G.R. No. 110249 , August 21, 1997
ALFREDO TANO, ET AL. AND AIRLINE SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION OF PALAWAN, PETITIONERS, VS. GOV. SALVADOR P. SOCRATES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners, comprised of numerous fishermen, shippers, and the Airline Shippers Association of Palawan, filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of local ordinances banning the shipment of live fish and lobster from Puerto Princesa City and the entire Province of Palawan. The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto Princesa enacted Ordinance No. 15-92, which prohibited such shipments for a five-year period to protect city waters from cyanide and other harmful fishing methods. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan subsequently passed Resolution No. 33 and Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993, imposing a similar ban province-wide. Petitioners argued these measures were unconstitutional for violating their right to due process and equal protection, infringing upon freedom of trade and commerce, and for being preempted by national laws, specifically the Fisheries Decree of 1975 (P.D. No. 704).

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the challenged city and provincial ordinances are valid exercises of local government power or are unconstitutional for being in conflict with national legislation and for violating constitutional rights.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the ordinances. The legal logic proceeds from the principle of local autonomy under the 1991 Local Government Code (LGC). The Court ruled that the ordinances are valid exercises of the police power delegated to local government units (LGUs) to promote the health and ecology of their localities. The LGC explicitly grants municipalities and provinces the power to enact measures for the enhancement of the right of their inhabitants to a balanced ecology and the protection of the environment. The Court found the ban to be a reasonable means to address the destructive practice of cyanide fishing, which depletes marine resources. Regarding the alleged conflict with P.D. No. 704, the Court applied the doctrine of implied repeal, holding that the later-enacted LGC, which devolves extensive powers to LGUs, modified the earlier decree. The LGC provisions on environmental protection and municipal fisheries are more specific and thus prevail. The ordinances were deemed not to violate due process or equal protection as they are based on a valid classification—protecting local marine resources—and are germane to the legitimate objective of conservation. The petition was dismissed.