Lawmakers seek House probe into impacts of allowing big fishers in municipal waters

This comes after several fishers’ associations and advocacy groups trooped to the Supreme Court, petitioning that they be allowed to intervene in Mercidar Fishing Corporation’s case.

Kabataan Representative Raoul Manuel, together with ACT Teachers Representative France Castro and Gabriela Representative Arlene Brosas, filed House Resolution No. 2202.

The lawmakers cited experts’ initial computations that only 2% of Philippine waters would be left to small fisherfolk if municipal waters were opened to all commercial operators.

They also cited data from nonprofit organization Oceana, which saw rampant illegal commercial fishing in the municipal waters of 10 municipalities, including Zamboanga City and Cuyo, Palawan.

In 2024, the Supreme Court First Division affirmed the Malabon Regional Trial Court’s 2023 decision allowing Mercidar to fish within municipal waters except in waters below seven fathoms. The decision deemed some provisions of the Fisheries Code unconstitutional.

“Malinaw para sa concerned sectors na ang desisyong nabanggit ay mapanganib sa dalawang bagay: una, epekto sa kabuhayan ng ating mga kababayang mangingisda at mamamalakaya, at pangalawa, sa ating kalikasan at yamang dagat,” Manuel said during a plenary session on Monday, January 27.

(It’s clear to concerned sectors that this decision is harmful, first, to the livelihood of fellow fisherfolk and, second, to the environment and marine resources.)

The youth leader called on other lawmakers to hear the pleas of fisherfolk organizations and advocates.

Oceana, one of the groups that petitioned the High Court to let them intervene in the case, welcomed the resolution filed by the progressive lawmakers.

“The Supreme Court ruling, if it becomes final and executory, sets back the reforms for science-based solutions to the declining state of our fisheries and marine resources,” Oceana said in a statement.

During the same plenary session, Cagayan de Oro City 2nd District Representative Rufus Rodriguez reacted to the SC First Division’s dismissal of the government’s petition because it was filed late.

“This is the general rule, but so many times, the Supreme Court [has] admitted pleadings even beyond the reglementary period especially when public interest so requires,” Rodriguez said.

The Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (DA-BFAR) failed to file their petition on time, the SC’s August 2024 decision said, making Malabon RTC’s decision final and executory.

The DA-BFAR already filed a motion for reconsideration before the SC, according to a January 3 statement.

– Rappler.com