Title
Tano vs. Salvador
Case
G.R. No. 110249
Decision Date
Aug 21, 1997
A 1992-93 Puerto Princesa ordinance banning live fish/lobster shipments to protect coral reefs was upheld as constitutional, balancing environmental preservation with livelihood concerns.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 110249)

Facts:

  • Parties and challenged enactments
    • Petitioners
      • Eighty-five individuals (mostly fishermen) and the Airline Shippers Association of Palawan.
      • Claiming deprivation of their livelihood and trade by local ordinances.
    • Respondents
      • Provincial and city officials of Palawan and Puerto Princesa (governor, mayor, sanggunian members).
      • Philippine National Police, prosecutors, and judges in Palawan and Puerto Princesa.
  • Local environmental regulations and implementing order
    • Puerto Princesa City Ordinance No. 15-92 (Dec. 15, 1992; eff. Jan. 1, 1993–Jan. 1, 1998)
      • Banned shipment of “all live fish and lobster” outside the city, except sea bass, catfish, mudfish, milkfish fries.
      • Penalties: up to ₱5,000 fine, 12 months’ imprisonment, permit cancellation.
    • Office Order No. 23, Series of 1993 (Jan. 22, 1993)
      • Authorized city inspectors to seize and hold live-fish and lobster shipments lacking the required mayor’s permit and BFAR clearance.
    • Palawan Sanggunian Resolution No. 33 and Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993 (Feb. 19, 1993)
      • Prohibited catching, possessing, buying, selling, shipment of eight specified live marine coral-dwelling species for five years.
      • Penalties: up to ₱5,000 fine, 6–12 months’ imprisonment, confiscation and forfeiture of paraphernalia.
  • Enforcement actions and criminal charges
    • Implementation led to seizures of catch and cargos, halting petitioners’ fishing and shipment businesses.
    • Criminal Case No. 93-05-C (1st MCTC of Cuyo-Agutaya-Magsaysay): Tano, de Mesa, others charged under Provincial Ordinance No. 2.
    • City Prosecutor’s charges against Robert and Virginia Lim for violating City Ordinance No. 15-92 and Provincial Ordinance No. 2.
  • Supreme Court proceedings
    • Petition filed June 4, 1993 as certiorari, prohibition, injunction with prayer for TRO.
    • TRO issued Nov. 11, 1993 enjoining RTG from arraigning petitioners in Criminal Case No. 11223; subsequently lifted.
    • Solicitor General and local governments filed comments; memoranda submitted; DA and BFAR impleaded; petition treated under Rule 65.

Issues:

  • Jurisdictional and procedural issues
    • Whether petitioners prematurely resorted to the Supreme Court without first moving to quash or availing of remedies in lower courts.
    • Whether the Court has original jurisdiction over declaratory relief on local ordinances.
  • Merits of constitutionality
    • Whether City Ordinance No. 15-92, Office Order No. 23, and Provincial Ordinance No. 2 exceed local government powers under the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code (R.A. 7160).
    • Whether the enactments violate petitioners’ due process, equal protection, and right to livelihood, particularly subsistence fishermen’s preferential rights (Art. XII, Sec. 2; Art. XIII, Secs. 2, 7).
    • Whether prior approval by the Secretary of Agriculture or Environment and Natural Resources was required under P.D. No. 704 or P.D. No. 1219.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.