Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998: Governing Law

NATURAL RESOURCES and ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS | Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998
AT TY . DAR R Y L JU NE L U IG I T APE |1
PHILIPPINE FISHERIES CODE OF 1998

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8550, AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10654
GOVERNING LAW
RA No. 8550, otherwise known as “The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998”, was enacted on February 17,
1998 to provide for the development and conservation of the fisheries and aquatic resources and
integrating all laws pertinent thereto.
AMENDMENTS
RA 8550 (1998) RA 10654 (2015)
Chapter VI of RA 8550 Repealed with a New Chapter VI on Prohibitions and Penalties
Added new Chapter VII on Administrative Adjudication

(inserted after Chapter VI of RA 8550)
- None -
o Empowering the DENR to impose the administrative
fines and penalties provided in this Code
EVOLUTION OF LEGISLATION GOVERNING FISHERIES
Pre-colonial Period
Concept of communal property under a datu/village chieftain

Customary laws on fishing
Spanish Period
Jura regalia was adopted when the Philippines was under the Spanish Crown
“Law of Waters” of 1866, extended by the Spanish Royal Decree of August 8, 1866 during
the reign of Queen Esabella II, which made classifications of public waters or of public
ownership
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Group 6: AUDENCIA | CHING | GARCIA | NERVES | PAGATPAT

American Period
Protection of Fish and Game Act of 1916 (Act No. 2590)

The first legislation on biodiversity protection in the Philippines
Fisheries Act of 1932 (Act No. 4003)

Classified public fisheries according to their government and disposition:
national, municipal and reserve fisheries. Falling under national fisheries are: 1) deep
sea or offshore fishing; 2) marine mollusca fisheries; 3) sponge fisheries; 4)
hawksbill turtle fisheries; and 5) inland fisheries.
Under municipal fisheries is within three nautical miles at most from the
shoreline of the municipality.
Martial Law Period
Promoted and encouraged the maximum economic utilization of fishery resources.

Encouraged and promoted the exportation of fish and fishery aquatic products.
Mandated a policy of accelerated fishpond development and promoted the decline
of mangrove forests.
Post-EDSA Period
Fisheries Code of 1998 (Republic Act No. 8550)

Declared policy to limit access to the fishery and aquatic resources of the
Philippines for the exclusive use and enjoyment of Filipino citizens.
Principle of policy is the protection of municipal fishermen. The law stipulated
that fishery and aquatic resources shall be managed in a manner consistent with
the concept of integrated coastal area management
Sec. 2. Policy Considerations

The State shall ensure the attainment of the following objectives:
 Conservation, protection and sustained management of the country’s fishery and
aquatic resources
 Poverty alleviation and the provision of supplementary livelihood among municipal
fisherfolk
 Improvement of productivity of aquaculture within ecological limit
 Optimal utilization of off-shore and deep-sea resources and
 Upgrading of post-harvest technology
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Sec. 3. Application of the Law

The provisions of the Code shall be enforced in:
 all Philippine waters including other waters over which the Philippines has
sovereignty and jurisdiction, and the country’s 200- nautical mile EEZ (Exclusive
Economic Zone) and continental shelf;
 all aquatic and fishery resources
 all lands devoted to aquaculture, or businesses and activities relating to fishery,
whether private or public lands
INTERNAL WATERS
 All waters landwards from the baseline of the territory
 Include the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago (known as the
archipelagic waters)
TERRITORIAL SEA
 A belt of sea outwards from the baseline up to 12 nautical miles beyond.
 Following the straight baseline doctrine
CONTIGUOUS ZONE
 Area of water not exceeding 24 nautical miles from the baseline
 Exercise of authority to the extent necessary to prevent infringement of its custom, fiscal,
immigration or sanitation authority over its territorial waters or territory
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE

 An area extending not more than 200 nautical miles beyond the baseline.
 The coastal state has the rights over the economic resources of the sea, seabed and subsoil – but
the right does not affect the right of navigation and overflight of other states.
Sec. 5. Use of Philippine Waters

Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution provides:
“The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic water, territorial sea,
and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusive to Filipino
citizens.”
Consistent with the foregoing constitutional provision, Sec. 5 of RA No. 8550 provides that:
“The use and exploitation of the fishery and aquatic resources in the Philippine waters
shall be reserved exclusively to Filipinos. Research and survey activities may be allowed
under strict regulations that would also benefit Filipino citizens.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________

UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea)

 Article 192 mandates States to protect and preserve the marine environment
 Article 194 obligates States parties to “take all measures necessary to ensure that activities under
their jurisdiction or control are so conducted as to not cause damage pollution to other States
and their environment.”
MAGALLONA v. ERMITA
G.R. 187167 | August 16, 2011
Facts:
In 1961, Congress passed R.A. 3046 demarcating the maritime baselines of the Philippines as an Archipelagic State
pursuant to UNCLOS I of 9158, codifying the sovereignty of State parties over their territorial sea. Then in 1968, it
was amended by R.A. 5446, correcting some errors in R.A. 3046 reserving the drawing of baselines around Sabah.
In 2009, it was again amended by R.A. 9522, to be compliant with the UNCLOS III of 1984. The requirements
complied with are: to shorten one baseline, to optimize the location of some basepoints and classify KIG and
Scarborough Shoal as ‘regime of islands’.
Petitioner now assails the constitutionality of the law for three main reasons:
1. It reduces the Philippine maritime territory under Article 1;
2. It opens the country’s waters to innocent and sea lanes passages hence undermining our sovereignty
and
security; and
3. Treating KIG and Scarborough as ‘regime of islands’ would weaken our claim over those
territories.
Issue:
Whether R.A. 9522 is constitutional?
Ruling:
1. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with acquisition or loss of territory. it is just a codified norm that regulates
conduct of States. On the other hand, RA 9522 is a baseline law to mark out basepoints along coasts, serving as
geographic starting points to measure. it merely notices the international community of the scope of our maritime
space.
2. If passages is the issue, domestically, the legislature can enact legislation designating routes within the
archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and sea lanes passages. but in the absence of such, international law
norms operate.
The fact that for archipelagic states, their waters are subject to both passages does not place them in lesser footing
vis a vis continental coastal states. Moreover, RIOP is a customary international law, no modern state can invoke
its sovereignty to forbid such passage.
3. On the KIG issue, RA 9522 merely followed the basepoints mapped by RA 3046 and in fact, it increased the
Philippines’ total maritime space. Moreover, the itself commits the Philippines’ continues claim of sovereignty and
jurisdiction over KIG.
If not, it would be a breach to 2 provisions of the UNCLOS III:

Art. 47 (3): ‘drawing of basepoints shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general
configuration of the archipelago’.
Art 47 (2): the length of baselines shall not exceed 100 mm.
KIG and SS are far from our baselines, if we draw to include them, we’ll breach the rules: that it should follow the
natural configuration of the archipelago.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Sec. 4. Definition of Terms

Aquatic resources – includes fish, all other aquatic flora and fauna and other living
resources of the aquatic environment, including, but not limited to, salt and corals.
Closed season – the period during which the taking of specified fishery species by a
specified fishing gear is prohibited in a specified area or areas in the Philippine waters.
Commercial fishing – the taking of fishery species by passive or active gear for trade,
business and profit beyond subsistence or sports fishing, to be further classified as:
 Small scale commercial fishing – fishing with passive or active gear utilizing fishing
vessels of 3.1 gross tons (GT) up to twenty (20) GT;
 Medium scale commercial fishing – fishing with passive or active gear
utilizing fishing vessels of 20.1 gross tons (GT) up to one hundred fifty
(150) GT;
 Large commercial fishing – fishing with passive or active gear utilizing fishing vessels
of more than one hundred fifty (150) GT Municipal waters – 15 kilometers from
coastline.
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
The Department of Agriculture (DA) is the government agency responsible for the promotion of
agricultural development by providing the policy framework, public investments, and support services
needed for domestic and export-oriented business enterprises.
It shall be the primary concern of the DA to improve farm in come and generate work opportunities for
farmers, fishermen, and other rural workers.
Sec. 7. Access to Fishery Resources

The DA shall issue such number of licenses and permits for the conduct of fishery
activities subject to the limits of the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) of the resources as
determined by scientific studies or best available evidence.
Preference shall be given to resource users in the local communities adjacent or nearest
to the municipal waters.
Sec. 8 Catch Ceiling Limitation

