Small-Scale Fishers Rally Against Supreme Court Ruling Favoring Commercial Fishing Operators

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

The battle for the country’s municipal waters has reached the steps of the Supreme Court. 300 municipal fishers, united under the Katipunan ng mga Kilusan ng mga Artisanong Mangingisda sa Pilipinas (KKAMPi), alongside environmental advocates from the NGOs for Fisheries Reform (NFR), gathered in Manila to file a petition against the controversial Mercidar RTC Malabon ruling. This decision has effectively paved the way for commercial fishing vessels to encroach on municipal fishing waters, a move that threatens the livelihoods of small-scale fisherfolk and imperils the nation’s already fragile marine ecosystems.

A Fight for Livelihood and Legacy

At the forefront of the legal battle are four small-scale fishers representing the interests of countless others:

Justino “Ka Tino” Dacillo, a veteran fisher from Polillo, Quezon, and Chair of the Lamon Bay Integrated Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management Council.

Roberto Ballon, a Ramon Magsaysay Awardee from Sibugay, Zamboanga, credited with revitalizing their community’s fishing industry.

Jessie delos Reyes, a BFAR-certified Fish Examiner and active member of Calatagan Bantay Dagat in Batangas.

Erlinda Ferrer, a fisher and mother of three from Cavite City.

They argue that allowing large-scale commercial fishing operations in municipal waters—areas traditionally reserved for small-scale fishers—would obliterate local economies, further deplete already overfished resources, and intensify the struggles of communities already grappling with climate change.

“Magkakagulo ang pangisdaan sa Pilipinas kung papayagan ang malalaking mangingisda na pumasok sa tinatawag na municipal waters ng Pilipinas (The fisheries sector of the country will be in turmoil if large fishing operators are allowed to enter municipal waters),” said Ka Tino, voicing the collective fears of municipal fishers nationwide.

The Numbers Speak

The petition highlights stark disparities in fishing capabilities:

A commercial vessel using purse seine nets can haul in 3,055 kilograms of fish per hour.

In contrast, small-scale fishers using hook and line manage a mere 0.49 kilograms per hour.

This inequity is amplified by the fact that a single day’s harvest by a commercial vessel equals the combined output of 1,500 municipal fishers.

The petitioners argue that the ruling not only devastates livelihoods but also accelerates the depletion of marine resources. Overfishing, compounded by climate change, has already strained the nation’s fisheries. Allowing industrial-scale operations in municipal waters could push ecosystems to the brink.

A Decision with Nationwide Consequences

“Sa kanilang desisyon, pinatay ng Korte Suprema ang karapatan, kabuhayan at kinabukasan ng maliliit na mangingisda sa Pilipinas (With their decision, the Supreme Court has extinguished the rights, livelihood, and future of all small fisherfolk in the Philippines),” lamented Roberto Ballon, who is also vying for a Senate seat in the upcoming May 2025 elections.

The stakes of this legal battle extend far beyond the fishing communities. Municipal waters, defined as areas within 15 kilometers from the shore, are vital breeding grounds for marine life. The intrusion of commercial fishing operations not only risks overexploitation but also disrupts the delicate balance required for sustainable fishing practices.

A Unified Front

The petition is supported by a coalition of fisherfolk organizations and environmental groups, including KKAMPi, the National Union of Rural-Based Organizations (PKSK), and the NGOs for Fisheries Reform. These groups have long championed the rights of small-scale fishers and the protection of marine biodiversity.

Among the petition’s backers are:

Philippine Alliance of Tuna Handliners for Sustainability (PATHS)

Tanon Strait Fisherfolks Alliance

Visayan Sea Fisherfolks Alliance

BALAOD Mindanaw

Tambuyog Development Center

These organizations emphasize that the ruling undermines the 1998 Fisheries Code, which was designed to protect municipal waters for the exclusive use of small-scale fishers.

A Call to Action

As the Supreme Court deliberates on the petition, the rallying cry of the municipal fishers echoes across the nation. They demand justice not only for their livelihoods but also for future generations who depend on the sustainability of the country’s marine resources.

The case serves as a reminder that the fight for environmental justice is inseparable from the struggle for social equity. In defending the rights of small-scale fishers, these petitioners are also safeguarding the nation’s food security, economic resilience, and ecological future.

The Legal and Political Aspects of the Case Between Vic Sotto and Darryl Yap

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

There has been a surge of questions regarding whether Vic Sotto can sue Darryl Yap, considering that only a teaser for The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma (TROPP) was posted, not the full film. The short answer is yes, Vic Sotto can indeed pursue legal action.

In the Philippines, a person can be sued for libel if four key elements are present:

Defamation

Identification

Publication

Malice

Let’s break these down in the context of the issue at hand.

1. Defamation

The teaser for The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma (TROPP) includes a potentially defamatory accusation — it implies that Vic Sotto is a rapist. Defamation includes any accusation of vice, crime, or moral deficiency, and an accusation of rape certainly qualifies.

