Finally, even if a motion for reconsideration has been filed and denied, the remedy under Rule 65 is still unavailable absent any
showing of the grounds provided for in Section 1 thereof.

SECOND SET OF PETITIONERS  FISHERMEN and MARINE MERCHANTS who will be adversely affected
o As to the second set of petitioners, the instant petition is obviously one for DECLARATORY RELIEF, i.e., for a declaration that the
Ordinances in question are a nullity ... for being unconstitutional.
o Their petition must fail as this Court is not possessed of original jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief even if only
questions of law are involved, it being settled that the Court merely exercises appellate jurisdiction over such petitions.

W/N petition should be dismissed for disregarding hierarchy of courts? YES

o There is here a clear disregard of the hierarchy of courts, and no special and important reason or exceptional or compelling
circumstance has been adduced why direct recourse to us should be allowed. 
o A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special
and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. 
o It is a policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Courts time and attention which are better devoted to those
matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the Courts docket.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE STUFF

o The  Ordinances find full support under R.A. No. 7611, otherwise known as the Strategic Environmental Plan (SEP) for Palawan
Act which adopts a comprehensive framework for the sustainable development of Palawan compatible with protecting and
enhancing the natural resources and endangered environment of the province, which shall serve to guide the local government
of Palawan and the government agencies concerned in the formulation and implementation of plans, programs and projects
affecting said province.
 University of the Philippines College of Law | LocGov | D2021

o Both Ordinances have two principal objectives or purposes: (1) to establish a closed season for the species of fish or aquatic
animals covered therein for a period of five years, and (2) to protect the corals of the marine waters of the City of Puerto
Princesa and the Province of Palawan from further destruction due to illegal fishing activities.
o The accomplishment of the first objective is well within the devolved power to enforce fishery laws in municipal waters, such as
P.D. No. 1015, which allows the establishment of closed seasons.
o The realization of the second objective falls within both the general welfare clause of the LGC and the express mandate
thereunder to cities and provinces to protect the environment and impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the
environment.

Concurring Opinion – Mendoza, J.

 J. Mendoza agreed with the results, and wanted to emphasize (1) the importance of upholding the presumption of validity of
ordinances in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and (2) the importance of hierarchy of courts.
 The Ordinances are police power measures enacted pursuant to the LGC of 1991 which makes it their duty to enact measures to
protect the environment.
 Refuting the dissent of J. Bellosillo – There is no basis in the claim that the subject of these Ordinances lies within the
competence of the national government, for the matter concerns a local problem (destruction of aquatic resources in Palawan).
o The Department of Agriculture left the solution to the problem (damaged coral reefs) to be worked out by the local
authorities. It would set back the policy of decentralization were the Court to sustain J. Bellosillo’s claim.
 Petitioners failed to present facts to overthrow the factual bases of the Ordinances: (1) that as a result of the use of cyanide
and other noxious substances for fishing, only 5% of the coral reefs in Palawan was in excellent condition and 75% had been
heavily destroyed; (2) that because of the thriving market for live fish and lobster here and abroad, there was rampant illicit
trade in live fish.
 The principal aim of the ordinance is the preservation and rehabilitation of the corals. Only indirectly is it also concerned with
prohibiting the use of cyanide. Contention that the ordinance sweeps overbroadly (for not distinguishing between catching fish
by lawful method and catching by cyanide) misses the principal purpose.
 The Ordinances do not deprive small fishermen of their means of livelihood and occupation. The Ordinances are limited in
scope (apply only to certain species) and effectivity (5 years only).
 As to the contention of Office Order No. 23 being vague – Use common sense. Since the office order seeks to implement
Ordinance No. 15-92, resort must be made to the ordinance in order to determine the scope.
 Lastly, judicial invalidation of the Ordinances could undermine the ongoing trial of Tano, et al., amounting to shortcircuiting the
criminal process.

Dissenting Opinion – Bellosillo, J.

 The General Welfare Clause is not the sole criterion to determine the validity or constitutionality of the Ordinances.
 The well-established tests of a valid ordinance are: (a) It must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (b) It must not be
unfair or oppressive; (c) It must not be partial or discriminatory; (d) It must prohibit, but may regulate, trade; (e) It must be
general and consistent with public policy; and (f) It must not be unreasonable.
o LGC of 1991 expressly repealed only Sections 16 and 29 of P.D. No. 704 (Fisheries Decree of 1975). Section 4 of the said
P.D., which pertains to Jurisdiction of the BFAR, remains valid:
xxx That all municipal or city ordinances and resolutions affecting fishing and fisheries and any disposition
thereunder shall be submitted to the Secretary [of Agriculture] for appropriate action and shall have full force
and effect only upon his approval.
 Repeal by implication is not presumed. Since the Ordinances were not approved by the Secretary, they are null and
void.
 LGC is a general law. P.D. No. 704 is a special law dealing with the protection and conservation of fishing and aquatic
resources including those in the municipal waters. Special law prevails over the general law.
o Likewise, jurisdiction of the Secretary of DENR over coral resources, as provided under P.D. No. 1219, remains.
 While police power is inherent in the State, it is not so in municipal corporations or local governments. In this case, Congress
enacted LGC of 1991, providing the standards and limitations in the exercise of police power by the LGUs.
o Sec. 3 (i). LGUs shall share with the national government the responsibility in the management and maintenance of
ecological balance within their territorial jurisdiction, subject to the provisions of this Code and national policies.
 National policies refer to existing policies of DENR and other government agencies, embodied in existing laws, rules
and regulations (i.e. P.D. Nos. 704, 1219, and 1015).
 LGUs may approve ordinances protecting the environment which specifically penalize those acts which are already prohibited by
the existing laws on illegal fishing.
 There was undue delegation of powers. The Objective of the Ordinances (protection and conservation of our fisheries) can be
attained by reasonable restrictions rather than absolute prohibition. Local governments are not possessed with prohibitory
powers but only regulatory powers under the general welfare clause.
 University of the Philippines College of Law | LocGov | D2021

Finally, the prohibitions (i.e. absolute ban of shipment of live fishes and lobsters, absolute ban on catching fish by any means) in the
Ordinances are not germane to the accomplishment of their goals (i.e. free the marine resources of cyanide and obnoxious
substances, protect corals from destruction by illegal fishin