The DA Secretary may prescribe limitations or quota on the total quantity of fish
captured, for specified period of time and specified area based on the best available
evidence.
Sec. 9. Establishment of Closed Season
_____________________________________________________________________________________

The Secretary may declare a closed season in any or all Philippine waters outside the
boundary of municipal waters and in bays, for conservation and ecological purposes. The
Secretary may include waters under the jurisdiction of special agencies, municipal waters
and bays, and or other areas reserved for the use of the municipal fisherfolk. This shall be
done only upon the concurrence and approval of such special agencies, and concerned
LGUs.
CHAPTER III
BUREAU OF FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES
FUNCTIONS (Sec. 63-65, RA 8550)

The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) is a line bureau under the DA. It shall have the
following functions:
 prepare and implement a Comprehensive National Fisheries Industry Development Plan
(CNFIDP);
 issue licenses for the operation of commercial fishing vessels;
 issue identification cards free of charge to fishworkers engaged in commercial fishing;
 monitor and review joint fishing agreements between Filipino citizens and foreigners;
 formulate and implement (CNFIDP);
 establish and maintain a Comprehensive Fishery Information System (CFIS);
 provide extensive development support services in all aspects of fisheries production,
processing, and marketing;
 provide advisory services and technical assistance;
 coordinate efforts relating to fishery production;
 advise and coordinate with LGUs on the maintenance of proper sanitation and hygienic
practices in fish markets and fish landing areas;
 establish a corps of specialists in collaboration with DND, DILG, and DFA for the efficient
monitoring, control, and surveillance of fishing activities... and provide for necessary facilities,
equipment and training therefore;
 implement an inspection system for import and export of fishery/ aquatic products;
 coordinate with LGUs and other concerned agencies for the establishment of productivity
enhancing and market development programs in fishing communities;
 develop value-added fishery products for domestic consumption and export; recommend
measures for the protection/enhancement of fishery industries;
 assist LGUs in developing their technical capability in the development, management,
regulation, conservation, and protection of the fishery resources;
 enforce all laws, formulate and enforce all rules and regulations governing the conservation
and management of fishery resources, except in municipal waters, and settle conflicts of
resource use and allocation;
 formulate rules and regulations for the conservation and management of straddling fish
stocks and highly migratory fish stocks; and
_____________________________________________________________________________________

 perform such other related functions which shall promote the development, conservation,
management, protection and utilization of fisheries and aquatic resources.
COMPOSITION OF BFAR (Sec. 66, RA 8550)

The BFAR is headed by a Director and assisted by two (2) Asst. Directors who shall supervise the
administrative and technical services of the bureau respectively.
ARTICLE I
MUNICIPAL FISHERIES
Q: Who has Jurisdiction over municipal waters?

A: The municipality/city government (Sec. 16, RA 8550).
The municipality/city government is responsible for the:

1. Management,
2. Conservation,
3. Development,
4. Protection, and
5. Utilization of all fishery/ aquatic resources within their respective municipal waters.
Duties:
1. Enact appropriate ordinances in accordance with the National Fisheries policy.
 The ordinances shall be reviewed pursuant to RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991)
by the sanggunian of the province which has jurisdiction over the same.
2. Grant fishery privileges (exclusive authority)
Sec. 149 of the LGC

The duly registered fisher folk organizations shall have the preference in the grant of
fishery rights by the municipality/city council.
Such organization then may be vested with jurisdiction over municipal waters. Some agencies created
under special laws vested with jurisdiction over municipal waters are Laguna Lake Development Authority
and Palawan Council for Sustainable Development.
GENERAL RULE: Resident municipal fisher folk of the municipality concerned and their organizations shall
have priority to exploit municipal fishery areas of the said municipality
EXCEPTION: Whenever it is determined by the LGU’s and the DA that a municipal water is overfished
based on available data or in danger of being overfished
_____________________________________________________________________________________

The Municipal Government may authorize small and medium commercial fishing vessels to operate the
10.1 to 15 kilometer area from the shoreline in municipal waters as defined herein provided the following
are met:
1. No commercial fishing in municipal waters with depth less than 7 fathoms as certified by the
appropriate agency;
2. Fishing activities utilizing methods and gears that are determined to be consistent with national
policies set by DA;
3. Prior consultation, through public hearing, with the M/CFARMC has been conducted.
LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. CA

G.R. No. 110120 | March 16, 1994
Facts:
The Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) was created through RA No. 4850 in order to execute the policy
towards environmental protection and sustainable development so as to accelerate the development and balanced
growth of the Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces and towns.
Sec. 4(k) specifically provides that the LLDA shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue permit for the use of lake
waters for any projects affecting the said lake.
Upon implementation of RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), the municipalities assumed exclusive
jurisdiction & authority to issue fishing privileges within their municipal waters since Sec. 149 thereof provides:
“Municipal corporations shall have the authority to grant fishery privileges in the municipal waters and impose
rental fees or charges therefore…”
Big fishpen operators took advantage of the occasion to establish fishpens & fish cages to the consternation of the
LLDA. Unregulated fishpens and fish cages, as of July 1995, occupied almost 1/3 of the entire lake water surface
area, increasing the occupation drastically from 7000 hectares in 1990 to almost 21,000 hectares in 1995.
The implementation of separate independent policies in fish cages & fish pen operation and the indiscriminate grant
of fishpen permits by the lakeshore municipalities have saturated the lake with fishpens, thereby aggravating the
current environmental problems and ecological stress of Laguna Lake.
The LLDA then served notice to the general public that:

(1) Fishpens, cages & other aqua-culture structures unregistered with the LLDA as of March 31, 1993 are
declared illegal;
(2) Those declared illegal shall be subject to demolition by the Presidential Task Force for Illegal fishpen and
Illegal Fishing; and
(3) Owners of those declared illegal shall be criminally charged with violation of Sec.39-A of RA 4850 as
amended by PD 813.
A month later, the LLDA sent notices advising the owners of the illegally constructed fishpens, fishcages and other
aqua-culture structures advising them to dismantle their respective structures otherwise demolition shall be
effected.
Issue:
Which agency of the Government — the Laguna Lake Development Authority or the towns and municipalities
comprising the region — should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake and its environs insofar as the issuance
of permits for fishery privileges is concerned?
Held:
The court held that the LLDA has the authority to grant water rights and other fishery privileges in
Laguna de Bay.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

R.A. 7160, although a later law, has not repealed the provisions of R.A. 4850. The charter of the LLDA constitutes a
special law. R.A. 7160 is a general law.
It is basic in statutory construction that the enactment of a later legislation which is a general law cannot be
construed to have repealed a special law.
The court further held that the power of LLDA to grant permits for fish pens, fish cages and other aquaculture
structures is for the purpose of effectively regulating and monitoring activities in Laguna Bay region and for the
lake quality and control management. The charter of LLDA which embodies a valid exercise of police powers should
prevail over the LGC on matters affecting Laguna de Bay. On the other hand, the power of Local Government Units
to issue fishing privileges was clearly granted for revenue purposes.
TANO VS. SOCRATES

G.R. No. 110249 | August 21, 1997
Facts:
On Dec 15, 1992, the Sangguniang Panglungsod ng Puerto Princesa enacted an ordinance banning the shipment of
all live fish and lobster outside Puerto Princesa City from January 1, 1993 to January 1, 1998.
Subsequently the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Provincial Government of Palawan enacted a resolution prohibiting
the catching, gathering, possessing, buying, selling, and shipment of a several species of live marine coral dwelling
aquatic organisms for 5 years, in and coming from Palawan waters.
Petitioners claimed that the following ordinances violate Article XII Sec. 2 and Article XIII Sec. 2 and 7 of the 1987
Constitution.
Issue:
Whether or not the challenged ordinances are unconstitutional?
Ruling:
The challenged ordinances are constitutional. Upholding the validity of the ordinances, the court ruled that
the same are police power measures, enacted by the province of Palawan and the city of Puerto Princesa, pursuant
to the LGC which makes it in fact their duty to enact measures to “protect the environment and impose appropriate
penalties for acts which endanger the environment, such as dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive
fishing”
The court also defined the meaning of “marginal fisherman” and “subsistence fisherman”. 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. While “subsistence fisherman” is one whose catch yields but the
irreducible minimum for his livelihood.
Section 2, Article XII aims primarily not to bestow any right to subsistence fishermen, but to lay stress on the duty
of the state to protect its nation’s marine wealth. On the other hand, Section 7, Article XIII speaks not only of the
use of communal marine and fishing resources but of their protection, development and conservation
According to the court, the so called “preferential right” of subsistence or marginal fishermen to the use of marine
resources is not at all absolute. In accordance with the Regalian doctrine, marine resources belong to the state and
pursuant to the 1987 Constitution, their exploration, development and utilization shall be under the full control and
supervision of the State.
CHAPTER II
COMMERCIAL FISHERIES
Sec. 26. Commercial Fishing Vessel License and Other Licenses
_____________________________________________________________________________________

