Municipal Fisherfolk Protection Act

TWENTIETH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) First Regular Session JUL 14 A11:49 SENATE RECEIVLO 1 S. No._ Introduced by Senator Loren Legarda DECLARING THE PREFERENTIAL RIGHTS OF MUNICIPAL FISHERFOLK BY DECLARING THE FIFTEEN (15)-KILOMETER MUNICIPAL WATERS AS EXCLUSIVELY RESERVED FOR THEIR USE, PROTECTING MUNICIPAL WATERS FROM COMMERCIAL FISHING, PROVIDING SUPPORT MEASURES FOR SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES EXPLANATORY NOTE Public policy draws its meaning from the lives it touches. It takes shape in the long hours spent at sea, the dwindling catch, and the quiet persistence of those who rely on the water to provide. Its truth is found not only in the words of the law but in the strain borne by our ecosystems and the hopes of families waiting on shore. To understand the purpose of any law, we must begin where it matters most—at the shoreline, where each decision has the power to sustain or unravel an entire way of life. This bill emerges from that understanding. It seeks to reaffirm the exclusive use of the fifteen-kilometer municipal waters for small-scale fisherfolk, a policy grounded not just in economic need, but in ecological and social justice. As legal interpretations begin to drift from the original spirit of Republic Act No. 8550 otherwise known as "The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998" as amended by Republic Act No. 10654, this measure restores its clarity and purpose. Here, Congress draws a firm line, choosing to protect food and livelihood over commercial gain, to uphold subsistence rather than surplus, and survival over exploitation. This bill challenges prevailing legal interpretations that read the law in isolation from the social and ecological realities that gave rise to it. The policy behind a statute cannot exist in a legal vacuum, it must be understood in context, guided by the

circumstances it was meant to address and the people and nature it was intended to protect. This approach is not without precedent. In Drilon v. Lim (G.R. No. 112497), the Supreme Court affirmed the principle of purposeful hesitation, reminding us that courts must begin with the presumption that a law was enacted with the highest intent to serve the public good.' Guided by that same restraint, this bill is crafted with deliberation and resolve. It reflects the collective voice of numerous coastal municipalities, academic institutions, civil society, and above all, the 2.3 million small-scale fisherfolk who venture out each day not in pursuit of profit, but in search of survival. 3 That responsibility to legislate with care is rooted in the very character of the 1987 Constitution, which, while the supreme law of the land, is not an omniscient text and speaks in principles more than procedures. Where it is silent, laws are enacted to fill in the details grounded in empirical and moral foundations. Science and Sustainability

Section 16, Article II of the Constitution declares that "the State shall protect and

advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. "Yet despite this, the data reveals a troubling reality, our fishing yields are in decline, and the health of our marine ecosystems is deteriorating: • Only 15.2% of Philippine marine waters are classified as municipal waters - Yet this narrow strip-just 307,590 km out of the country's 2.2 million km2 maritime territory-supports the majority of the 2.3 million small-scale fisherfolk. This imbalance underscores the need to prioritize municipal waters, which carry the greatest burden in providing food and livelihood for the poorest sector. • Commercial fisheries production declined by 25.7% from 2014 to 2023 - Despite access to deep-sea fishing grounds, the commercial sector's 1 Supreme Court of the Philippines. (1994, August 4). Drilon v. Lim, G.R. No. 112497. Retrieved from https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/aug1994/gr_112497_1994.html#rnt5 2 Karagatan Patrol. (n.d.). Atin ang Kinse: Primer on municipal waters and the 15-km zone. Retrieved from https://karagatanpatrol.org/atin_ang_kinse/ 3 Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR). (2023). 2023 Philippine Fisheries Profile. Retrieved from https://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2023-Philippine-Fisheries- Profile.pdf 4 Philippine Association of Marine Science (PAMS). Depth, Distance, and Sustainable Fisheries: The Science of Municipal Waters. Retrieved on 10 July 2025, from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lq5H7UldWNj_99EVdPkWeMPWxsafWzNF/view

output dropped from 1.1 million to 822,427 metric tons. This reflects a broader pattern of overfishing, where even legal, industrial efforts exceed what the ecosystem can sustain.5 • Decline in Marine Municipal Fisheries Production - From 1,029,394.45 MT in 2014 to 879,961.58 MT in 2023 — a drop of 149,432.87 MT or 14.5% over ten years. • Municipal inland fisheries production fell by 19% over the same decade - From 214,864 MT in 2014 to 174,581 MT in 2023, the steady decline in nearshore catch volume, even as fishing effort continues, suggests biological overfishing. Fish are being harvested faster than they can reproduce, eroding stocks meant to serve the most vulnerable. 6 • Region IV-A suffered a 67% collapse in inland municipal fisheries output - Once the top-producing region (105,000 MT in 2014), it plummeted to just 34,423 MT in 2023. • Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing caused P5.4 billion in lost income annually - In 2022 and 2023, 107,176 metric tons of fish were lost each year due to IU fishing in municipal waters-more than half of which came from encroaching commercial vessels. Waters meant for small fishers are often taken by those with more resources.? The trend is clear: ecological and economic collapse are converging despite constitutional protections and national policies, the collapse of fish stocks and the erosion of fisherfolk livelihoods are accelerating. Social Justice But collapse is not only ecological, it is also economic and social. The decline of fisheries is mirrored by the deepening poverty of those who depend on them. In response to this, the Philippine Constitution speaks with both clarity and compassion: it mandates the State to promote a just and dynamic social order, liberate its people from poverty, 5 Department of Agriculture - Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. (2023). Philippine IUU Fishing Assessment Report 2023. Table 3.15 https://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/wp- content/uploads/2024/11/Philippine-IUU-Fishing-Assessment-Report-2023-300dpi.pdf 6 Ibid, Table 3.12 ' Ibid, 8 Philippine IUU Fishing Assessment Report 2023. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), Department of Agriculture. Retrieved on 11 July 2025, from https://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/wp- content/uploads/2024/12/Philippine-IUU-Fishing-Assessment-Report-2023-300dpi-1.pdf

and uphold the preferential rights of subsistence fisherfolk to access and benefit from communal marine resources.' It recognizes the struggles of fishing communities and directs the State to provide protection and support, from technology and research to livelihood aid and resource security, guided by a vision of equity for those most dependent on the sea. Yet more than three decades since the 1987 Constitution, the promise remains unrealized. From 2009 to 2018, the poverty incidence among fisherfolk showed modest decline. But in 2021, it rose again to 30.6%, making fisherfolk the poorest among all basic sectors in the country. This regression is not incidental, it reflects structural failures, including the encroachment of commercial fishing into municipal waters, the depletion of coastal and the lack of sustained livelihood support.10 stocks, Local Autonomy The 1987 Philippine Constitution affirms both the autonomy of local government units and the protection of subsistence fishers. Section 2, Article X declares that "the territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy," while Section 7, Article XIII underscores the State's obligation to grant preferential rights to small-scale fishers over marine resources. This constitutional mandate is given flesh by the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991. Under Section 16 (General Welfare Clause) and Section 17 (Basic Services and Facilities), municipalities are empowered and obligated to enforce fishery laws within municipal waters, manage aquatic habitats such as mangroves, and provide extension and research services related to fisheries. Moreover, Section 149 of the LGC grants municipalities exclusive authority to issue licenses, impose fees, and award fishery privileges in their waters, subject to safeguards that prioritize marginal fishers. These powers are essential tools for fulfilling the State's duty to promote inclusive development and protect local livelihoods and biodiversity. Local governments serve not as passive implementers but as key actors in fisheries management. Jura Regalia The Constitution is unequivocal: all natural resources, including fisheries, are owned by the State, and the exploration, development, and utilization of these resources 9 Article XII, Section 2, Article XIII, Section 7, 1987 Constitution 10 Ibid, page 39.

must remain under its full control and supervision. Article XII, Section 2 goes further by explicitly reserving the use and enjoyment of the nation's marine wealth to Filipino citizens, with particular priority given to subsistence fisherfolk in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons. In this matter, one must further reflect: who truly constitutes the State? Is it limited to the national government alone, or does it also include local governments whose autonomy is clearly affirmed by the Constitution and the Local Government Code? When Congress enacted the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 and empowered municipalities to manage their coastal waters and enforce fishery laws, was that not an expression of the State's authority exercised through local governance? Did the State relinquish control, or did it assert it more effectively by placing stewardship in the hands of those who live closest to and depend most on these waters? It is in this context that the 15-kilometer municipal waters rule must be understood-not as a surrender of State control, but as a deliberate expression of it. This policy was enacted through national legislation and implemented by the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, working in coordination with local government units. When violations are apprehended by the Philippine National Police or the Coast Guard, that too reflects the continuing exercise of State power. To claim that this rule abandons authority is to misread the very principle of decentralization. It is the State, acting through Congress and its institutions, that defines legal gear types, vessel limits, access rules, and penalties. These are not signs of withdrawal, but of regulation. And without LGUs, how can the State realistically protect over 2.2 million square kilometers of maritime domain or patrol 36,000 kilometers of coastline? 1 The effective stewardship of municipal waters cannot rest solely on distant national agencies. Even well-resourced national agencies cannot match the constant presence and intimate knowledge of communities who live by the tides and navigate the coastlines with little more than paddles and experience. Physical and Legal Realities Law, beyond its technical form, must reckon with the physical realities it seeks to govern. Needless to state, when reason departs from the law, arbitrariness takes its place. The 15-kilometer rule is not arbitrary; it is grounded in what small fishers can safely reach. 11 Destination Earth. (n.d.). Case Study: Philippines. Retrieved July 11, 2025, from https://destination- earth.eu/case-studies/philippines/

It approximates the furthest distance a person can visually monitor a boat from shore—a practical boundary for enforcement and survival. 12 In light of this, one must ask: In a sea increasingly dominated by radar-equipped commercial fleets, can traditional fishers truly compete? And if this zone is opened to commercial incursion, how else can the constitutional guarantee of preferential use be made real? Ultimately, is there any other more effective, equitable, and enforceable way of protecting this right than by reserving the only area subsistence fishers can access? In the face of uncertainty, this legislation draws a clear and rightfui line. It restores the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998's original intent-undone in just over a month, by a ruling divorced from the coastline realities it was meant to govern. Such swift judgment stands in stark contrast to the generations-long struggle of small-scale fisherfolk who have lived by the tides with neither radar nor refuge. By restoring municipal waters to municipal fisherfolk, Congress not only corrects a legal misstep but fulfills a long-overdue promise. It upholds the principle that the law must never drift away from those who depend on it for survival. In view of the foregoing, the urgent passage of this bill is sought. LOREN LEGARDA 12 Same, Note 5.

TWENTIETH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) 25 JUL 14 All :49 First Regular Session ) RECEIVEDS SENATE S. No._ Introduced by Senator Loren Legarda DECLARING THE PREFERENTIAL RIGATS OF MUNICIPAL FISHERFOLK BY DECLARING THE FIFTEEN (15)-KILOMETER MUNICIPAL WATERS AS EXCLUSIVELY RESERVED FOR THEIR USE, PROTECTING MUNICIPAL WATERS FROM COMMERCIAL FISHING, PROVIDING SUPPORT MEASURES FOR SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

Section 1. Short Title - This Act shall be known as the "Municipal Fisherfolk

Protection Act".

Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to

uphold the preferential rights of municipal fisherfolk in the use, management, and 5 protection of municipal waters. Recognizing that fisheries are vital to food security, 6 ecological balance, and the livelihoods of coastal communities, the State affirms its 7 duty under the Constitution to protect small-scale fisherfolk and promote social justice 8 through sustainable and inclusive fisheries governance. Towards this end, the State shall ensure that the fifteen (15)-kilometer municipal waters are reserved primarily for the use of municipal fisherfolk and their duly registered organizations or cooperatives. The State shall prohibit unauthorized commercial fishing in these waters, establish science-based and community-informed safeguards, and provide institutional and livelihood support to strengthen the resilience, productivity, and dignity of subsistence fishers. This policy shall be

implemented with due regard to environmental sustainability, the autonomy of local government units, and the principles of decentralization.

Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Act, the following terms are

hereby defined: a) Municipal Waters - include not only streams, lakes, inland bodies of water and tidal waters within the municipality which are not included within the protected areas as defined under Republic Act No. 7586 (The NIPAS Law), public forest, timber lands, forest reserves or fishery reserves, but also marine waters included between two (2) lines drawn perpendicular to the general coastline from points where the boundary lines of the municipality touch the sea at low tide and a third line parallel with the general coastline including offshore islands and fifteen (15) kilometers from such coastline. Where two (2) municipalities are so situated on opposite shores that there is less than thirty (30) kilometers of marine waters between them, the third line shall be equally distant from opposite shore of the respective municipalities; b) Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council (FARMO) - refers to the multi-sectoral advisory body created under Section 69 of Republic Act No. 8550, or the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, as amended by Republic Act No. 10654, to assist in the preparation and implementation of local fisheries plans and policies. FARMCs are established at the national (NFARMC), municipal/city (M/CFARMC), and barangay levels, and are composed of representatives from local government units, fisherfolk organizations, academe, and relevant government agencies; and c) Department - shall mean the Department of Agriculture.

Sec. 4. Jurisdiction of Municipal/City Government. - The municipal/city

government shall have jurisdiction over municipal waters as defined in this Act. The municipal/city government, in consultation with the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Councils (FARMC), shall be responsible for the management, conservation, development, protection, utilization, and disposition of all fish and fishery/aquatic resources within their respective municipal waters.

The municipal/city government may, in consultation with the FARMC, enact 2 appropriate ordinances for this purpose and in accordance with the National Fisheries 3 Policy. The ordinances enacted by the municipality and component city shall be 4 reviewed pursuant to Republic Act No. 7160 by the sanggunian of the province which 5 has jurisdiction over the same. The Local Government Units (LGUs) shall also enforce all fishery laws, rules and 7 regulations as well as valid fishery ordinances enacted by the municipal/city council. The management of contiguous fishery resources such as bays which straddle 9 several municipalities, cities or provinces, shall be done in an integrated manner, and 10 shall not be based on political subdivisions of municipal waters in order to facilitate their management as single resource systems. The LGUs which share or border such resources may group themselves and coordinate with each other to achieve the objectives of integrated fishery resource management. The Integrated Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Councils (IFARMCs) established under Section 76 of Republic Act No. 8550 otherwise known as "The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998" as amended by Republic Act No. 10654 shall serve as the venues for close collaboration among LGUs in the management of contiguous resources.

Sec. 5. Grant of Fishing Privileges in Municipal Waters. - The duly registered

19 fisherfolk organizations/cooperatives shall have preference in the grant of fishery 20 rights by the Municipal/City Council pursuant to Section 149 of the Local Government Code: Provided, That in areas where there are special agencies or offices vested with jurisdiction over municipal waters by virtue of special laws creating these agencies such as, but not limited to, the Laguna Lake Development Authority and the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development, said offices and agencies shall continue to grant permits for proper management and implementation of the aforementioned structures.

Sec. 6. Users of Municipal Waters. - All fishery related activities in municipal

waters, as defined in Republic Act No. 8550 as amended by Republic Act No. 10654, shall be utilized by municipal fisherfolk and their cooperatives/organizations who are listed as such in the registry of municipal fisherfolk. The municipal or city government, however, may, through its local chief executive and acting pursuant to an appropriate ordinance, authorize or permit small

1 and medium commercial fishing vessels to operate within the ten point one (10.1) to 2 fifteen (15) kilometer area from the shoreline in municipal waters as defined herein, 3 provided, that all the following are met: a) no commercial fishing in municipal waters with depth less than seven (7) fathoms as certified by the appropriate agency; b) fishing activities utilizing methods and gears that are determined to be consistent with national policies set by the Department; c) prior consultation, through public hearing, with the M/CFARMC has been conducted; and d) the applicant vessel as well as the shipowner, employer, captain and crew have been certified by the appropriate agency as not having violated Republic Act No. 8550 as amended by Republic Act No. 10654, environmental laws, and related laws. In no case shall the authorization or permit mentioned above be granted for fishing in bays as determined by the Department to be in an environmentally critical condition and during closed season as provided for in Section 9 of this Republic Act No. 8550 as amended by Republic Act No. 10654.

Sec. 7. Requirements. - The municipality/city government, which intends to

allow the entry of commercial fishing boats in 10.1 to 15 km. from the coastline of municipal waters, shall: a) Establish the boundaries of the allowable areas for commercial fishing. The concerned municipality and city government may seek the assistance of the Department and/or the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) in establishing the boundaries and isobath depth of waters; b) Conduct a public hearing, in consultation with FARMCs, to present the following: (1) a map showing the areas of the municipal waters where small and medium commercial fishing vessels may be allowed to operate; (2) the type of fishing vessels and gears that may be allowed in such waters; and (3) the draft municipal fisheries ordinance permitting such commercial fishing operations; c) Enact appropriate municipal fisheries ordinance.

d) Other requirements as may be deemed appropriate by the Department other requirements as may be deemed appropriate by the Department, including but not limited to: scientific and technical assessments to ensure sustainability; socio-economic impact evaluation on municipal fisherfolk; certification of non-violation of fisheries and environmental laws by the vessel and its operators; compliance with harvest control rules, gear restrictions, and vessel monitoring measures; and the establishment of grievance or conflict resolution mechanisms.

Sec. 8. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, orders, rules, and regulations or

10 other issuances or parts inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended, or modified accordingly.

Sec. 9. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its

publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation. Approved,