G.R. No. L-8895 and L-9191; April 30, 1957
SALVADOR A. ARANETA, ETC., ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HON. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ETC., ET AL., respondents. EXEQUIEL SORIANO, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. SALVADOR ARANETA, ETC., ET AL., respondents-appellants.

FACTS

San Miguel Bay, an important fishing area in the Bicol region, saw an influx of trawl operators in 1950. Sustenance fishermen believed trawl operations depleted marine resources, leading to a clamor from inhabitants, municipal mayors, the Provincial Governor, and civic organizations to ban trawls. In response, President Ramon Magsaysay issued Executive Orders: No. 22 (April 5, 1954) prohibiting trawls in San Miguel Bay; No. 66 (September 23, 1954) amending the prohibition; and No. 80 (November 2, 1954) reviving the absolute prohibition of Executive Order No. 22, effective after December 31, 1954. A group of otter trawl operators, led by Exequiel Soriano, filed a complaint for injunction and/or declaratory relief in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 24867) against the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Director of Fisheries, seeking to restrain enforcement and declare the executive orders null and void. The lower court, presided by Judge Magno S. Gatmaitan, ruled in favor of the trawl operators, declared the executive orders invalid, and granted the injunction. The government officials appealed this decision (G.R. No. L-9191) and also filed a petition for prohibition and certiorari (G.R. No. L-8895) challenging the lower court’s order requiring them to post an injunction bond.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the President of the Philippines had the legal authority to issue Executive Orders Nos. 22, 66, and 80, which prohibited trawl fishing in San Miguel Bay.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court. It held that the President had the authority to issue the executive orders in question. The power is derived from the Constitution (which vests executive power in the President), the Revised Administrative Code (which authorizes the President to issue executive orders necessary to enforce laws), and the Fisheries Act (Commonwealth Act No. 4003). Specifically, Section 75 of the Fisheries Act grants the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources the power to “close any fishing area… by means of an executive order,” and Section 83 authorizes the Secretary to “make rules and regulations for the conservation of fisheries.” The Court ruled that the President, as the Chief Executive, could exercise this power through an executive order. The Court found the prohibition was a valid exercise of police power for the conservation of marine resources and the protection of the livelihood of sustenance fishermen, responding to a legitimate public clamor. In G.R. No. L-8895, the issues were deemed moot as no Supreme Court injunction had been issued against the lower court’s order. The decision in G.R. No. L-9191 reversed the lower court, dissolved any injunction issued, and declared Executive Orders Nos. 22, 66, and 80 valid.