A T T Y . D A R R Y L J U N E L U I G I T A P E | 10
A license from the Department, with a period of which shall be prescribed by the
Department, should be secured first in order to operate a commercial fishing vessel, pearl
fishing vessel or fishing vessel for scientific, research or educational purposes, or engage
in any fishery activity, or seek employment as a fishworker or pearl diver.
EXCEPTION: Fishing vessel engaged in scientific, research or educational

purposes within Philippine waters pursuant to an international agreement of
which the Philippines is a signatory and which agreement defines the status,
privileges and obligations of said vessel and its crew and the non-Filipino officials
of the international agency under which said vessel operates;
Members of the crew of a fishing vessel used for commercial fishing shall be considered
as fisherfolk except the duly licensed and/or authorized patrons, marine engineers, radio
operators and cooks;
All skippers/master fishers shall be required to undertake an orientation training on

detection of fish caught by illegal means before they can be issued their fishworker
licenses;
Licensed large commercial fishing vessels shall be allowed to operate only in Philippine
waters seven (7) or more fathoms deep, the depth to be certified by the NAMRIA, and
subject to the conditions that may be stated therein and the rules and regulations that
may be promulgated by the Department.
Sec. 27. Persons Eligible for Commercial Fishing Vessel License

No commercial fishing vessel license shall be issued except to:
1. citizens of the Philippines,
2. partnerships or to associations, cooperatives or corporations duly registered in
the Philippines with at least sixty percent (60%) of the capital stock owned by
Filipino citizens.
No licensee shall sell, transfer or assign, directly or indirectly, his stock or interest therein
to any person not qualified to hold a license. Any such transfer, sale or assignment shall
be null and void and shall not be registered in the books of the association, cooperative
or corporation.
For purposes of commercial fishing, the licensee shall secure Certificates of Philippine
Registry and other documents necessary for fishing operations from the concerned
agencies and such commercial fishing vessel license shall be valid for a period to be
determined by the Department.
Sec. 32. Fishing by Philippine Commercial Fishing Fleet in International Waters

For fishing vessels of Philippine registry to operate in international waters or waters of
other countries which allow such fishing operations, they should:
_____________________________________________________________________________________

1. Comply with the safety, manning and other requirements of the Philippine Coast
Guard, Maritime Industry Authority and other agencies concerned;
2. Secure an international fishing permit and certificate of clearance from the
Department;
3. Fish caught by such vessels shall be considered as caught in Philippine waters
and therefore not subject to all import duties and taxes only when the same is
landed in duly designated fish landings and fish ports in the Philippines.
Authorized Landing Sites

1. Landing ports established by canneries, seafood processors; and
2. All fish landing sites established prior to the effectivity of this Code
Fishworkers on board Philippine registered fishing vessels conducting fishing activities

beyond the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone are not considered as overseas Filipino
workers.
Sec. 45. Disposition of Public Lands for Fishery Purposes

Public lands such as tidal swamps, mangroves, marshes, foreshore lands and ponds
suitable for fishery operations shall not be disposed or alienated.
Upon effectivity of this Code, Fishpond Lease Agreement (FLA) may be issued for public
lands that may be declared available for fishpond development primarily to qualified
fisherfolk cooperatives/associations.
Upon the expiration of existing FLAs the current lessees shall be given priority and be
entitled to an extension of twenty-five (25) years in the utilization of their respective
leased areas. Thereafter, such FLAs shall be granted to any Filipino citizen with preference,
primarily to qualified fisherfolk cooperatives/associations as well as small and medium
enterprises as defined under Republic Act No. 8289.
The Department shall declare as reservation, portions of available public lands certified as
suitable for fishpond purposes for fish sanctuary, conservation, and ecological purposes.
Two (2) years after the approval of this Act, no fish pens or fish cages or fish traps shall be
allowed in lakes.
Sec. 46. Lease of Fishponds

Fishpond leased to qualified persons and fisherfolk organizations/cooperatives shall be
subject to the following conditions:
1. Area: Not more than 50 hectares for individuals and 250 hectares for
corporations or fisherfolk organizations;
2. Period: 25 years and renewable for another 25 years;
_____________________________________________________________________________________

*In case of the death of the lessee, his spouse and/or children, as his heirs, shall
have preemptive rights to the unexpired term of his FLA subject to the same
terms and conditions provided herein provided that the said heirs are qualified;
3. Lease rates: Shall be determined by the Department. Fees collected shall be
remitted to the National Fisheries Research and Development Institute and other
qualified research institutions to be used for aquaculture research development;
4. The area leased shall be developed and producing on a commercial scale within
three (3) years from the approval of the lease contract. All areas not fully
producing within five (5) years from the date of approval of the lease contract
shall automatically revert to the public domain for reforestation;
5. The fishpond shall not be subleased, in whole or in part, and failure to comply
with this provision shall mean cancellation of FLA;
6. The transfer or assignment of rights to FLA shall be allowed only upon prior
written approval of the Department;
7. The lessee shall undertake reforestation for river banks, bays, streams, and
seashore fronting the dike of his fishpond subject to the rules and regulations to
be promulgated thereon; and
8. The lessee shall provide facilities that will minimize environmental pollution, i.e.,
settling ponds, reservoirs, etc. Failure to comply with this provision shall mean
cancellation of FLA.
Sec. 47. Code of Practice for Aquaculture

The Department shall establish a code of practice for aquaculture that will outline general
principles and guidelines for environmentally-sound design and operation to promote
the sustainable development of the industry.
Such Code shall be developed through a consultative process with the DENR, the
fishworkers, FLA holders, fishpond owners, fisherfolk cooperatives, small-scale operators,
research institutions and the academe, and other potential stakeholders. The Department
may consult with specialized international organizations in the formulation of the code of
practice.
Sec. 49. Reversion of All Abandoned, Undeveloped or Underutilized Fishponds

The DENR, in coordination with the Department, LGUs, other concerned agencies and
FARMCs shall determine which abandoned, underdeveloped or underutilized fishponds
covered by FLAs can be reverted to their original mangrove state and after having made
such determination shall take all steps necessary to restore such areas in their original
mangrove state.
Sec. 50. Absentee Fishpond Lease Agreement Holders

Holders of fishpond lease agreements who have acquired citizenship in another country
during the existence of the FLA shall have their lease automatically cancelled and the
improvements thereon to be forfeited in favor of the government and disposed of in
accordance with rules and regulations promulgated thereon.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Sec. 51. License to Operate Fish Pens, Fish Cages, Fish Traps and Other Structures for the Culture of
Fish and Other Fishery Products
Fish pens, fish cages, fish traps and other structures for the culture of fish and other
fishery products shall be constructed and shall operate only within established zones duly
designated by LGUs in consultation with the FARMCs concerned consistent with national
fisheries policies after the corresponding licenses thereof have been secured. The area to
be utilized for this purpose for individual person shall be determined by the LGUs in
consultation with the concerned FARMC;
Not over ten percent (10%) of the suitable water surface area of all lakes and rivers shall
be allotted for aquaculture purposes like fish pens, fish cages and fish traps; and the
stocking density and feeding requirement which shall be controlled and determined by its
carrying capacity:
Fish pens and fish cages located outside municipal waters shall be constructed and
operated only within fish pen and fish cage belts designated by the Department and after
corresponding licenses therefor have been secured and the fees thereof paid.
Sec. 53. Grant of Privileges for Operations of Fish Pens, Cages, Corrals/Traps and Similar Structures
No new concessions, licenses, permits, leases and similar privileges for the establishment
or operation of fish pens, fish cages, fish corrals/traps and other similar structures in
municipal areas shall be granted except to municipal fisherfolk and their organizations.
CHAPTER VI
PROHIBITIONS AND PENALTIES
(Sections 86-128)
SEC. 86. Unauthorized Fishing

A. Capturing or gathering of fish, fry or fingerlings of any fishery species or fishery products
without license or permit from the Department or LGU.
B. Commercial fishing vessel to fishing in municipal waters.
Prima facie presumption:

