Bill threatens PH commercial fishing sector
Some 2,000 commercial fishing operators in the Philippines are condemning the swift progress in Congress of a “killer bill” that may prompt most of them to close shop.
The Alliance of Philippine Fishing Federation Inc. (APFFI) have opposed key provisions of the proposed amendments to the Philippine Fisheries Code, arguing that these were so prohibitive that, once approved, would remove the business case for domestic commercial fishing.
Peter Paul D. Santos, APFFI vice president for the National Capital Region (NCR), told the Inquirer that the heavy-handed provisions of the bill mete out undeserved punishment to “environment-friendly fishing companies [that are worse than penalties currently imposed on] unscrupulous dynamite fishers.”
The APFFI is an umbrella group that consists of the Metro Manila-based Inter-Island Deep Sea Fishing Association, Quezon Marinduque Fishingboat Operators and Fishermen’s Association, United Bicol Fishing Federation, Bisayas Alliance of Fisherfolk and Operators for Reform Inc., and the Panay Fishing Boat Operators Association (Pafisbo).
Data from the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) showed that there were 2,358 operators nationwide with a commercial fleet of 6,371 vessels.
In the Philippines, commercial fishing refers to an operation that uses a vessel more than three tons.
The APFFI took issues in at least five provisions of the bill, which is due for a review at the bicameral conference committee tomorrow.
First, the group objected to the proposed requirement for all commercial vessels to install a vessel monitoring system (VMS) when this is needed only for operators that export their products.
“All our members who trade internationally already have the VMS since it is a requirement especially in the European Union,” Santos said.
“Why do operators who sell their products locally have to install the VMS?” he asked. “This is unduly oppressive to domestic operators since the device costs upward of P240,000 each and comes with a monthly maintenance subscription of P20,000.”
Second, the APFFI members oppose the deployment of “fisheries observers” on board their vessels.
“Private vessels can only be boarded by government agents when there is probable cause of violation of the Fisheries Code,” Santos said. “Worse, the fishing operators will be required to shoulder the salaries of these observers.”
Third, the APFFI decries the “exorbitant fines and penalties” suggested [in the bill], which it described as unduly oppressive and confiscatory in nature.
“We have not encountered any law that allows an administrative agency to [impose on violators] a fine of twice the value of the catch or P10 million, whichever is higher, and at the same time confiscate the fishing gear and the vessel,” Santos said, adding that currently the fine is only P10,000.
Fourth, the APFFI lamented the inclusion of the fishing operator in criminal liabilities, which the group said was against the Constitution.
“Criminal liabilities are personal in nature,” Santos said. “When an employee gets involved in a crime, the most that could be done is to impose a subsidiary liability on the employer.”
And fifth, the APFFI objected to the creation of a Fisheries Adjudication Board with quasi-judicial powers.
“Such a board will be the judge, prosecutor and executioner,” Santos said. “It can even stop our fishing operations on the basis of mere suspicion.”
APFFI members also lamented that public hearings related to the bill were just for show. Members were alarmed to find out that the bill was already passed in both the Senate and the House of Representatives and was already up for bicameral discussions.
Santos said the group was neither formally notified nor invited to any crafting of amendments to the Code and during any hearing and deliberation in both chambers of Congress. The group also expressed surprise that while a bill took an average two years to be passed on third reading, this one took only a week at the House (House Bill No. 04536) and six weeks at the Senate (Senate Bill No. 2414).
Arnaldo M. Borres Jr., a director of Pafisbo, said that if the bill became law, he would most probably stop doing business.
“Such a law will leave us vulnerable to trumped up charges of violating the law and it would also be fertile ground for corruption, especially with the provision that a fisheries observer can claim 20 percent [of the value related to an apprehension],” Borres said. “It would kill our business [or] drive us to bankruptcy.”
