001TanoversusSocrates

GRNo.110249,21August1997
TOPIC:Rule63
PONENTE:DAVIDE,JR.,J.

AUTHOR:
NOTES:
Maiksilangto!!!Hahahah.Thoughmahabayungkaso.^_^

FACTS:(chronologicalorder)
1.OnDecember15,1992,theSangguniangPanlungsodofPuertoPrincesaCityenactedOrdinanceNo.1592banningtheshipmentofalllivefish
andlobsteroutsidePuertoPrincesaCityeffectiveforfiveyears.Toimplementtheordinance,theCityMayorofPuertoPrincesaCityissuedOffice
OrderNo.23datedJanuary23,1993,orderinginspectionsoncargoescontaininglivefishandlobsterbeingshippedoutfromairandsea.Likewise,
onFebruary19,1993,theSangguniangPanlalawiganoftheProvincialGovernmentofPalawan,enactedResolutionNo.33andOrdinanceNo.2,
seriesof1993,prohibitingthecatching,gathering,possessing,buying,sellingandshipmentoflivemarinecoraldwellingaquaticorganismsfora
periodoffiveyears.
2.Petitionerschallengedtheaforementionedordinancesandofficeorderonthegroundthatitdeprivedthemofdueprocessoflaw,theirlivelihood,
andundulyrestrictedthemfromthepracticeoftheirtrade.
3.Thereareactuallytwosetsofpetitionersinthiscase.Theprimaryinterestofthefirstsetofpetitionersis,ofcourse,topreventtheprosecution,trial
anddeterminationofthecriminalcasesuntiltheconstitutionalityorlegalityoftheOrdinancestheyallegedlyviolatedshallhavebeenresolved.The
secondsetofpetitionersmerelyclaimthatbeingfishermenormarinemerchants,theywouldbeadverselyaffectedbytheordinances.Astothesecond
setofpetitioners,theinstantpetitionisobviouslyoneforDECLARATORYRELIEF,i.e.,foradeclarationthattheOrdinancesinquestionarea
"nullity...forbeingunconstitutional."
ISSUE(S):WhetherSupremeCourthasoriginaljurisdictiontoentertainapetitionfordeclaratoryrelief.
HELD:No.TheSupremeCourtdoesnotpossessoriginaljurisdictionoverpetitionsfordeclaratoryreliefevenifonlyquestionsoflawareinvolved.
TheCourtmerelyexercisesappellatejurisdiction.
RATIO:
Walangratioaboutdeclaratoryrelief!!!Hahaha.PagtinanongngotherissuessabihinmonalangIonlyconcentratedonSpeccivissue
relatingtoDR.Haha.
Issueoncertiorari:
Thespecialcivilactionforcertiorarimustfailonthegroundofprematurityamountingtoalackofcauseofaction.Thereisnoshowingthatsaid
petitioners,astheaccusedinthecriminalcases,havefiledmotionstoquashtheinformationsthereinandthatthesameweredenied.Theground
availableforsuchmotionsisthatthefactschargedthereindonotconstituteanoffensebecausetheordinancesinquestionareunconstitutional.It
cannotthenbesaidthatthelowercourtsactedwithoutorinexcessofjurisdictionorwithgraveabuseofdiscretiontojustifyrecoursetothe
extraordinaryremedyofcertiorariorprohibition.Itmustfurtherbestressedthatevenifpetitionersdidfilemotionstoquash,thedenialthereofwould
notforthwithgiverisetoacauseofactionunderRule65oftheRulesofCourt.Thegeneralruleisthatwhereamotiontoquashisdenied,theremedy
therefromisnotcertiorari,butforthepartyaggrievedtherebytogototrialprejudicetoreiteratingspecialdefensesinvolvedinsaidmotion,andif,
aftertrialonthemeritsanadversedecisionisrendered,toappealtherefrominthemannerauthorizedbylaw.And,evenwhereinanexceptional
circumstancesuchdenialmaybethesubjectofaspecialcivilactionforcertiorari,amotionforreconsiderationmusthavetobefiledtoallowthe
courtconcernedanopportunitytocorrectitserrors,unlesssuchmotionmaybedispensedwithbecauseofexistingexceptionalcircumstances.Finally,
evenifamotionforreconsiderationhasbeenfiledanddenied,theremedyunderRule65isstillunavailableabsentanyshowingofthegrounds
providedforinSection1thereof.Forobviousreasons,thepetitionatbardoesnot,andcouldnothave,allegedanyofsuchgrounds.
Issueonconstitutionality:
TheSupremeCourtruledthatthechallengedordinancesdonotsufferanyinfirmity,bothundertheConstitutionandapplicablelaws,includingthe
LocalGovernmentCode.Thereisnoshowingthatanyofthepetitionersqualifiesasasubsistenceormarginalfisherman.

TheLocalGovernmentCodevestsmunicipalitieswiththepowertograntfisheryprivilegesinmunicipalwatersandimposerentals,feesorcharges
therefor.TheSangguniangsaredirectedtoenactordinancesthatprotecttheenvironmentandimposeappropriatepenaltiesforacts,whichendanger
theenvironmentsuchasdynamitefishing,andotherformsofdestructivefishing.OneofthedevolvedpowersundertheCodeistheenforcementof
fisherylawsinmunicipalwatersincludingtheconservationofmangroves.Inlightthenoftheprinciplesofdecentralizationanddevolutionandthe
powersgrantedthereintolocalgovernmentunitsundertheGeneralWelfareClauseandthosewhichinvolvetheexerciseofpolicepower,thevalidity
ofthequestionedOrdinancescannotbedoubted.

TheordinancesfindfullsupportunderR.A.7611,otherwiseknownastheStrategicEnvironmentPlan(SEP)forPalawanAct,approvedon19June
1992whichadoptsacomprehensiveframeworkforthesustainabledevelopmentofPalawancompatiblewithprotectingandenhancingthenatural
resourcesandendangeredenvironmentoftheprovince.
DissentingOpinion:
ThedissentingopinionofJusticeBellosilloreliesuponthelackofauthorityonthepartoftheSangguniangPanlungsodofPuertoPrincesatoenact
OrdinanceNo.15,seriesof1992,asthesubjectthereofiswithinthejurisdictionandresponsibilityoftheBureauofFisheriesandAquaticResources
(BFAR)underP.D.No.704,theFisheriesDecreeof1975,andtheordinanceisunenforceableforlackofapprovalbytheSecretaryoftheDepartment
ofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR)underP.D.704.ButBFARisnolongerundertheDepartmentofNaturalResources(nowDENR),
butundertheMinistryofAgricultureandFoodandconvertedintoamerestaffagencythereof.Theapprovalthatshouldbesoughtwouldbethatof

theSecretaryoftheDepartmentofAgriculture.However,therequirementofapprovalbytheSecretaryhasbeendispensedwith.
CASELAW/DOCTRINE