Possession of a fishing gear or operating a fishing vessel in a fishing area where he has
no license or permit
EXCEPT: Fishing for daily food sustenance or for leisure and not for
commercial, occupation or livelihood purposes
Penalty:
Administrative Penalty Criminal Penalty
*Boat captain, three highest officers of the commercial *Boat captain and the three highest officers
fishing vessel; and owner or operator of the commercial fishing vessel
1. Confiscation of catch and gear 1. 6 months of imprisonment
_____________________________________________________________________________________

2. Fine: 5x the value of the catch or the amount 2. Confiscation of catch and gear
indicated below, whichever is higher: 3. Twice the amount of the administrative
 P50,000.00 to P100,000.00 for small-scale fine
commercial fishing;
 P150,000.00 to P500,000.00 for medium-scale
commercial fishing; and
 P1,000,000.00 to P5,000,000.00 for large-scale
commercial fishing.
C. It shall be unlawful for any person not listed in the registry of municipal fisherfolk to
engage in any commercial fishing activity in municipal waters.
Penalty:
1. Fine: 2x the value of catch or P5,000.00,
whichever is higher
2. Confiscation of the catch and fishing gear NONE
If the offender fails to pay the fine, he shall render
community service.
SEC. 87. Engaging in Unauthorized Fisheries Activities

A. Exploit, occupy, produce, breed or culture fish, fry or fingerlings of any fishery species or
fishery products
B. Construct and operate fish corrals, fish traps, fish pens and fish cages or fishponds
without a license, lease or permit.

The discovery of any person engaging in any of the above activities without a lease,
license or permit
Penalty:
1. Fine: P500,000.00 to P1,000,000.00 1. Imprisonment of 6 months
2. Dismantling or removal of the structure at the 2. Fine: 2x the amount of the administrative fine
expense of the offender 3. Dismantling or removal of the structure at the
3. Rehabilitation of the area affected by the expense of the offender
activity 4. Confiscation of stocks 4. Rehabilitation of the area affected by the
activity
5. Confiscation of stocks
SEC. 88. Failure to Secure Fishing Permit Prior to Engaging in Distant Water Fishing
_____________________________________________________________________________________

A. Fishing in the high seas, in the territorial seas, archipelagic waters, and Exclusive Economic
Zones of other states using a Philippine flagged fishing vessel without a fishing permit
from the Department and authorization from the coastal state.

Possession of a fishing gear or operating a fishing vessel in the abovementioned areas
without a fishing permit from the Department or authorization from the coastal state
B. Committing acts that are in contravention of the terms and conditions stated in the
fishing permit or as may be promulgated by the Department.
Penalty:
*Owner or operator, and three highest officers of *Three highest officers of the commercial fishing
the commercial fishing vessel vessel
1. Confiscation of the catch and gear 1. Imprisonment of 6 months

2. Fine: 5x the value of the catch or the amount 2. Fine: 2x the amount of the administrative fine
indicated below, whichever is higher: 3. Confiscation of catch and gear.
 P 2M to P 9M for small-scale commercial
fishing;
 P 10M to P 15M for medium-scale
commercial fishing;
 P 16M to P 20M for large-scale
commercial fishing vessels less than 750
gross tons, and
commercial fishing vessels 750 gross tons
or more.
SEC. 89. Unreported Fishing

A. Failure to comply with the reportorial requirements in Section 38 of this Code.
SEC. 38. Reportorial Requirements. - Each commercial fishing vessel shall keep a
daily record of:
a. fish catch and spoilage,
b. landing points, and
c. quantity and value of fish caught, and off-loaded for transshipment, sale
and/or other disposal.
Detailed information shall be duly certified by the vessel’s captain and
transmitted monthly to the officer or representative of the Department, at the
nearest designated landing point.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Penalty:
*Owner or operator of the municipal or commercial *Three highest officers of the commercial fishing
fishing vessel and the three highest officers vessel
**Within waters of national jurisdiction
1. Imprisonment of 6 months
1. Fine: Value of the catch or the amount indicated 2. Fine: 2x the amount of the administrative fine
below, whichever is higher: 3. Confiscation of catch and gear.
 P5,000.00 for municipal fishing; If the
offender fails to pay the fine, he shall
render community service;
 P100,000.00 for small-scale commercial
fishing;
 P200,000.00 for medium-scale commercial
fishing; and
 P500,000.00 for large-scale commercial
fishing.
**Waters beyond national jurisdiction
1. Fine: 5x the value of the catch or the amount

indicated below, whichever is higher:
 P 2M to P 9M for small-scale commercial
fishing;
 P 10M to P 15M for medium-scale
gross tons, and
 P 25M to P 45Mfor large-scale
or more.
SEC. 90. Unregulated Fishing

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in unregulated fishing in waters within and
beyond national jurisdiction.
Penalty:
1. Confiscation of catch and gear *Three highest officers of the commercial fishing
2. Fine: 5x the value of the catch or the amount vessel
indicated below, whichever is higher:
_____________________________________________________________________________________

 P 2M to P 9M for small-scale commercial 1. Imprisonment of 6 months

fishing; 2. Fine: 2x the amount of the administrative fine
 P 10M to P 15M for medium-scale 3. Confiscation of catch and gear.
gross tons,
or more.
SEC. 91. Poaching in Philippine Waters

A. Foreign person, corporation or entity to fish or operate any fishing vessel in Philippine
waters.

The entry of any foreign fishing vessel in Philippine waters is engaged in fishing in
Philippine waters.
Penalty:
*Any foreign person, corporation or entity 1. Fine: $ 1.2M or its equivalent in Peso
2. Confiscation of catch, fishing equipment and
1. Fine: $600,000.00 to $ 1M or its equivalent in fishing vessel.
Peso
If caught within internal waters:
1. Additional penalty of imprisonment of 6 months
1 day to 2 years and 2 months
If apprehended for the second time within internal

waters:
1. Imprisonment of 3 years
2. Fine: $ 2.4M or its equivalent in Peso
No foreign person shall be deported without the

payment of the imposed judicial and/or
administrative fines and service of sentence, if any.
Presumptions:
A foreign fishing vessel (FFV) in Philippine waters is presumed to be poaching under the following
circumstances:
a. Navigating with its fishing gear deployed or not stowed;
_____________________________________________________________________________________

b. Navigating with an irregular track or route;

c. Navigating through Philippine territorial waters without permission from the appropriate
Philippine authority;
d. Navigating in a manner that does not qualify as innocent passage;
e. Navigating in identified fishing grounds;
f. Navigating without flying its national flag;
g. Lying-to or anchoring without any valid reasons or circumstances that may indicate the existence
of force majeure or distress;
h. Lying-to, anchoring near to or within known fishing grounds or marine protected areas;
i. When it is found to contain freshly caught fish, corals or mollusks, on deck or in storage.
Exceptions:
The following are exceptions to the presumption of poaching:
1. Exercise of right of innocent passage;
2. Passage for purposes of dry docking, servicing, or unloading of catch by foreign flagged catcher
vessels, provided, the 24-hour prior entry notification has been complied with;
3. In case of authorized marine scientific research using an FFV;
4. An FFV taking shelter or having been drifted in Philippine waters as a result of force majeure or
distress;
5. An FFV entering Philippine waters for reason of rendering assistance to persons, ships or aircraft
in danger or distress;
6. In case of duly organized and established game or leisure fishing conducted by foreign nationals.
SEC. 92. Fishing Through Explosives, Noxious or Poisonous Substance, or Electricity

