The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Thursday in a consolidated case challenging a lower court's decision that declared unlawful a government order requiring commercial fishing vessels to install tracking devices.

Three fishing companies, namely, Royal Fishing Corporation, Bonanza Fishing and Market Resources Inc. and RBL Fishing Corp., presented their arguments against Fisheries Administrative Order 266.

In their joint statement before the SC en banc, the three companies claimed that the order violates their constitutional rights to privacy, protection against unlawful searches, equal protection, due process, and participation in decision-making processes.

Lawyer Arnold Naval argued that the mandatory installation of real-time Vessel Monitoring System or VMS devices gives the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources or BFAR unrestricted access to sensitive information about the location and activities of fishing vessels.

Naval argued that FAO 266 violates the Constitution's equal protection clause by regulating only commercial fishing vessels and leaving the regulation of municipal fishing vessels to the discretion of local government units.

He added that the order was issued without public consultation and the delineation of municipal waters, violating the constitutional right of fishing companies to due process.

The government and a non-government organization, Oceana Philippines, had filed petitions with the Supreme Court opposing the Malabon Regional Trial Court's decision that declared FAO 266 unconstitutional.

The three companies fish for galunggong (round scad) and small pelagic fish for local consumption in shallower waters. They are different from tuna fishing companies that catch oceanic tuna mainly for export and operate primarily in deeper waters and migratory pathways, Naval said.

He emphasized that his clients are part of a sector essential to the fisheries industry and are significant contributors to local food security.