The late Jose T. Villarosa, a former congressman from Occidental Mindoro, was one of the proponents and authors of the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 (RA 8550). His advocacy focused on safeguarding the rights of municipal fisherfolk and promoting sustainable fishing practices, particularly benefiting coastal communities like those in his province. While I do not subscribe to Villarosa’s politics, as a human rights advocate, I recognize that the Code has played a significant role in achieving economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR), including the right to adequate food.
As a local political observer in the province, I believe the implementation of fisheries laws and programs has significantly benefited Occidental Mindoro's fishing industry, particularly through increased fish production. According to the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), Occidental Mindoro recorded a 19.4% increase in the value of agricultural and fisheries production in 2021—the highest among provinces in the MIMAROPA region.
In the Municipality of Sablayan, the Philippine Fisheries Code (RA 8550, as amended by RA 10654) has been instrumental in:
Establishing marine protected areas (MPAs) to preserve biodiversity and fish populations.
Strengthening anti-illegal fishing programs to combat destructive activities.
Enhancing aquaculture and coastal tourism opportunities, which contribute to local economic growth.
However, the recent Supreme Court resolution declaring unconstitutional the provision of the Philippine Fisheries Code (RA 8550) that prohibits commercial fishing in municipal waters is a significant blow. As the Municipal Administrator of Sablayan in Occidental Mindoro, my heart bleeds for the fisherfolk and fisheries sector, as well as for the leaders of our local government unit (LGU) led by Mayor Walter "Bong" B. Marquez and Vice Mayor Edwin N. Mintu. This ruling is consequential but not yet a landmark decision, as it was issued by a Supreme Court division rather than the full en banc. A landmark status requires an en banc ruling, leaving room for further deliberation and appeal—hence this blog post.
We believe that by opening municipal waters to commercial fishing vessels, the ruling undermines the intent of RA 8550 to balance economic development with ecological sustainability and social equity. Allowing commercial fishing fleets to operate in these zones threatens to exacerbate the existing problem of overfishing.
This case underscores the urgent need for a balanced approach to fisheries governance. While commercial fishing is an essential contributor to the national economy, it must not come at the expense of small-scale fishers or the marine environment. Strict regulations and innovative solutions—such as gear restrictions, fishing seasons, and enhanced monitoring—are essential to ensure the sustainability of marine resources.
This ruling is not the Supreme Court’s final word and may still be reviewed or reversed by the full en banc. Until finalized, its implications require cautious interpretation. Stakeholders, including environmental groups, local governments, and fisheries advocates, should use this opportunity to appeal and argue for the protection of municipal waters.
As Oceana aptly puts it, “Human rights and environmental sustainability are inseparable when it comes to fishing communities.”
No to commercial fishing in municipal waters!
++++
(Photo:
Jun Gulapa; “Gusto Kong Mangisda Pero ‘Di Ko Magawa".)
No comments:
Post a Comment