A. Catch, take or gather or cause to be caught, taken or gathered fish or any fishery species
in Philippine waters with the use of explosives, noxious or poisonous substance such as
sodium cyanide, which will kill, stupefy, disable or render unconscious fish or fishery
species:
EXCEPTION:
a. The Department, subject to such safeguards and conditions deemed
necessary and with the endorsement from the concerned LGUs, may
allow, for research, educational or scientific purposes only, the use
of poisonous or noxious substances to catch, take or gather fish or
fishery species:
b. The use of poisonous or noxious substances to eradicate predators
and pests in fishponds in accordance with accepted scientific
practices and without causing adverse environmental impact in
neighboring waters and grounds
_____________________________________________________________________________________

a. The discovery of dynamite, other explosives and chemical compounds which contain
combustible elements, or noxious or poisonous substances, or equipment or device
for electrofishing in any fishing vessel
b. Possession of any fisherfolk, operator, fishing boat official or fishworker
c. The discovery in any fishing vessel of fish caught or killed with the use of explosives,
noxious or poisonous substances, or by electricity
Penalty:
*Actual use 1. 5 to 10 years of imprisonment
2. Confiscation of catch, including those not
1. Confiscation of catch including those not caught illegally if co-mingled with those caught
caught illegally if co-mingled with those caught illegally, gear, explosives and noxious or
illegally, gear, explosives and noxious or poisonous substances, or electrofishing devices
poisonous substances, or electrofishing devices and paraphernalia, gear
and paraphernalia and gear 3. Fine: 2x the amount of the administrative fine,
2. Fine: 5x the value of the catch or the amount of without prejudice to the filing of separate criminal
fine indicated below whichever is higher: cases when the use of the same result to physical
 P30,000.00 for municipal fishing; injury or loss of human life.
fishing; *Actual use of electrofishing devices
 P 1.5M for medium scale commercial 1. Imprisonment 6 months a
fishing; and 2. Fine of P5,000.00
 P 3M for large scale commercial fishing.
B. Possession of explosives, and noxious or poisonous substances for illegal fishing.
Penalty:
1. Confiscation of catch, gear, 1. 6 months to 2 years of imprisonment
2. Fine: 5x the value of the catch or the amount 2. Fine: 2x the amount of the administrative fine
indicated below whichever is higher: 3. Confiscation of catch and gear.
 P10,000.00 for municipal fishing;
fishing;
 P500,000.00 for medium scale commercial
fishing; and
 P 1M for large scale commercial fishing.
Other Prohibitions and Penalties found in Chapter VI of RA 10654

 SEC. 93. Use of Fine Mesh Net
 SEC. 94. Fishing in Overexploited Fishery Management Areas
_____________________________________________________________________________________

 SEC. 95. Use of Active Gear in Municipal Waters, Bays and Other Fishery Management Areas
 SEC. 96. Ban on Coral Exploitation and Exportation
 SEC. 97. Ban on Muro-ami, Other Methods and Gear Destructive to Coral Reefs and Other Marine
Habitat.
 SEC. 98. Illegal Use of Superlights or Fishing Light Attractor
 SEC. 99. Conversion of Mangroves
 SEC. 100. Fishing During Closed Season
 SEC. 101. Fishing in Marine Protected Areas, Fishery Reserves, Refuge and Sanctuaries
 SEC. 102. Fishing or Taking of Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species
 SEC. 103. Capture of Sabalo and Other Breeders/Spawners
 SEC. 104. Exportation of Breeders, Spawners, Eggs or Fry
 SEC. 105. Importation or Exportation of Fish or Fishery Species
 SEC. 106. Violation of Harvest Control Rules
 SEC. 107. Aquatic Pollution
 SEC. 108. Failure to Comply with Minimum Safety Standards
 SEC. 109. Failure to Submit a Yearly Report on All Fishponds, Fish Pens and Fish Cages
 SEC. 110. Gathering and Marketing of Shell Fishes or Other Aquatic Species
 SEC. 111. Obstruction to Navigation or Flow or Ebb of Tide in any Stream, River, Lake or Bay
 SEC. 112. Noncompliance with Good Aquaculture Practices
 SEC. 113. Commercial Fishing Vessel Operators Employing Unlicensed Fisherfolk, Fishworker or Crew
 SEC. 114. Obstruction of Defined Migration Paths
 SEC. 115. Obstruction to Fishery Law Enforcement Officer
 SEC. 116. Noncompliance with Fisheries Observer Coverage
 SEC. 117. Noncompliance with Port State Measures
 SEC. 118. Failure to Comply with Rules and Regulations on Conservation and Management Measures
 SEC. 119. Noncompliance with Vessel Monitoring Measures
 SEC. 120. Constructing, Importing or Converting Fishing Vessels or Gears Without Permit from the
Department
 SEC. 121. Use of Unlicensed Gear
 SEC. 122. Falsifying, Concealing or Tampering with Vessel Markings, Identity or Registration
 SEC. 123. Concealing, Tampering or Disposing of Evidence Relating to an Investigation of a Violation
 SEC. 124. Noncompliance with the Requirements for the Introduction of Foreign or Exotic Aquatic
Species
 SEC. 125. Failure to Comply with Standards and Trade-Related Measures
 SEC. 126. Possessing, Dealing in or Disposing Illegally Caught or Taken Fish
 SEC. 127. Unauthorized Disclosure of Sensitive Technical Information
 SEC. 128. Other Violations
CHAPTER VII
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION
Section 130. Administrative Adjudication
_____________________________________________________________________________________

The Department is hereby empowered to impose the administrative fines and penalties
provided in this Code.
Composition of the Adjudication Committee:

a. Bureau Director as chairperson; and
b. Four other members to be designated by the Secretary.
The Adjudication Committee shall be supported by sufficient number of staff to enable it

to perform its mandate.
Functions:
a. Promulgate rules and regulations for the conduct of administrative adjudication
and the disposition of confiscated catch, gears, equipment and other
paraphernalia.
b. Issue subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum in administrative cases before
it.
Section 131. Commencement of Summary Administrative Action

The Department shall, on its own instance or upon verified complaint by any person,
institute administrative proceedings against any person who violates any order, rule or
regulation issued by the Department, pursuant to this Code.
Section 132. Power to Issue Cease and Desist Orders and to Summarily Evict Without the Necessity
of Judicial Order
The Department shall, subject to the requirements of administrative due process, issue
cease and desist order/s upon violator/s and to summarily eject, without the necessity of
judicial order, the holder of FLA, other tenurial instrument, permit or license from areas of
the public domain covered by such FLA, tenurial instrument, permit or license.
Section 133. Authority of the Director of the BFAR or the Duly Authorized Representative to Issue
Notice of Violation and Order Confiscation
The Director of the BFAR or the duly authorized representative, in all cases of violations of
this Code or other fishery laws, rules and regulations may:
a. Issue notice of violation, and
b. Order the confiscation of any fish, fishery species or aquatic resources illegally
caught, taken or gathered, and all equipment, paraphernalia and gears
in favor of the Department, academic institutions or LGUs and to dispose of the same in
accordance with pertinent laws, rules, regulations and policies on the matter.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Section 134. Prohibition on the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions,
and Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions
No injunction or restraining order from the Municipal Trial Courts and Regional Trial
Courts shall lie against the Department and BFAR upon the ex parte motion or petition
filed by any person or entity in the exercise by the Department and BFAR of its regulatory
functions in support of the implementation of this Code.
It should be clarified, however, that courts cannot be deprived of their authority to take cognizance of the
issues raised in the principal action, as long as such action and the relief sought are within their
jurisdiction (Alvarez v PICOP Resources, Inc. GR 162243). Indeed, on issues involving questions of law,
courts could not be prevented from exercising their power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts
(Hernandez v National Power Corp. GR 145328).
ALVAREZ V. PICOP RESOURCES, INC.

G.R. NO. 162243 | November 29, 2006
Facts:
In 1952, Bislig Bay Lumber Co., Inc. (BBLCI), the predecessor of Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines
(Picop) was granted Timber License Agreement (TLA) No. 43. The Agreement covered an area of 75,545 hectares
in Surigao del Sur, Agusan del Sur, Compostela Valley, and Davao Oriental.
The late President Ferdinand E. Marcos allegedly issued, sometime in 1969, a Presidential Warranty confirming that
TLA No. 43 “definitely establishes the boundary lines of [BBLCI’s] concession area.” Upon its expiry in 1977, this
Agreement -- as amended -- was renewed for another 25 years, to “terminate on April 25, 2002.”
On December 23, 1999, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) promulgated DENR
Administrative Order (DAO) No. 99-53 or the “Regulations Governing the Integrated Forest Management Program
(IFMP).” In a letter dated August 28 2000, Picop signified its intention to convert TLA No. 43 into an Integrated
Forest Management Agreement (IFMA), pursuant to DAO No. 99-53.
During the performance evaluation of PICOP, the DENR found that respondent had violated the rules and
regulations governing TLA No. 43. Some of these violations were:
a. non-submission of a five-year forest protection plan and a seven-year reforestation plan;
b. nonpayment of overdue forest and other charges in the total amount of P167,592,440.90
as of August 30, 2002; and
c. failure to secure a clearance from the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), considering
the presence of indigenous peoples in the area, as well as a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claims
covering part of the area.
Meanwhile, PICOP received from the DENR secretary a letter and by virtue of this letter, PICOP claimed that “ the
TLA has been converted.” The DENR believed, however, that respondent’s application for an IFMA should undergo
the process as provided in DAO No. 99-53. Thus, petitioner required PICOP to submit the following to the DENR:
a. Certificate of Filing of Amended Articles of Incorporation issued on 12 August 2002 that extended
PICOP’s corporate term for another fifty (50) years;
b. Proof of Payment of forest charges;
c. Proof of Payment of Reforestation Deposit;
d. Response to social issues, particularly clearance from the NCIP; and
e. Map showing reforestation activities on an annual basis.
Upon evaluation of the documents subsequently submitted, the DENR noted as follows:
a. PICOP did not submit the required NCIP clearance;
_____________________________________________________________________________________

