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, comprising fishermen, shippers, and traders, were criminally charged and arrested for violating Palawan Provincial Resolution No. 2-93 and Puerto Princesa City Ordinance No. 15-92. These local laws imposed an absolute ban on the shipment of live fish and marine coral resources out of the province and city, ostensibly to protect the marine ecosystem from destructive fishing practices like cyanide and dynamite fishing. Petitioners filed a petition seeking to enjoin their criminal prosecution and to declare the ordinances unconstitutional and void.
The majority of the Court dismissed the petition on procedural grounds, primarily prematurity and lack of a proper case or controversy, as the constitutional questions could be raised in the ongoing criminal cases. The majority also upheld the validity of the ordinances, finding them a legitimate exercise of police power under the general welfare clause and the devolution provisions of the Local Government Code to protect the environment.

ISSUE

Whether the petition should be dismissed on procedural grounds and whether Provincial Resolution No. 2-93 and City Ordinance No. 15-92 are constitutional and valid.

RULING

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Bellosillo argued that the petition should be granted. On procedure, he contended the case fell under recognized exceptions. The petition could be treated as a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition to correct a jurisdictional error from enforcing a void ordinance. The constitutional issue could be raised at any stage of the criminal proceedings, and petitioners, being under immediate threat of conviction, were proper parties with a real interest.
On the merits, the dissent agreed with the laudable environmental goals but found the ordinances invalid. The general welfare clause is not the sole criterion; an ordinance must not contravene the Constitution or statute. The dissent found a conflict with national laws. The Fisheries Decree (P.D. 704) and the Administrative Code of 1987 vest the management and conservation of fishery resources in the national government, particularly the Department of Agriculture. The Local Government Code’s devolution of certain environmental functions does not include the power to absolutely ban the shipment of legally caught marine products, which effectively regulates fishery and commerce—a national concern.
Furthermore, the Strategic Environmental Plan (SEP) for Palawan (R.A. 7611) establishes a comprehensive national framework, mandating local coordination with the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development and limiting local police power. The ordinances were also deemed unreasonable. By banning all shipment of live fish and lobsters for five years without directly prohibiting the act of cyanide fishing itself, the means were excessive and not germane to the stated goal, resulting in an arbitrary deprivation of livelihood. The dissent concluded the ordinances overstepped reasonable police power limits and voted to grant the petition.