-
The Department of Agriculture will appeal a Supreme Court decision that declared unconstitutional an order requiring Philippine-flagged commercial fishing vessels to install vessel monitoring systems and submit electronic catch reports
-
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and Agriculture Secretary Francisco P. Tiu Laurel Jr. are confident the high court will reverse the ruling, arguing that vessel monitoring is an internationally recognized enforcement tool against illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing
-
They also argued that commercial fishing licenses are a privilege, not a right, subject to state regulation
-
The ruling carries implications beyond domestic enforcement, as the Philippines is a signatory to international maritime agreements on illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and vessel monitoring is essential for meeting the traceability and sustainability standards required by key export markets
The Department of Agriculture (DA) will appeal a Supreme Court ruling that struck down an order requiring Philippine-flagged fishing vessels to install vessel monitoring systems and submit electronic catch reports.
The high court recently declared unconstitutional Fisheries Administrative Order (FAO) No. 266 since it violates rights against unreasonable searches, seizures, due process, and equal protection under the law. The ruling came after a group of commercial fishing operators challenged the regulation.
“We are fairly confident the Supreme Court will reconsider the ruling, and allow us to use this internationally recognized vessel monitoring system as the most effective way to deal with illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing as it relies on electronic data and not manual filing of commercial fishing firms,” said Agriculture Secretary Francisco Tiu Laurel, Jr.
DA-attached agency Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) argued that a vessel monitoring system is far more than a tracking device, noting it is a frontline enforcement tool used to monitor compliance with fisheries regulations and conservation measures — including during closed fishing seasons designed to protect gravid female stocks in spawning and nursery areas from illegal exploitation. For fisheries regulators, VMS has become a cornerstone of modern enforcement, allowing authorities to verify compliance with fishing restrictions, improve catch traceability, support investigations against illegal operators, and generate the data needed for science-based fisheries management, DA said in a statement.
A central legal argument BFAR will press in its motion for reconsideration is that commercial fishing licenses, under the Fisheries Code of 1998, are a privilege — not a right — and are therefore subject to state rules and regulations. BFAR also contended that the regulation is aligned with the constitutional right to a healthy environment, a right that belongs to the Filipino people and industry stakeholders alike.
“BFAR respects the decision of the Supreme Court and we are filing a motion for reconsideration,” the bureau said, adding that any future monitoring framework would be aligned with constitutional safeguards.
BFAR said it will review its implementing mechanisms to ensure technical soundness in fulfilling the State’s obligation to conserve the country’s marine resources, while taking into account the concerns of its stakeholders.
The stakes extend well beyond domestic waters. The Philippines is a signatory to international maritime agreements targeting IUU fishing, and vessel monitoring is widely regarded as essential for meeting the traceability and sustainability standards required by the country’s major fish export markets.