b. The proof of payments for forest charges covers only the production period from 1 July 2001 to
21 September 2001
c. The proof of payment of reforestation deposits covers only the period from the first quarter of
CY 1999 to the second quarter of CY 2001;
d. The map of the areas planted through supplemental planting and social forestry is not sufficient
compliance per Performance Evaluation Team’s 11 July 2001 report on PICOP’s performance on its
TLA No. 43, pursuant to Section 6.6 of DAO 79-87;
e. PICOP failed to respond completely to all the social issues raised.
Insisting that the conversion of its TLA No. 43 had been completed, PICOP filed a Petition for Mandamus
(“mandamus case”) against then DENR Secretary Heherson T. Alvarez before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Quezon City. The RTC granted the Petition in its October 11, 2002 Decision, which was later affirmed by the Court
of Appeals (CA).
Meanwhile, on November 25, 2002, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 297, “Excluding a
Certain Area from the Operation of Proclamation No. 369 Dated February 27, 1931, and Declaring the Same as
Mineral Reservation and as Environmentally Critical Area.” The excluded area consisted of about 8,100 hectares of
respondent’s TLA No. 43.
On January 21, 2003, PICOP filed a Petition for the Declaration of Nullity of the aforesaid presidential proclamation,
as well as of the implementing order, DAO No. 2002-35 (“nullity case”). Initially, the RTC issued a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining respondents in that case from implementing the questioned issuances.
Subsequently, however, it dismissed PICOP’s Petition for not stating a cause of action. On reconsideration, it set for
hearing respondent’s application for preliminary injunction. Thus, these consolidated Petitions have been brought
before the Court, assailing (1) the grant of a writ of mandamus to compel the DENR to issue an IFMA in favor of
PICOP; (2) the immediate execution of the writ; and (3) the non-dismissal of the nullity case.
Issues:
1) An issue raised by the DENR concerned Section 1 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 605 which, according to the
CA, had been partly repealed by Republic Act 8975.
2) Whether PICOP had complied with the requirements for the conversion of TLA
3) Whether there had already been a conversion of TLA No. 43 into an IFMA
Ruling:
1) An issue raised by the DENR concerned Section 1 PD No. 605 which, according to the CA, had been
partly repealed by Republic Act 8975.
R.A. No. 8975 prohibits lower courts from issuing temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and
preliminary mandatory injunctions in connection with the implementation of government infrastructure projects,
while P.D. No. 605 prohibits the issuance of the same in any case involving licenses, concessions and the like, in
connection with the natural resources of the Philippines; When the licenses, concessions and the like entail
government infrastructure projects, the provisions of R.A. 8975 should be deemed to apply. Thus P.D. 605
had been modified in a sense.
2) Whether PICOP had complied with the requirements for the conversion of TLA
Under DAO No. 99-53, the following are the requisites for the automatic conversion of a TLA into an IFMA:
a. The TLA holder had signified its intent to convert its TLA into an IFMA prior to the expiration of its TLA
b. Proper evaluation was conducted on the application, and
c. The TLA holder has satisfactorily performed and complied with the terms and conditions of the TLA and the
pertinent rules and regulations
Upon close scrutiny of the evidence on record, the Court observed that PICOP had failed to comply with the
above requirements. As stated earlier, the Performance Evaluation Team tasked to review the application of
respondent found that it had violated existing DENR rules and regulations.
3) Whether there had already been a conversion of TLA No. 43 into an IFMA
_____________________________________________________________________________________

NONE. Former DENR Secretary Alvarez’s October 25, 2001 letter merely gave clearance for the conversion of
PICOP’s TLA into an IFMA. He did not, by any stretch of imagination, grant the conversion itself. The letter was
clear that the “conversion” could not have been final, since the conditions and details still had to be discussed.
Likewise, then DENR Secretary Alvarez’s April 26, 2002 letter approving PICOP’s Transition Development and
Management Plan (TDMP) could not be considered as an approval of PICOP’s application for IFMA conversion. The
letter itself stated that respondent’s application was still pending approval, as petitioner had yet to
“submit/comply with all the necessary requisites for final conversion of TLA.
Section 135. Accompanying Administrative Sanctions for Serious Violations

The Adjudication Committee may impose the following additional sanctions to the
administrative penalties imposed for serious violations:
a. confiscation of fishing gear;
b. impoundment of fishing vessel;
c. temporary suspension or permanent revocation of license or permit;
d. temporary or permanent ban from the availment of applicable duty and tax
rebates;
e. inclusion in the IUU fishing vessel list;
f. denial of entry and other port services;
g. blacklisting; and
h. increase in the amount of fines but not to exceed five (5) times the value of the
catch. In case of repeated violations within a five-year period, the amount of fine
may be increased up to eight (8) times the value of the catch.
During the pendency of the administrative or the criminal case, the Department may
impound the vessel/conveyance, gear and other paraphernalia used in the commission of
the offense.
In applying these accompanying sanctions, the Department shall take into account:
a. the seriousness of the violation as defined in Section 4 (82) of this Code,
b. the habituality or repetition of violation,
c. manner of commission of the offense,
d. severity of the impact on the fishery resources and habitat,
e. socioeconomic impact,
f. cases of concealment or destruction of evidence, eluding arrest,
g. resisting lawful orders, and
h. other analogous circumstances.
The overall level of sanctions and accompanying sanctions shall be calculated in a manner
that is proportionate, effective and dissuasive to deprive the offender of the economic
benefits derived from the serious violation.
SEC. 138. Citizen’s Suits
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Any citizen may file an appropriate civil, criminal or administrative action in the proper
courts/bodies against:
a. Any person who violates or fails to comply with the provisions of this Code, and
its implementing rules and regulations;
b. The Department or other implementing agencies with respect to orders, rules
and regulations issued inconsistent with this Act; and
c. Any public officer who willfully or grossly neglects the performance of a duty
specifically enjoined by this Code and its implementing rules and regulations; or
abuses authority in the performance of duty; or, in any manner improperly
performs duties under this Code and its implementing rules and
regulations: Provided, however, That no suit can be filed until after fifteen (15)
days notice has been given the public officer and the alleged offender and no
appropriate action has been taken thereon.
Section 139. Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) in the Enforcement of this Act
SLAPP - A legal action filed to harass, vex, exert undue pressure, or stifle any legal
recourse that any person, institution, or the government has taken or may take in the
enforcement of this Code
The hearing on the defense of a SLAPP shall be summary in nature, the affirmative
defense of a SLAPP shall be resolved within thirty (30) days after the summary hearing. If
the court dismisses the action, the court may award damages, attorney’s fees, and costs
of suit under a counterclaim if such has been filed. The dismissal shall be with prejudice.
If the court rejects the defense of a SLAPP, the evidence adduced during the summary
hearing shall be treated as evidence of the parties on the merits of the case. The action
shall proceed in accordance with the Rules of Court.
The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases shall govern the procedure in civil,
criminal, and special civil actions involving the enforcement or violations of this Code
including actions treated as a SLAPP as provided in this section.
Executive Control
ARANETA VS. GATMAITAN

G.R. Nos. L-8895 and L-9191 | April 30, 1957
Facts:
The League of Municipal Mayors of municipalities near the San Miguel Bay, between the provinces of Camarines Sur
and Camarines Norte, manifested in a resolution that they condemn the operation of trawls in the said area and
resolved to petition the President of the Philippines to regulate fishing in San Miguel Bay.
In another resolution, the same League of Mayors prayed that the President ban the operation of trawls in the San
Miguel Bay area. In response to the pleas, the President issued EO 22 prohibiting the use of trawls in San Miguel
Bay.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

