Seaman Law

13/08/2026

The (SC) has declared unconstitutional the Department of Agriculture’s (DA) directive to commercial Philippine-flagged fishing vessels to be tracked and monitored, and to report and send fisheries data, as it violates rights against unreasonable searches, seizures, due process, and equal protection under the law.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 dismissed the petition filed by the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the DA and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), and upheld the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) declaring Fisheries Administrative Order (FAO) No. 266 unconstitutional for failing to pass the rational basis test.

In 2020, the DA, through the BFAR, issued FAO No. 266 requiring all commercial Philippine-flagged fishing vessels to adopt Vessel Monitoring Measures (VMM). These measures include a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) to track and monitor vessels, and an Electronic Reporting System (ERS) to record and transmit fisheries data. FAO No. 266 also mandated the securing of Maritime Mobile Service Identity numbers from the National Telecommunications Commission.

Royale Fishing Corporation, Bonanza Fishing and Market Resources, Inc., and RBL Fishing Corporation (Royale Fishing et al.), operators of Philippine commercial fishing vessels, challenged FAO No. 266 before the RTC through a petition for declaratory relief. They argued that the continuous monitoring requirements violated their constitutional rights, exposed confidential business information and trade secrets, and denied them equal protection because only commercial fishing vessels were required to comply, even though the Fisheries Code also covers municipal and distant-water fishing vessels.

The SC upheld the RTC’s ruling that FAO No. 266 is unconstitutional.

It explained that courts apply different standards in reviewing government regulations. While stricter standards apply to regulations affecting fundamental rights and certain classifications, the rational basis test applies to cases that do not fall under those standards.

Under this test, the government must show a legitimate interest and a reasonable connection between that interest and the methods used. The SC found the Republic failed this because it did not adequately prove that the VMS and ERS requirements were reasonably connected to preventing illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

In particular, the SC found that the VMS was not effective in detecting IUU fishing violations other than fishing within protected or restricted areas. It also noted that the expected output from VMS is no longer different from existing reporting requirements already being complied by the fishing vessels.

The SC likewise ruled that FAO No. 266 authorized monitoring beyond what RA 8550, as amended, allows. The Fisheries Code defines “monitoring” as the continuous observation of fishing effort, expressed through factors such as “number of days or hours of fishing, characteristics of fishery resources, and resource yields.”

According to the SC, this definition does not extend to the continuous tracking of the locations or destinations of commercial fishing vessels. It emphasized that RA 10654 does not require operators to disclose their location 24/7, recognizing that fishing grounds constitute proprietary business information.

While recognizing that combating illegal fishing and protecting the country’s marine resources are legitimate and compelling State interests, the SC emphasized that these objectives cannot justify measures that unnecessarily infringe constitutional rights, particularly when the same goals may be achieved through lawful and less restrictive means.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=170021

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169871

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169872

Read the Separate Opinion of Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169884

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169898

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169910

Read the Concurrence and Dissent of Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169918

Read the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169926

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution

13/08/2026

Idineklara ng na labag sa Konstitusyon ang kautusan ng Kagawaran ng Agrikultura na nag-aatas sa mga komersyal na sasakyang pangingisda na sila’y palaging matunton, mamonitor, at magbigay ulat o magpadala ng mga datos tungkol sa pangingisda.

Ayon sa Korte, ito ay dahil sa nilalabag nito ang mga karapatan laban sa hindi makatwirang paghahalughog at pagsamsam (unreasonable search and seizure), karapatan sa kaukulang proseso (due process), at pantay na proteksyon ng batas (equal protection of the law).

Sa isang Desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, isinantabi ng En Banc ng Korte Suprema ang petisyon ng Republika ng Pilipinas, na kinakatawan ng Department of Agriculture (DA) o Kagawaran ng Agrikultura at ng Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), at pinagtibay ang pasya ng Regional Trial Court (RTC) na nagdeklara na labag sa Konstitusyon ang Fisheries Administrative Order (FAO) No. 266 dahil hindi ito pumasa sa rational basis test.

Noong 2020, naglabas ang DA, sa pamamagitan ng BFAR, ng FAO No. 266 na nag-aatas sa lahat ng komersyal na sasakyang pangingisda na may watawat ng Pilipinas na gumamit ng Vessel Monitoring Measures (VMM). Kabilang sa mga hakbang na ito ang Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) para matunton at mamonitor ang mga sasakyan, at ang Electronic Reporting System (ERS) para magtala at magpadala ng datos hinggil sa pangingisda. Iniatas din ng nasabing FAO ang pagkuha ng mga numero ng Maritime Mobile Service Identity mula sa National Telecommunications Commission (NTC).

Kwinestiyon ng Royale Fishing Corporation, Bonanza Fishing, at Market Resources, Inc., at RBL Fishing Corporation (Royale Fishing, et al.), mga nagpapatakbo ng mga komersyal na sasakyang pangingisda sa Pilipinas, ang konstitusyonalidad ng FAO No. 266 sa RTC sa pamamagitan ng petition for declaratory relief.

Iginiit nila na ang tuloy-tuloy na pagmonitor ay nilalabag ang kanilang mga karapatan, naglalantad ng kumpidensyal na impormasyon sa negosyo at mga trade secrets, at nagkakait sa kanila ng pantay na proteksyon ng batas dahil tanging mga komersyal na sasakyang pangingisda lang ang inatasang sumunod dito. Ito ay kahit saklaw din ng Fisheries Code ang munisipal at mga sasakyang pandagat na nangingisda sa malalayong katubigan.

Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang Desisyon ng RTC na labag sa Konstitusyon ang FAO No. 266.

Ipinaliwanag nito na ang mga hukuman ay naglalapat ng magkakaibang antas ng pagsusuri sa pagrepaso ng mga regulasyon ng gobyerno. Habang mas mahigpit na antas ang inilalapat sa mga regulasyong nakaaapekto sa mga pangunahing karapatan at partikular na klasipikasyon, ang rational basis test naman ang inilalapat sa mga kasong hindi nabibilang sa mga nabanggit na pamantayan.

Sa pagsusuring ito, kailangang magpakita ang pamahalaan ng isang lehitimong interes at ng isang makatwirang ugnayan sa pagitan ng interes na iyon at ng mga pamamaraang ginamit. Ayon sa Korte Suprema, nabigo ang Republika rito dahil hindi nito sapat na naipakita na may makatwirang kaugnayan sa pagpuksa ng mga paglabag sa illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing ang mga kinakailangang VMS at ERS.

Sinabi ng Korte Suprema na hindi epektibo ang VMS sa pagtukoy ng mga paglabag sa IUU fishing bukod sa pangingisda sa loob ng mga protektado o ipinagbabawal na lugar. Napansin din nito na hindi na naiiba sa mga umiiral na kinakailangang ulat na sinusunod na ng mga sasakyang pangingisda ang inaasahang lalabas na datos mula sa VMS.

Nagdesisyon din ang Korte Suprema na ang FAO No. 266 ay nagpahintulot ng pagmonitor na labis sa kung ano ang pinapayagan ng RA 8550. Ayon sa Fisheries Code, ang monitoring ay ang tuloy-tuloy na pag-obserba sa pangingisda na ipinapahayag sa pamamagitan ng mga salik tulad ng bilang ng mga araw o oras ng pangingisda, mga katangian ng yamang-dagat, at mga ani ng mapagkukunan.

Ayon sa Korte Suprema, ang kahulugang ito ay hindi saklaw ang patuloy na pagtunton sa mga lokasyon o patutunguhan ng mga komersyal na sasakyang pangingisda. Binigyang-diin nito na hindi iniaatas ng RA 10654 sa mga operator na ibunyag ang kanilang lokasyon 24/7, bilang pagkilala na ang mga lugar ng pangingisda ay kumpidensyal na impormasyon sa negosyo.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=170021.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169871.

Basahin ang Dissenting Opinion ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169872.

Basahin ang Separate Opinion ni Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169884.

Basahin ang Separate Concurring Opinion ni Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169898.

Basahin ang Separate Concurring Opinion ni Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169910.

Basahin ang Concurrence and Dissent ni Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169918.

Basahin ang Concurring and Dissenting Opinion ni Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169926.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

25/07/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/1LeafG3Z4e/

The (SC) has ruled that a sale of land remains valid even if the deed of sale designates a different lot number from what was actually sold, as long as the parties’ true agreement can be clearly shown. The deed may then be corrected to match what the parties actually agreed to.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division upheld the sale of a 491-square-meter parcel of land in Cebu City between buyers Genara and Felipe Abay, Sr. (the Abays) and sellers Crispin Caballes and the heirs of Trinidad Caballes-Gallardo (the Gallardos), despite the mistake in the designation of the lot number in the deed of sale.

The property formed part of the estate of Margarita Lopez, who had nine children, including Crispin and Trinidad.

The Abays visited the site with Crispin and Tomas Gallardo, one of Trinidad’s heirs before buying the property. During the visit, they were showed them the land’s boundaries. Tomas even helped the Abays build a concrete fence around it.

The Abays openly occupied the property for about 20 years until their possession was disrupted when workers of spouses Jacinto and Chiok Ngo Lim Young (the Youngs), who are claiming ownership over the property, entered it, destroyed the fence, and built their own posts.

The Abays discovered that a title over the property had been issued in the Youngs’ name. This prompted them to file a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to cancel the title.

The Gallardos challenged this, arguing that the documents the Abays presented referred to a different lot, Lot No. 6036-B, and not the lot they were occupying, which was Lot No. 7. While both lots were located in the same area, they were separate properties and were not beside each other. The Youngs supported the Gallardos’ position and maintained that they were buyers in good faith.

The RTC ruled in favor of the Abays which ruling was reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA held that the documents presented by the Abays showed that they purchased Lot No. 6036-B and not Lot No. 7, which they claimed to own and possess.

The SC disagreed and reiterated its pronouncements in previous cases upholding the validity of the sale and allowing the correction of a contract to reflect the parties’ true agreement in instances where the deed of sale failed to accurately describe the land intended by the parties.

The SC stressed that a person buys property based on what they see on the ground, such as its boundaries, landmarks, and improvements, and not by its technical lot number. Ordinary buyers cannot be expected to identify property based only on survey descriptions or legal documents.

Under the 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, a written document may be corrected when, because of a mistake, it does not express the parties’ actual agreement.

The SC explained that a contract may be reformed or corrected if: (1) the parties agreed on the transaction; (2) the written document does not express their true agreement; and (3) the error was caused by a mistake, fraud, accident, or unfair conduct.

In this case, all these requirements were present.

Thus, the Court declared deemed reformed the Deeds of Sale and Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale by changing the designation of the property sold from “Lot No. 6036-B” to “Lot 7” and the Abays as absolute owners of such property.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169523

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/266298-spouses-genera-and-felipe-abay-sr-et-al-vs-spouses-jacinto-s-young-et-al/

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution