Tano vs. Socrates

TANO vs.
SOCRATES
G.R. No. 110249 ; August 21, 1997
DAVIDE, JR., J:
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On December 15, 1992, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto Princesa enacted
Ordinance no. 15-92 which banned the shipment of live fish and lobster outside Puerto Princesa
City from January 1, 1993 to January 1, 1998. And, To implement said city ordinance, then
Acting City Mayor Amado L. Lucero issued Office Order No. 23, Series of 1993 dated January
22, 1993 which required persons engaged in any trade/profession or having in his possession
articles for which a permit is required to be had, to obtain a first a Mayor’s Permit.
Likewise, on February 19, 1993, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan enacted
Resolution No. 33, Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993 which prohibits the catching, gathering,
possessing, buying, selling and shipment of live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms for a
period of 5 years in and coming from Palawan waters.
Petitioners assail these ordinances by the Respondents for being unconstitutional, as it
deprives all fishermen of Palawan of their only means of livelihood and from performing their
lawful occupation and trade.
Petitioners Alfredo Tano, Baldomero Tano, Teocenes Midello, Angel de Mesa, Eulogio
Tremocha, and Felipe Ongonion, Jr. and Robert and Virginia Lim were charged criminally.
Petitioners directly invoked the original jurisdiction of the SC. They contend that the ordinances
deprived them of due process and of their livelihood therefore null and void, and that the criminal
cases against petitioners should be dismissed
Respondents defended the validity of the ordinances as a valid exercise of the Provincial
Government’s power under the general welfare clause (Section 16, LGC) and its specific power to
protect the environment and impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the
environment. The answered that, 1.) There is no violation of the due process and equal protection
clauses. 2.) They conducted public hearings before enacting the ordinances, which have a lawful
purpose and reasonable means. 3.) Ordinance applied equally to all those belonging to a class, as
there is substantial distinction between fishermen who catch and sell live fish (use sodium cyanide
to do this) and those who don’t.
A TRO was issued to cease and desist from proceeding with the criminal case, by motion
of Petitioners.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE:
Petitioners caption their petition as one for "Certiorari, Injunction With Preliminary and
Mandatory Injunction, with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order" and pray that this Court:
(1) declare as unconstitutional: (a) Ordinance No. 15-92, dated 15 December 1992, of the
APIADO, ELYN D.
Sangguniang Panglungsod of Puerto Princesa; (b) Office Order No. 23, Series of 1993, dated 22
January 1993, issued by Acting City Mayor Amado L. Lucero of Puerto Princesa City; and (c)
Resolution No. 33, Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993, dated 19 February 1993, of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Palawan; (2) enjoin the enforcement thereof; and (3) restrain respondents
Provincial and City Prosecutors of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City and Judges of the Regional
Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts 1 and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Palawan from
assuming jurisdiction over and hearing cases concerning the violation of the Ordinances and of
the Office Order.
More appropriately, the petition is, and shall be treated as, a special civil action for
certiorari and prohibition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the ordinances are unconstitutional.
RULING:
No. The court recognized these laws as a valid exercise of the police power of the LGUs
to protect public interests. In light then of the principles of decentralization and devolution
enshrined in the Local Government Code 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.
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. It is incorrect to say that the
challenged Ordinance of the City of Puerto Princesa is invalid or unenforceable because it was
not approved by the Secretary of the DENR.
More importantly, the right to a balanced and healthful ecology has been emphasized, as
enshrined in Section 16, Article II, 1987 Philippine Constitution, which states:
The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
The court decided that such right carries with it a correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment.
The general welfare provisions in the Local Government Code of 1991 shall be liberally
interpreted to give more powers to local government units in accelerating economic development
and upgrading the quality of life for the people in the community. Power is given to the LGUs to
enact fishery laws in its municipal waters which necessarily includes the enactment of ordinances
in order to effectively carry out the enforcement of fishery laws in their local community. The
ordinances in question are meant precisely to protect and conserve marine resources to the end
APIADO, ELYN D.
that their enjoyment by the people may be guaranteed not only for the present generation, but also
for the generations to come, as what has been provided for in Section 7 of Article XIII of the
Constitution. Thus, aside from dismissing the petition for lack of merit, the court even
commended the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto Princesa and Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Palawan for exercising the requisite political will to enact urgently needed legislation to protect
and enhance the marine environment.
PRINCIPLES/DOCTRINES:
The centerpiece of Local Government Code is the system of decentralization.

Indispensable to decentralization is devolution. Any 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. Any fair and
reasonable doubt as to the existence of the power shall be interpreted in favor of the local
government unit concerned. "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.”
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. This
necessarily includes the enactment of ordinances to effectively carry out such fishery laws within
the municipal waters.
APIADO, ELYN D.

Tano vs. Socrates

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tano vs. Socrates

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tano vs. Socrates

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TANO vs.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

Whether or not the ordinances are unconstitutional.

The centerpiece of Local Government Code is the system of decentralization.

You might also like