EO 22 was amended by EO 66 apparently in answer to a resolution of the Provincial Board of Camarines Sur
recommending the allowance of trawl-fishing during the typhoon season only. Subsequently, EO 80 was issued
reviving EO 22.
Thereafter, a group of otter trawl operators filed a complaint for injunction praying that the Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources and Director of Fisheries be enjoined from enforcing said executive order and to declare the
same null and void.
The Court held that until the trawler is outlawed by legislative enactment, it cannot be banned from San Miguel Bay
by executive proclamation and held that the EOs 22 and 66 are invalid.
Issues:
Whether the President has authority to issue EOs 22, 66 and 802
Ruling:
YES, the President has authority to issue EOs 22, 66 and 802. Under Sections 75 and 83 of the Fisheries Law
(Act No. 4003), the restriction and banning of trawl fishing from all Philippine waters come within the powers of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. However, as the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
exercises its functions subject to the general supervision and control of the President of the Philippines, the
President can exercise the same power and authority because:
(a) the President has control of all executive departments, bureaus and offices as provided in the
Constitution;
(b) executive orders may be issued by the President governing the general performances of duties by
public employees or disposing of issues of general concern; and
(c) under the Administrative Code, all executive functions shall be directly under the executive
department, subject to supervision and control of the President on matters of general policy.
Enactment of Ordinances by LGUs
TANO VS. SOCRATES

G.R. No. 110249 | August 21, 1997
Ruling:
The 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. 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.
Seizure without warrant of fishing vessels breaching fishery laws
HIZON VS. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 119619 | December 13, 1996
Facts:
Petitioners Hizon, et al. were charged with violating PD 704 for supposedly fishing with the use of a poisonous
substance (sodium cyanide). A report that some fishing boats were fishing by “muro ami” led to the apprehension
of such boat (F/B Robinson), where Hizon et al were present. The Police (PNP Maritime Command and the Task
Force Bantay Dagat) directed the boat captain to get random samples of the fish the fish cage for testing. The
_____________________________________________________________________________________

initial results tested the fish positive for sodium cyanide and that was the basis of the information against Hizon et
al. However, a second set of fish samples yielded a negative result on the sodium cyanide.
The RTC found Hizon et al. guilty and sentenced them to imprisonment and forfeiture of the fishers. The CA
affirmed this decision. Hizon et al., together with the Solicitor General now question the admissibility of the
evidence against petitioners in view of the warrantless search and seizure of the fishing boat and the subsequent
arrest of herein petitioners.
Issues:
(a) Whether or not fish samples seized by the NBI in F/B Robinson without a search warrant are admissible as
evidence.
(b) Whether or not Hizon et al. are guilty of the offense of illegal fishing with the use of poisonous substances.
Held:
(a) YES. The Supreme Court held that search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and aircrafts for
violations of customs laws have been the traditional exceptions to the constitutional requirement of a search
warrant. It is rooted on the recognition that a vessel and an aircraft, like motor vehicles, can be quickly moved out
of the locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant must be sought and secured. Yielding to this reality,
judicial authorities have not required a search warrant of vessels and aircrafts before their search and seizures can
be constitutionally effected. The same exception ought to apply to seizures of fishing vessels and boats breaching
our fishery laws. These vessels are normally powered by high-speed motors that enable them to elude arresting
ships of the Philippine Navy, the Coast Guard and other government authorities enforcing our fishery laws.
The Supreme Court thus hold as valid the warrantless search on the F/B Robinson, a fishing boat suspected of
having engaged in illegal fishing. The fish and other evidence seized in the course of the search were properly
admitted by the trial court. Moreover, petitioners failed to raise the issue during trial and hence, waived their right
to question any irregularity that may have attended the said search and seizure.
(b) NO. The offense of illegal fishing is committed when a person catches, takes or gathers or causes to be
caught, taken or gathered fish, fishery or aquatic products in Philippine waters with the use of explosives,
electricity, obnoxious or poisonous substances. The law creates a presumption that illegal fishing has been
committed when: '(a) explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substances or equipment or device for electric fishing are
found in a fishing boat or in the possession of a fisherman; or (b) when fish caught or killed with the use of
explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substances or by electricity are found in a fishing boat. Under these instances,
the boat owner, operator or fishermen are presumed to have engaged in illegal fishing.
The validity of laws establishing presumptions in criminal cases is a settled matter. It is generally conceded that
the legislature has the power to provide that proof of certain facts can constitute prima facie evidence of the guilt
of the accused and then shift the burden of proof to the accused provided there is a rational connection between
the facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed. To avoid any constitutional infirmity, the inference of one from
proof of the other must not be arbitrary and unreasonable. In fine, the presumption must be based on facts and
these facts must be part of the crime when committed. The third paragraph of Section 33 of P.D. 704 creates a
presumption of guilt based on facts proved and hence is not constitutionally impermissible. It makes the discovery
of obnoxious or poisonous substances, explosives, or devices for electric fishing, or of fish caught or killed with the
use of obnoxious and poisonous substances, explosives or electricity in any fishing boat or in the possession of a
fisherman evidence that the owner and operator of the fishing boat or the fisherman had used such substances in
catching fish. The ultimate fact presumed is that the owner and operator of the boat or the fisherman were
engaged in illegal fishing and this presumption was made to arise from the discovery of the substances and the
contaminated fish in the possession of the fisherman in the fishing boat. The fact presumed is a natural inference
from the fact proved.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court stressed that the statutory presumption is merely prima facie. It cannot, under
the guise of regulating the presentation of evidence, operate to preclude the accused from presenting his defense
to rebut the main fact presumed. At no instance can the accused be denied the right to rebut the presumption. The
authorities found nothing on the boat that would have indicated any form of illegal fishing. All the documents of the
boat and the fishermen were in order. It was only after the fish specimens were tested, albeit under suspicious
circumstances, that petitioners were charged with illegal fishing with the use of poisonous substances.
ROLDAN VS. ARCA
_____________________________________________________________________________________

G.R. No. L-25434 | July 25, 1975
Facts:
Respondent company filed a case against Roldan Jr. for the recovery of fishing vessel Tony Lex VI which had been
seized and impounded by petitioner Fisheries Commissioner through the Philippine Navy. The CFI Manila granted it,
thus respondent company took Possession of the vessel Tony Lex VI.
Petitioner requested the Philippine Navy to apprehend vessels Tony Lex VI and Tony Lex III, also respectively
called Srta. Winnie and Srta. Agnes, for alleged violations of some provisions of the Fisheries Act. On August 5 or
6, 1965, the two fishing boats were actually seized for illegal fishing with dynamite.
The Fiscal filed an ex parte motion to hold the boats in custody as instruments and therefore evidence of the crime
and cabled the Fisheries Commissioner to detain the vessels. On October 2 and 4, likewise, the CFI of Palawan
ordered the Philippine Navy to take the boats in custody. Judge Francisco Arca issued an order granting the
issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and issued the preliminary writ upon the filing by the
Company of a bond of PHP5,000.00 for the release of the two vessels. On October 19, 1965, the Commission and
the Navy filed a motion for reconsideration of the order issuing the preliminary writ.
Judge Arca denied the said motion for reconsideration. The Commission and the Navy filed a petition for certiorari
and prohibition with preliminary injunction to restrain Judge Arca from enforcing his order dated October 18, 1965,
and the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction there under issued.
Issues:
Whether or not there can be a valid seizure without warrant of fishing vessels breaching laws.
Held:
YES. The Philippine Fisheries Commission is empowered to order the search and seizure of vessels engaged in
illegal fishing. Under the Republic Act No. 3512, the Philippine Fisheries Commission can validly direct and/or effect
the seizure of the vessels of private respondent for illegal fishing by the use of dynamite and without the requisite
licenses. Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and air crafts for violations of the customs laws
have been the traditional exception to the constitutional requirement of a search warrant, because the vessel can
be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant must be sought before such warrant
could be secured; hence it is not practicable to require a search warrant before such search or seizure can be
constitutionally effected. The same exception should apply to seizures of fishing vessels breaching our fishery laws.
They are usually equipped with powerful motors that enable them to elude pursuing ships of the Philippine Navy or
Coast Guard.
Another exception to the constitutional requirement of a search warrant for a valid search and seizure, is a search
or seizure as an incident to a lawful arrest. In the case at bar, the members of the crew of the two vessels were
caught in flagrante illegally fishing with dynamite and without the requisite license. Thus their apprehension
without a warrant of arrest while committing a crime is lawful. Consequently, the seizure of the vessel, its
equipment and dynamites therein was equally valid as an incident to a lawful arrest .
Forfeiture of vessel used in crime
SEA LION VS. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 172678 | March 23, 2011
Facts:
(17) Chinese fishermen were caught poaching off Mangsee Island in Balabac, Palawan. The Barangay officials and
team of Philippine Marines, Coast Guard, and barangay officials found F/V Sea Lion with five boats with fishing nets
spread over the water. They arrested the captain, six crew members, and the 17 fishermen. The court filed various
cases against the Chinese fishermen to wit:
a. All were charged with violation of section 977 of R.A. 8550;
b. The captain, chief engineer, and the president of the corporation (vessel owner) were charged
with violation of section 90 of R.A. 8550; and
c. All arrested and the corporation president were charged with violation of Section 27(a) and (f) of
R.A. 91417 and section 87 of R.A. 8550.
Provincial Prosecutor
_____________________________________________________________________________________

a. Dismissed I.S. Nos. 2004-61, 2004-68 and 2004-69.

