- BFAR will challenge the ruling scrapping vessel monitoring rules.
- Traceability concerns may threaten Philippine seafood export access.
- Oceana warns the decision could weaken protections for small-scale fishers.
BFAR said on August 3 that it was preparing a motion for reconsideration after the high court declared the Fisheries Administrative Order (FAO) 266 unconstitutional.
FAO 266, issued by the Department of Agriculture in 2020, establishes rules for Vessel Monitoring Measures (VMM) and Electronic Reporting Systems (ERS). It requires Philippine-flagged commercial fishing vessels to install vessel monitoring systems and submit electronic catch reports.
It forms an important part of the government’s efforts to curb illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.
In a statement, BFAR stressed that the vessel monitoring system was “far more than a tracking device” and a “frontline enforcement tool” to prevent the illegal exploitation of its waters.
However, on July 30, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of a group of commercial fishing operators that believed VMM and ERS could potentially reveal their locations and trade secrets.
BFAR emphasised that commercial fishing licences were a privilege rather than a right under the Fisheries Code and therefore remain subject to government rules and regulations designed to protect public marine resources.
Agriculture Secretary Francisco P. Tiu Laurel Jr. said the government remains confident the Court will revisit the ruling and recognise the importance of vessel monitoring in fisheries enforcement.
Ruling is a ‘death sentence’, says Oceana
Environmental group Oceana strongly criticised the Supreme Court decision as a “death blow” to the country’s small-scale fisherfolk.
“The Supreme Court has buried small-scale fishers and their families deeper in hunger and poverty. By striking down FAO 266, the court has removed the most effective means of detecting whether commercial fishing vessels are illegally entering municipal waters within the 15-kilometre limit,” said Von Hernandez, Oceana vice president, in a statement.
Hernandez warned that the ruling could leave authorities “blind” to illegal incursions by commercial vessels and weaken protections for small-scale fishing communities and marine ecosystems.
“By asking to remove the monitoring devices that could deter commercial fishing vessels from illegally entering the 15 kilometres, the Supreme Court ruling obliterates what little protection municipal waters have left against further damage and decline.”
He added: “We say it plainly now: this is a death sentence for municipal fishing and small-scale fishers.”
The organisation also cited broader challenges facing the sector. Beyond domestic enforcement, both BFAR and Oceana pointed to the growing importance of fisheries traceability for international seafood trade.
Hernandez argued that FAO 266 formed part of the monitoring infrastructure needed to maintain access to overseas markets.
He referenced the recent closure of the US market to Philippine blue swimming crab.
“The US closed its market to Philippine blue swimming crab, a fifty-million-dollar industry, because the country could not adequately document and monitor how that fishery operates. Hundreds of workers were laid off within days. FAO 266 was exactly the kind of monitoring and traceability infrastructure that keeps markets open.”
“Killing it drags us backward, toward the paper and guesswork global buyers no longer accept; it puts our hard-won EU green-card standing back in jeopardy and it throws away years of public investment already built and paid for.”
Hernandez also hit out at the commercial fishers that brought the legal dispute.
“Let us be clear about who did this: the commercial fishing corporations who filed this case — Royale Fishing Corporation, Bonanza Fishing and Market Resources, and RBL Fishing Corporation. It is big fishing interests that win, to the demise of the poorest fisherfolk, who will now have to share their fishing grounds with more massive commercial fishing vessels.”
Not retreating
While BFAR said it respects the court’s decision, the agency indicated it has no intention of abandoning the policy objective behind the regulation.
The bureau said it would review mechanisms to ensure technical soundness in fulfilling the state’s obligation to conserve the country’s marine resources while noting the concerns of its stakeholders.
“The outcome carries implications beyond domestic enforcement, with the country a signatory to international maritime agreements that deal with illegal, undocumented and unregulated fishing activities.
“An effective vessel monitoring system is the most effective and internationally recognised tool to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing and is essential for meeting the traceability and sustainability standards required by export markets.”
