BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. VS. ROYALE FISHING CORPORATION, ET AL., G.R. NOS. 256282, 256559, 257049, January 21, 2026: FISHERIES REGULATION REQUIRING VESSEL-MONITORING DATA RENDERED UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR BEING UNREASONABLE, AMOUNTING TO ILLEGAL SEARCH, AND VIOLATIVE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE AND THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF COMMERCIAL FISHING COMPANIES
Last Sunday, I discussed about a case wherein the Supreme Court struck down a local government regulation requiring a private bus company to pass through its newly constructed public terminal to regulate city traffic stating that the measure is not reasonable and will not necessarily achieve what it seeks to solve, i.e., traffic congestion in the said locality.
In this fairly recent case, the commercial fishing companies successfully assailed before a local court a regulation issued by the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) of the Department of Agriculture (DA) establishing vessel-monitoring measures (VMS) and Electronic Reporting System (ERS) for commercial Philippine-flagged vessels. Fisheries Administrative Order No. 266 required commercial fishing vessels to submit their real-time location and other commercial-fishing related data supposedly for fisheries management, law enforcement, case-building, and prosecution of fisheries violations.
Before the Supreme Court, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor General, argued that VMS and ERS were legitimate tools for preventing Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IUUF), enforcing fisheries laws, conserving marine resources, and protecting the people’s right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Near-real-time monitoring was said to enable authorities to identify suspicious activities and restricted-area incursions. The Republic argued that the fishing vessels operating in the Philippine waters had no reasonable expectation of privacy that would prevent the State from monitoring their activities, particularly because fishing operators were already required to submit fisheries information and had agreed to comply with existing and future fisheries regulations. The Republic also asserted that the different treatment of commercial and municipal fishing vessels was justified by their differing operations and regulatory circumstances.
On the other hand, the commercial fishing companies argued that the continuous collection of vessel-location data disclosed trade secrets and violated their constitutional rights to privacy and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The information allegedly included proprietary fishing grounds and data concerning fish species present in particular locations. They contended that FAO 266 exceeded the reportorial requirements authorized by the Fisheries Code, as amended, because the law required catch and landing records but did not require 24/7 reporting of vessel locations. They further argued that FAO 266 violated equal protection by regulating only commercial fishing vessels, and violated due process because the affected operators were not given a meaningful opportunity to participate in the formulation of the regulation.
The Supreme Court held that while the State has a legitimate governmental interest in conserving marine resources, preventing IUUF, enforcing fisheries laws, and protecting the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology, it did not meet the second requisite under rational-basis test standard which is the reasonable connection between the interest and means used to achieve it. The Court held that as admitted by the State during oral arguments, the regulation recognized other means of reporting vessel positions, including manual transmission of positions every four (4) hours through radio, telephone, email, or other communication channels. The Court held that there are alternatives less intrusive and could be more effective for particular enforcement purposes. The Court also observed and as admitted by the State during oral arguments, the VMS could not by itself detect overfishing and unreported fishing.
The Supreme Court also held that while the commercial fishing companies cannot invoke the right to privacy as they are protecting economic rights, not right to liberty, the monitoring and collection of data amounts to unreasonable search as the system gathers information for the stated purpose of law enforcement, case-building, and prosecution of fisheries violation. The data obtained may be used for evidence in fisheries or other criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court also held that while there was initially consent to a search as commercial fishing vessels were already required under the Fisheries Code, as amended, to submit detailed records of catch, spoilage, landing points, and the quantity and value of fish caught or off-loaded, the statutory reporting requirement, however, did not extend to unlimited and continuous disclosure of all fishing locations. The absence of any statutory requirement to disclose all fishing locations 24/7 demonstrated that the administrative order exceeded the statutory reporting framework.
Parenthetically, the Supreme Court held that the regulation is violative of the equal-protection clause since it only regulated commercial fishing vessels while excluding municipal fishing vessels. The Fisheries Code contemplated of a single monitoring, control, and surveillance system covering all Philippine-flagged fishing vessels, regardless of fishing area or destination of their catch.
Finally, the Supreme Court held that the regulation violated due process requirement as the consultations were declared as pro forma as BFAR already purchased the VMS transceivers and ERS before the consultations were completed. The Court also held that there was no meaningful participation of the stakeholders as the operators was not given a genuine opportunity to submit their comments to the regulation.
This case is a mere restatement of a valid exercise of police power, which aside from the intended legitimate interest sought to be achieved, the means in achieving such interest should also be reasonable, not oppressive, not confiscatory and direct nexus or empirical data should be shown that it will be effective in achieving the compelling State interest.