- F/V Sea Lion crew did not assent to the illegal acts of said 17 Chinese fishermen who were rescued
by the crew of the F/V Sea Lion from a distressed Chinese vessel.
b. Found probable cause for the remaining charges but only against the 17 Chinese fishermen. Informations against
the 17 Chinese fishermen were filed in court.
c. Sea Lion Fishing Corporation filed an Urgent Motion for Release of Evidence alleging that it owns the vessel.
“WHEREFORE, F/[V] Sea Lion is hereby recommended to be released to the movant upon proper
showing of evidence of its ownership of the aforesaid vessel and the posting of a bond double
the value of said vessel as appraised by the MARINA…Said bond shall be on the condition that [the]
vessel owner shall make [the vessel] available for inspection during the course of the trial. (Emphasis
supplied)”
This Resolution was later amended through a Supplemental Resolution:

“…the release of the said vessel shall be with the approval of the Provincial Committee on Illegal
Entrants which has jurisdiction over all apprehended vessels involved in poaching.”
Petitioner, however, failed to act in accordance with said Resolutions.
Regional Trial Court

a. The Chinese nationals entered separate pleas of "not guilty" for both offenses (Sec. 87 and 97 of RA 8550).
b. Later, they changed their pleas from "not guilty" to "guilty" (Sec. 97) for the lesser offense of Violation of
Section 88 (3) of RA 8550.
Guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals for the crime of Violation of Section 88 (3) of R.A. 8550
The x x x confiscated vessel and all the fishing gadgets, paraphernalia and equipment are hereby
ordered to be placed under the [temporary] custody of the Philippine Coast Guard.
c. Petitioner again made its move by filing a Motion for Reconsideration praying for the trial court to delete from
said Sentences the confiscation of F/V Sea Lion. The trial court denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
Hence, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA denied the petition.
a. There was no lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the trial court since it had jurisdiction over the crimes
b. It had the authority to seize the F/V Sea Lion which was mentioned in the said Informations.
c. The CA further held that while the petitioner attempted to claim as its own the fishing vessel, its
effort is undeserving of merit due to failure to adduce evidence.
d. Petitioner did not avail of the proper procedural remedy. Petitioner's recourse should have been
an appeal and not certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Thus, petitioner filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari raising the sole issue of whether the confiscation of F/V
Sea Lion was valid.
Issue:
Whether the forfeiture of F/V Sea Lion in favor of the government was proper.
Ruling:
YES, the government was correct when it forfeited F/V Sea Lion since its motion was only filed after the judgment
has been rendered. and it failed to seek all remedies given the sufficient time to do so.
In fine, it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that F/V Sea Lion was used by the 17 Chinese fishermen
in the commission of the crimes. On the other hand, petitioner presented no evidence at all to support its claim of
ownership of F/V Sea Lion. Therefore, the forfeiture of F/V Sea Lion in favor of the government was proper. When
an instrument or tool used in a crime is being claimed by a third-party not liable to the offense, such third-party
must first establish its ownership over the same.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

References:
Agcaoili, O. (2016). Law on natural resources and rules of procedure for environmental cases. Quezon City,
Philippines: Rex Printing Company, Inc.
Republic act no. 8550: An act providing for the development, management and conservation of the fisheries and
aquatic resources, integrating all laws pertinent thereto, and for other purposes
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1998/02/25/republic-act-no-8550/
Republic act no. 10654: An act to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing,
amending republic act no. 8550, otherwise known as “the Philippine fisheries code of 1998,” and for other
purposes https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2015/02/27/republic-act-no-10654/
The local government code of the Philippines
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/downloads/1991/10oct/19911010-RA-7160-CCA.pdf
All cases are taken from The LawPhil Project website: https://www.lawphil.net/

Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998: Governing Law

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

Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998: Governing Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NATURAL RESOURCES and ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS | Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998

PHILIPPINE FISHERIES CODE OF 1998

Chapter VI of RA 8550 Repealed with a New Chapter VI on Prohibitions and Penalties

Added new Chapter VII on Administrative Adjudication

EVOLUTION OF LEGISLATION GOVERNING FISHERIES

Concept of communal property under a datu/village chieftain

Group 6: AUDENCIA | CHING | GARCIA | NERVES | PAGATPAT

Protection of Fish and Game Act of 1916 (Act No. 2590)

Fisheries Act of 1932 (Act No. 4003)

Martial Law Period

Promoted and encouraged the maximum economic utilization of fishery resources.

Fisheries Code of 1998 (Republic Act No. 8550)

Sec. 2. Policy Considerations

Group 6: AUDENCIA | CHING | GARCIA | NERVES | PAGATPAT

Sec. 3. Application of the Law

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE

Sec. 5. Use of Philippine Waters

Group 6: AUDENCIA | CHING | GARCIA | NERVES | PAGATPAT

UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea)

If not, it would be a breach to 2 provisions of the UNCLOS III:

Group 6: AUDENCIA | CHING | GARCIA | NERVES | PAGATPAT

Sec. 4. Definition of Terms

Sec. 7. Access to Fishery Resources

Sec. 8 Catch Ceiling Limitation

Sec. 9. Establishment of Closed Season

Group 6: AUDENCIA | CHING | GARCIA | NERVES | PAGATPAT

FUNCTIONS (Sec. 63-65, RA 8550)

Group 6: AUDENCIA | CHING | GARCIA | NERVES | PAGATPAT

COMPOSITION OF BFAR (Sec. 66, RA 8550)

Q: Who has Jurisdiction over municipal waters?

The municipality/city government is responsible for the:

Sec. 149 of the LGC

Group 6: AUDENCIA | CHING | GARCIA | NERVES | PAGATPAT

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. CA

The LLDA then served notice to the general public that:

Group 6: AUDENCIA | CHING | GARCIA | NERVES | PAGATPAT

TANO VS. SOCRATES

Sec. 26. Commercial Fishing Vessel License and Other Licenses

Group 6: AUDENCIA | CHING | GARCIA | NERVES | PAGATPAT

EXCEPTION: Fishing vessel engaged in scientific, research or educational

All skippers/master fishers shall be required to undertake an orientation training on

Sec. 27. Persons Eligible for Commercial Fishing Vessel License

Sec. 32. Fishing by Philippine Commercial Fishing Fleet in International Waters

Group 6: AUDENCIA | CHING | GARCIA | NERVES | PAGATPAT

Authorized Landing Sites

Fishworkers on board Philippine registered fishing vessels conducting fishing activities

Sec. 45. Disposition of Public Lands for Fishery Purposes

Sec. 46. Lease of Fishponds

Group 6: AUDENCIA | CHING | GARCIA | NERVES | PAGATPAT

Sec. 47. Code of Practice for Aquaculture

Sec. 49. Reversion of All Abandoned, Undeveloped or Underutilized Fishponds

Sec. 50. Absentee Fishpond Lease Agreement Holders

Group 6: AUDENCIA | CHING | GARCIA | NERVES | PAGATPAT

SEC. 86. Unauthorized Fishing

Prima facie presumption:

1. Confiscation of catch and gear 1. 6 months of imprisonment

Group 6: AUDENCIA | CHING | GARCIA | NERVES | PAGATPAT

SEC. 87. Engaging in Unauthorized Fisheries Activities

Prima facie presumption:

Group 6: AUDENCIA | CHING | GARCIA | NERVES | PAGATPAT

Prima facie presumption:

1. Confiscation of the catch and gear 1. Imprisonment of 6 months