2. Identification

In the teaser, Vic Sotto is clearly identified when a character asks, "Rinape ka ba ni Vic Sotto?" ("Did Vic Sotto rape you?"). This direct mention unmistakably singles out Vic Sotto in the context of the accusation.

3. Publication

The teaser was posted on Darryl Yap's official Facebook page and other social media platforms, making it a public publication. Once something is made available to the public, the element of publication is satisfied.

4. Malice

Malice is an essential element of libel. Vic Sotto claims that he was not consulted by Darryl Yap or any of the actors involved regarding the depiction of this issue. In fact, Darryl Yap himself has admitted that he never informed or consulted Vic Sotto about the teaser. This lack of consultation suggests malice, as it indicates that the truthfulness of the claim wasn’t given proper consideration.

Vic Sotto will argue that Yap acted maliciously by disregarding the truth or falsity of the rape accusation. Sotto could also point to the Affidavit of Desistance from Pepsi Paloma, which could suggest that no criminal charges were filed or convictions made against him.

At a glance, all the elements of libel appear to be present.

Can Darryl Yap Defend Himself?

In my previous post, I mentioned that I would need to see the full film to better understand Yap’s motivations and assess his defense. However, as it pertains to the teaser, Yap might claim that the teaser was accurate in stating that Vic Sotto was once accused of rape by Pepsi Paloma, even though Paloma later withdrew her accusation.

Yap may argue that the teaser only shows Pepsi Paloma’s original statement, where she allegedly told a confidante about the rape before she retracted it. In this defense, Yap would claim, "It’s true that Pepsi Paloma accused Vic Sotto of rape, and that’s all the trailer shows."

However, there’s a major problem here.

The teaser doesn’t clearly communicate that Pepsi Paloma later withdrew her accusation. Moreover, Darryl Yap is not known for producing historically accurate films or documentaries. He has built a reputation as a polemic and political filmmaker, not someone dedicated to presenting factual historical events. As such, his defense of truth becomes weak, as his films are not typically regarded as reliable sources of factual accuracy.

The way the teaser is presented, it leaves a clear impression that Vic Sotto is guilty of rape, which could easily be deemed libelous by a court of law.

What About the Full Film?

Regarding the full film, there are reports that Vic Sotto has filed a legal motion in connection with the case, specifically seeking a writ of habeas data to prevent Darryl Yap from airing or publishing the movie. It’s unclear whether this motion was part of the same lawsuit or a separate one, but if true, the court has reportedly ordered Yap to desist from airing or publishing the full film.

This is where things get a little complicated. The use of a writ of habeas data to stop the publication of a film is unusual. One might wonder why Vic Sotto’s lawyers chose this particular legal tool. But then again, Atty. Buko Dela Cruz (a figure associated with the BBM Party List, and a somewhat controversial character) is known for his unconventional methods.

Good luck to Vic Sotto’s legal team, because Yap has a solid legal basis to argue for the right to air or publish the film. The issue of prior restraint — the government or the courts blocking the publication or dissemination of content before it happens — is a significant matter. In legal terms, prior restraint is highly frowned upon when it involves freedom of expression.

A Long Legal Battle Ahead

This is a complicated case, and I won’t dive deeper into every legal intricacy since I am not paid to represent either side. However, what stands out is that Darryl Yap has finally met someone who will challenge him after years of releasing controversial content, such as his LenLen series and other polemical works that have targeted public figures.

It’s been reported that Yap is already a millionaire, so it will be interesting to see if he can afford the potentially hefty P35 million lawsuit filed by Vic Sotto. This case could end up being drawn out all the way to the Supreme Court.

In the end, the outcome will depend on how both parties navigate the intricate world of Philippine law, media freedom, and defamation. It’s a fascinating legal battle that will set precedents for future cases involving accusations made through media and film.

*Based on the social media post of Jesus Falcis on his Facebook page but it was written in Tagalog. 

The Impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte: A Landmark Political Battle

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

Impeachment is an essential part of the Philippine constitutional framework, offering a critical mechanism for holding high-ranking government officials accountable. It is a process enshrined in the Constitution, enabling the removal of public figures found guilty of serious misconduct, such as abuse of power or violations of the law. Vice President Sara Duterte, a key political figure in the Philippines, is currently facing multiple impeachment complaints—marking a defining moment in the country’s political landscape.

The Constitutional Basis of Impeachment

Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, impeachment is the primary process for removing certain officials from office. Specifically, Article XI, Section 2 of the Constitution authorizes the impeachment of the President, Vice President, Supreme Court Justices, members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman for the following offenses:

Culpable violation of the Constitution

Treason

Bribery

Graft and corruption

Other high crimes

Betrayal of public trust

The complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte revolve around these very grounds. The formal allegations suggest that her actions as Vice President may have crossed legal and ethical lines, which warrant scrutiny through the impeachment process.

