Senate probe into commercial fishing within 15-km municipal waters sought
Under proposed Senate resolution no. 11, Pangilinan called on the Senate committee on agriculture, food, and agrarian reform to conduct a comprehensive inquiry, in aid of legislation, into such impacts and the scientific basis—or lack thereof— for the 15-km municipal water delineation and the 12.8-meter depth restriction.
To recall, the Supreme Court (SC) upheld a regional trial court (RTC) ruling that declared certain provisions of the Philippine Fisheries Code and its implementing rules and regulations unconstitutional.
The RTC had permanently barred authorities from enforcing the 15-kilometer municipal waters limit.
Pangilinan pointed out that the 15-kilometer municipal water zone for small-scale fishers is 'crucial for the sustainability of marine ecosystems, the preservation of fish stocks, and the food and livelihood security of millions of Filipinos living in coastal areas."
He said the proposed probe would thus explore possible legislative interventions and amendments to existing laws and policies to protect the rights and welfare of small-scale fishers.
'This is about more than boundaries,' the returning senator said. 'It's about protecting the very communities who have long been the stewards of our seas—and ensuring that our oceans remain a source of life and livelihood, not a battleground for survival.'
Several fisherfolk groups have been protesting against the SC ruling to allow commercial fishing within the 15-kilometer boundary of municipal waters.
The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) has also filed a motion for reconsideration before the SC to reconsider its ruling. —VAL, GMA Integrated News
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
5 hours ago
- GMA Network
House used ‘highly immoral maneuver' in VP Sara impeachment
Supreme Court Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando said the House of Representatives took ''deliberate'' actions to circumvent the one-year bar rule in relation to the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte. Hernando was one of the 13 justices who voted on Friday to strike down the impeachment complaint pending before the Senate, ruling that it violated the constitutional protection against multiple impeachment proceedings against the same official in a single year. According to the SC, the effective termination of the three impeachment complaints following the adjournment of session barred the fourth impeachment complaint, which was endorsed by more than 200 congressmen on February 5. ''[T]he House abused its discretion when it tolerated and approved the Secretary General's act of withholding action on the first three impeachment complaints,'' Hernando said in his concurring opinion. ''The totality of attendant circumstances reveals the true nature of the House's action: to circumvent the one-year bar rule in order to fabricate a superficially legal strategy and make the fourth complaint viable. The move was as clever as it was iniquitous and a prime example of a technically legal but highly immoral maneuver—a mere subterfuge for political gain, for it exploited a weak point in our democratic institutions,'' he added. He said the House Secretary General's argument that the one-year bar rule did not apply since the first three complaints were never referred to the House Committee on Justice was ''an excuse so lame and convenient that it is extremely difficult to ignore the impunity that comes with it.'' However, ''one may take the unpopular perspective that the House of Representatives' seeming inaction on the first three impeachment complaints served as a mantle of protection to VP Duterte and saved her from the burden of having to answer all allegations against her all at once,'' said Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda. Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, for his part, said that Duterte was not given due process in the course of the impeachment proceedings in the House. ''Here, as admitted by the House in their compliance before the Court, VP Sara was not given the opportunity to be heard in relation to the fourth Articles of Impeachment transmitted to the Senate. The House posits that neither the Constitution nor the House Rules imposes any requirement of prior opportunity to be heard,'' Gaerlan said in his concurring opinion. ''[T]he fundamental right to due process applies in all proceedings. Impeachment is not an exception,'' he added. ''[D]ue to the House's violation of VP Sara's right to due process, the fourth Articles of Impeachment is null and void.'' Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez said that while the Constitution allows the direct filing of an impeachment complaint upon the endorsement of at least one-third of all House members, ''this expedited process must not come at the expense of the respondent public official's constitutional rights.'' Both Hernando and Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting opined that the Senate of the 20th Congress, which opens on July 28, could no longer act on the impeachment complaint. Inting said the Articles of Impeachment that were transmitted by the 19th Congress were 'terminated and rendered inefficacious with the expiration of the term of the 19th Congress on June 30, 2025.'' ''I]f the Senate of the 20th Congress is allowed to continue with the trial on the subject impeachment complaint, it would have to proceed based on the Articles of Impeachment by the House that no longer exists,'' he said. ''Such a situation is tantamount to the creation of an irrepealable statute, which is constitutionally impermissible.'' Hernando said the newly elected Congress could not be bound by the actions of the previous Congress. ''The fourth impeachment complaint already transmitted and pending before the Senate of the 19th Congress, as the Senate had already convened as an impeachment court, is likewise terminated by reason of the expiration of the term of the 19th Congress,'' he said. Duterte was accused of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes. The charges included allegations of misusing confidential funds and threatening to have Speaker Martin Romualdez, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. assassinated if she was killed. The Vice President has denied the allegations. The SC said that it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges, and an impeachment complaint can still be filed starting February 6, 2026. —VBL, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
10 hours ago
- GMA Network
Senators split on SC decision vs. Sara Duterte impeachment
Senators on Friday aired contrasting opinions on the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) to declare the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional. Senator Risa Hontiveros was dismayed by the high court's decision, saying that there are 'many disturbing questions' about its short-term and long-term consequences. Citing the SC's decision on Gutierrez vs. House of Representatives, Hontiveros questioned how the one-year bar rule was violated, pointing out that the SC had explained that the consideration behind that "refers to the element of time, and not the number of complaints." 'Bukod pa, nakakabahala na tila nagdagdag ng napakaraming requirement ang Korte Suprema para simulan ang proseso ng impeachment. I can only hope that this new ruling will not adversely affect future efforts to hold our highest public officers accountable,' she said. (Aside from that, it is troubling how the Supreme Court seemingly added too many requirements to start the impeachment process.) 'Malinaw pa rin ang Saligang Batas - public office is a public trust - at walang opisyal ang may karapatan sa posisyon. Lahat ng opisyal ng bayan ay may pananagutan sa bawat Pilipino, and the constitutional right of the people to hold their highest officials accountable must always prevail. The people have every right to demand answers. Ipaglalaban namin ito,' she added. (The Constitution is still clear - public office is a public trust - and no official has a right to the position. All public officials are responsible to every Filipino, and the constitutional right of the people to hold their highest officials accountable must always prevail. The people have every right to demand answers. We will fight for this.) The SC has ruled unanimously, deeming that the articles of impeachment against Duterte is barred by the one-year rule under Article XI Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution. Moreover, magistrates ruled that the articles violate the right to due process. The SC also said that the Senate cannot acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. The high court, however, said that it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint against her may only be filed starting February 6, 2026. In response, Senator Bam Aquino maintained that the impeachment trial should proceed as he called on fellow senators to immediately hold a caucus to discuss the decision, which he said 'ignored' the Senate's constitutional duty. 'Bilang co-equal branch, malinaw ang mandato ng konstitusyon at kapangyarihan ng senado, kaya nararapat na i-respesto ang proseso ng impeachment,' Aquino said. (As a co-equal branch, the constitutional mandate and power of the Senate are clear, so the impeachment process should be respected.) Senator Francis 'Kiko' Pangilinan also believed that the SC seemingly set aside the legal principle of the presumption of regularity of the acts of a co-equal branch of government. 'Sa ngayon nagsalita na ang Korte Suprema at kailangan igalang ito. Mapapaisip na lang tayo kung ganito pa rin ba ang magiging pasya ng SC kung sinunod ng Senado ang mandato ng Saligang Batas na 'to forthwith proceed with trial' gayong wala naman restraining order na inilabas yung SC nung inihain yung petisyon noong pang Pebrero' Pangilinan said. (So far the Supreme Court has spoken and it must be respected. We can only wonder if the SC's decision would still be the same if the Senate had followed the mandate of the Constitution to 'proceed with trial' even though there was no restraining order issued by the SC when the petition was filed in February.) Article XI Section 3(4) of the 1987 Constitution states that: 'In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.' 'Duty-bound' Meanwhile, Senator Joel Villanueva said that the Senate remains guided by its duty to uphold the rule of law and respect due process. 'As an impeachment court and as a legislative body, we remain committed to following the Constitution and established procedures and will continue to do so,' he said. Senator Imee Marcos also said that the decision of the Supreme Court should be respected. 'Sa mga kasamahan kong senador —trabaho na tayo! Wag na mamulitika!' (To my fellow senators, let us now work and stop politicking.) Senator Vicente "Tito" Sotto III, for his part, said that he is still studying the SC decision and is seeking advice on the matter. 'Being a member of the impeachment court, I would rather hear what the [House of Representatives] has to say. I was just told by a legal luminary that in this situation, we can disregard the SC decision. Let me study that advice,' Sotto said. Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada also said he expects the Senate to take a collective stand by acceding to the high court's decision once the 20th Congress opens on July 28, Monday. 'Nonetheless, I welcome this decision, which serves as a vital reminder that all efforts to hold public officials accountable must be firmly grounded in legality and due process,' Estrada said. 'As a co-equal branch of government, we must abide by the decision of the Supreme Court. Even in a political process like impeachment proceedings, we must adhere to established procedures and due process to ensure that our actions are neither arbitrary nor solely driven by political agendas,' he added. Senator Ronald 'Bato' Dela Rosa also expressed belief that the SC was 'guided by the Holy Spirit' when it made the decision. 'When I moved for the dismissal of the impeachment complaint vs VP Sara, I was guided by the Holy Spirit. When the SC ruled it as unconstitutional, I'm sure they were guided also by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit defeated the forces of evil! Hallelujah!' Dela Rosa said. To recall, when the Senate impeachment court first convened on June 10, Dela Rosa made a motion in the Senate plenary seeking that the verified impeachment complaint against Duterte be dismissed. Senator Alan Peter Cayetano later that day moved to amend Dela Rosa's motion to instead have the articles of impeachment returned to the House of Representatives without dismissing or terminating the case. The House of Representatives impeached Duterte on February 5, with over 200 lawmakers endorsing the complaint. The Vice President was accused of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes. Duterte, meanwhile, entered a 'not guilty' plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her, which she called merely a 'scrap of paper.' —LDF, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
12 hours ago
- GMA Network
Palace: Respect SC decision on VP Sara impeachment, trust our institutions
Malacanang on Friday called on Filipinos to respect the Supreme Court decision declaring the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional, even as it clarified that it has yet to read the high tribunal's ruling in full. "We have yet to review the full text of the Supreme Court's decision. We call on everyone to respect the Supreme Court and place their trust in our institutions," said Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Atty. Claire Castro in a statement. "The impeachment process is a matter handled by the legislative and judicial branches, and we recognize their independence in carrying out their constitutional mandates," she added. The SC has ruled unanimously in deeming that the Articles of Impeachment are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution. Moreover, magistrates ruled that the articles violate the right to due process. Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa inhibited while Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh is on leave. The decision was penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen. With this development, the high court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. The SC's ruling is in relation to the consolidated petition filed by Duterte, lawyer Israelito Torreon, and others seeking to declare the Articles of Impeachment against her as null and void. Supreme Court spokesperson Atty. Camille Ting clarified that the high tribunal "is not absolving" Duterte from the charges against her, but added that "any subsequent impeachment complaint" may only be filed starting February 6, 2026. This is a day after the one-year anniversary of House of Representatives impeachment of Duterte, including its endorsement of the fourth complaint that constituted the Articles of Impeachment. The SC decision is immediately executory. However, Ting said the House of Representatives may still file a motion for reconsideration. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
