Legarda files “corrective” bill to reclaim municipal waters for small fishers

Reaffirms Preferential Rights of Municipal Fisherfolk Amid Threats of Commercial Encroachment

Senator Loren Legarda has filed the Municipal Fisherfolk Protection Act, a bill that seeks to declare the 15-kilometer municipal waters as exclusively reserved for municipal fisherfolk, in order to safeguard their constitutional preferential rights and ensure the sustainability of coastal resources.

The bill is filed in the wake of the Mercidar ruling rendered by RTC Malabon Branch 170, which effectively allowed licensed commercial fishing vessels to operate in municipal waters seven fathoms or deeper, and invalidated key provisions of the Philippine Fisheries Code delegating enforcement to local government units (LGUs).

Due to a series of procedural lapses by the government, the Mercidar ruling became final and executory, not because the Supreme Court ruled on the merits, but because the case was dismissed on procedural grounds.

The bill notes that it does not aim to reverse the Court’s decision but reasserts the legislative policy behind municipal waters protection and warns of the grave ecological and social consequences if commercial encroachment is left unaddressed.

“This bill is not a reaction to a single case, but a reaffirmation of a long-standing commitment to small-scale fisherfolk,” said Legarda. “It restores legislative clarity and renews our obligation to protect subsistence fishers who rely on these waters for survival.”

Fisheries Data Reveal Worsening Crisis for Small-Scale Fishers

Recent data from the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) reveal a troubling national trend: Philippine fishery yields have declined sharply over the past decade, underscoring the urgency of protecting municipal waters for small-scale fisherfolk.

Citing BFAR data, the explanatory note of the bills states that from 2014 to 2023, commercial fisheries production dropped by 25.7%, falling from 1.1 million to 822,427 metric tons, even with access to deeper offshore waters. The marine municipal fisheries sector also shrank by 14.5%, losing 149,432.87 metric tons over the same period.

Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing remains a major factor, costing the sector ₱5.4 billion in annual income losses. In both 2022 and 2023, over 107,000 metric tons of fish were lost to IUU activities, much of it due to encroachment by commercial vessels.

“If commercial fishing is allowed to expand further into these zones, we risk accelerating both ecological collapse and social displacement,” the explanatory note reads.

Reaffirming Local Stewardship and Constitutional Principles

The proposed bill also reasserts long-standing constitutional and legal mandates that recognize the critical role of local governments in managing fisheries and protecting small-scale fishers. Under the 1987 Constitution, local autonomy is a core principle, affirmed by Article X, Section 2, which guarantees that “territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy,” and by Article XIII, Section 7, which directs the State to grant preferential rights to subsistence fishers over marine resources.

These principles are operationalized through the Local Government Code of 1991, which empowers municipalities to enforce fishery laws, manage aquatic habitats like mangroves, and provide fisheries extension services. More importantly, Section 149 of the Code gives LGUs the exclusive authority to grant fishery privileges within their municipal waters, with safeguards that prioritize marginal fishers.

A Deliberate Expression of State Authority

Critically, the bill also invokes the principle of Jura Regalia, which vests all natural resources in the State. But while this authority traditionally resides with the national government, it is often exercised through decentralized systems, including local governments empowered by national law. The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, for instance, was a deliberate act of Congress to authorize LGUs to manage municipal waters in partnership with national agencies like BFAR.

The explanatory note explains that to suggest, as the Mercidar ruling implied, that such delegation amounts to a surrender of authority is to misread the purpose of decentralization. As the bill frames it, the 15-kilometer rule is not a relinquishment of control but a regulatory strategy, a clear boundary that reflects both physical limitations and constitutional commitments.

“When the State defines gear types, vessel limits, and enforcement rules, it is not stepping back, it is actively regulating and controlling,” the explanatory note reads. “And without LGUs, how can the State patrol over 2.2 million square kilometers of seas or 36,000 kilometers of coastline? Through this proposed law, we are simply exercising dominion over our waters in guaranteeing equitable access to those who need protection.”

Grounded in Reality, Not Abstraction

The bill also highlights a key point often overlooked in legal discourse, the physical realities of fishing. According to the bill, the 15-kilometer limit is not arbitrary. It reflects what small-scale fishers can reasonably access using paddle boats or small bancas, and what coastal communities can monitor from the shore.

In a seascape increasingly dominated by radar-equipped commercial fleets, the question, Legarda notes, is not whether small fishers can compete. They cannot. The more urgent question is how the constitutional guarantee of preferential use can be upheld in practice.

“With subsistence fishers unable to compete with commercial operators, the most direct, environmentally sound, and logical way to protect them is by reserving the only area they can safely access” Legarda said.

By reinstating this boundary, the bill seeks not only to clarify legislative intent but to correct what it calls a legal misstep that drifted too far from the lived realities of those who rely on the sea to survive.

“This legislation draws a rightful line,” it concludes, “between survival and exploitation, between a law and legal framework that serves the people and one that forgets them.” (30)