The Grounds for Impeachment Against Vice President Sara Duterte

The impeachment complaints filed against Vice President Duterte hinge on several key allegations:

Culpable Violation of the Constitution: One of the charges accuses Vice President Duterte of breaching constitutional provisions, especially concerning the misuse of public funds. Specifically, concerns have been raised about the management of confidential funds allocated to the Office of the Vice President (OVP). Critics argue that such funds were not used according to legal guidelines, raising serious questions about her accountability.

Graft and Corruption: Another core allegation involves possible graft and corruption linked to the use of government resources. The OVP’s confidential funds, which have been significantly increased in recent years, are at the center of the controversy. Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019), the misuse of public funds for personal gain or political advantage constitutes a serious offense. Critics claim that the funds were used improperly and without transparent reporting, undermining public trust.

Betrayal of Public Trust: The third allegation refers to statements and actions perceived as threatening to the President and undermining the stability of the government. Duterte’s conduct, particularly remarks that were seen as attempts to influence the military and police to prevent further investigation, are interpreted as a betrayal of public trust. This could constitute abuse of power and potentially jeopardize the public’s faith in the government.

These allegations, taken together, form the basis for the ongoing impeachment efforts against Duterte.

The Impeachment Process: A Legislative Battle

The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives, which holds the exclusive power to initiate impeachment proceedings. Once a complaint is filed, the House evaluates the complaint’s sufficiency in form and substance. If deemed sufficient, the complaint proceeds to a plenary vote. If at least one-third of all House members vote in favor of the complaint, the articles of impeachment are passed on to the Senate.

The House’s role in this process is crucial as it determines whether the complaint will move forward. Despite the current administration’s influence, there is significant public pressure on the legislative body to proceed with the impeachment given the mounting allegations. The Committee on Justice has already begun hearings to investigate the validity of the charges, and there seems to be an increasing consensus that the complaints have strong merit.

Once the impeachment articles reach the Senate, it functions as the impeachment court. Senators are sworn to impartiality, and a two-thirds majority vote is required to convict and remove the official from office. The Senate’s role as the trial court is essential, as only a conviction in the Senate can lead to the Vice President's removal.

Recent Developments and Public Support for Impeachment

Impeachment complaints against Vice President Duterte have received growing support from various sectors of society. Multiple civil society groups, progressive organizations, and concerned citizens have rallied behind the movement, calling for accountability and transparency in government.

Recent surveys, including from the Social Weather Stations (SWS), reveal overwhelming support for Duterte’s impeachment, with over 40% of Filipinos expressing approval of the move. This reflects widespread discontent with Duterte’s actions and the perception that her behavior is incompatible with the public trust.

As of January 2024, at least three impeachment complaints have been filed against Duterte, spearheaded by civil society groups, political advocates, and concerned citizens. The complaints focus not only on her alleged misconduct in office but also on her controversial statements and actions aimed at undermining political institutions, including the government’s law enforcement agencies.

The Role of Political Power and Pressure

Despite the swelling tide of public support, Vice President Duterte and her allies have mobilized significant political resources to resist the impeachment. Reports suggest that Duterte’s camp has leveraged its influence with various political groups, including the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), as well as segments of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and Philippine National Police (PNP), to discourage further action on the complaints.

These power plays underscore the deeply political nature of the impeachment process, where strategic alliances and mobilization efforts are key factors in influencing the outcome. However, the House and Senate are not immune to public pressure, and their decisions will be shaped by both their constitutional duty and the demand for transparency and accountability from the Filipino people.

The Challenge of Upholding the Rule of Law

The ongoing impeachment battle represents a defining moment in Philippine democracy. As the process advances, it is crucial that both the House of Representatives and the Senate remain resolute in their commitment to upholding the rule of law and maintaining impartiality. The stakes are high: the outcome will either reinforce or undermine the public’s trust in the country’s democratic institutions.

Moreover, the growing public advocacy for Duterte’s impeachment is a testament to the Filipino people's commitment to holding leaders accountable. With protests and rallies being held across the country, citizens are actively demanding that their representatives fulfill their constitutional duties without yielding to political pressure.

In the coming weeks, attention will turn to the January 18 rally in EDSA, where pro-impeachment groups, including Bunyog and pro-impeachment vloggers, are expected to gather in solidarity with the movement. This demonstration symbolizes the strength of the people’s voice in calling for political accountability and justice.

Conclusion: A Test for Philippine Democracy

The impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte are a critical test for the Philippine political system. They challenge the democratic institutions tasked with ensuring that public officials are held accountable for their actions.

For the impeachment process to succeed, the House of Representatives and Senate must demonstrate unwavering commitment to the rule of law, independent of political influence. The public’s active participation and advocacy will continue to be pivotal, ensuring that the principles of transparency, accountability, and justice prevail.

As this political drama unfolds, the Filipino people are watching closely, and their voices will undoubtedly shape the future of the country’s political landscape. The outcome of this process will set a precedent for how the Philippines addresses corruption, abuse of power, and betrayal of public trust, ultimately defining the nation’s commitment to democratic values.