MANILA – The Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional the Department of Agriculture’s requirement for continuous monitoring and electronic reporting of commercial fishing vessels, ruling that the measure violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, due process, and equal protection.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the Supreme Court En Banc dismissed the petition filed by the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), and affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s ruling striking down Fisheries Administrative Order (FAO) No. 266.

The regulation expanded mandatory Vessel Monitoring Measures (VMM) and the Electronic Reporting System (ERS) to all commercial Philippine-flagged fishing vessels, requiring operators to use vessel tracking technology and obtain Maritime Mobile Service Identity numbers from the National Telecommunications Commission.

The measure was issued to implement provisions of Republic Act No. 8550, or the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, as amended by Republic Act No. 10654, which strengthened government efforts to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

Fishing companies Royale Fishing Corporation, Bonanza Fishing and Market Resources, Inc., and RBL Fishing Corporation challenged the regulation before the trial court, arguing that continuous monitoring infringed on their constitutional rights, exposed confidential business information and trade secrets, and unfairly applied only to commercial fishing vessels.

The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court and held that FAO No. 266 failed the rational basis test.

The Court said the government was unable to demonstrate that the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) and Electronic Reporting System were reasonably connected to preventing IUU fishing violations. It also found insufficient evidence that the VMS was effective in detecting violations beyond fishing in protected or restricted waters.

According to the Court, the continuous transmission of vessel locations generated information that substantially overlapped with data already required under existing reporting rules.

The Court further ruled that FAO No. 266 exceeded the authority granted under the Fisheries Code. It said the law’s definition of “monitoring” refers to the continuous observation of fishing effort, including factors such as fishing time, fishery resources and yields, and does not authorize the continuous tracking of the locations and destinations of commercial fishing vessels.

It also noted that the law does not require operators to disclose their locations around the clock, recognizing that fishing grounds constitute proprietary business information.

The Supreme Court likewise found that the regulation violated the equal protection clause by requiring only commercial fishing vessels to comply with mandatory vessel monitoring despite the Fisheries Code envisioning a unified monitoring, control and surveillance system for all Philippine-flagged fishing vessels, including municipal vessels.

The Court also ruled that FAO No. 266 failed to satisfy due process requirements.

While the government argued that the regulation was based on scientific studies and stakeholder consultations, the Court said transparency requirements under the Fisheries Code were not fully observed.

It found that the only study cited by BFAR was outdated and was not presented during consultations. The Court also noted that the agency had already procured Vessel Monitoring System transceivers before the consultation process had begun.

Although the Court recognized that preventing illegal fishing and protecting marine resources are legitimate state objectives, it stressed that such goals must be pursued through measures that comply with constitutional safeguards and are not more restrictive than necessary.

Several members of the Court issued separate opinions.

In his dissent, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen warned that invalidating FAO No. 266 creates a “legal void” that could hamper fisheries monitoring and expose the country to potential international trade sanctions. He proposed allowing government agencies time to address the regulation’s constitutional defects instead of invalidating it outright.

Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, in a separate concurring opinion, said commercial fishing operators’ property and proprietary rights deserve constitutional protection, while emphasizing that environmental objectives must still be pursued through lawful means.

Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando agreed that requiring similar information through both the ERS and VMS imposed unnecessary burdens and said illegal fishing could be monitored through less intrusive methods.

Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, in a concurring and dissenting opinion, maintained that the State’s police power should prevail over private business interests, citing the country’s obligations under international environmental agreements.

Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting also partially dissented, saying FAO No. 266 was supported by scientific studies and substantially complied with consultation requirements, warning that striking it down could weaken marine conservation efforts.

Meanwhile, Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, in a separate concurring opinion, recognized that information identifying specialized commercial fishing grounds constitutes trade secrets that warrant protection from overly broad government regulation.