The Supreme Court has been asked by two municipal fisherfolk to reconsider its ruling that upheld the unconstitutionality of a government regulation requiring commercial fishing vessels to use vessel monitoring systems.

In a motion for reconsideration filed on 14 August 2026, Pablo Rosales and Ronaldo Reyes said the Court should consider the interests and experiences of municipal fisherfolk in resolving the constitutional challenge to Fisheries Administrative Order (FAO) 266.

FAO 266 requires commercial fishing vessels to use vessel monitoring and electronic reporting systems, allowing the government to track their movements and fishing activities.

The motion stemmed from a Supreme Court decision partly granting a petition filed by Oceana Philippines International, Rosales and Reyes that reversed trial court orders denying the fisherfolk's intervention in the case.

The Court, however, affirmed the Regional Trial Court's ruling declaring FAO 266 unconstitutional.

Rosales and Reyes argued that the Supreme Court should also consider their pleadings, arguments and proposed testimony in determining the validity of FAO 266.

They cited personal experiences involving commercial fishing vessels allegedly entering municipal waters, arguing that these demonstrated the practical importance of vessel monitoring in protecting municipal fisherfolk.

Rosales said he intended to testify about commercial fishing vessels entering municipal waters and the importance of vessel monitoring in addressing such intrusions.

Reyes similarly cited his experience with commercial fishing vessels operating within municipal waters in Subic.

The fisherfolk argued that the Fisheries Code gives municipal fisherfolk preferential use of municipal waters because of their economic vulnerability and the State's policy of poverty alleviation and livelihood protection.

They maintained that vessel monitoring was reasonably related to the government's legitimate interests in preventing illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, protecting municipal waters and conserving marine resources.

The motion also disputed the Supreme Court's finding that the regulation failed the rational-basis test.

The fisherfolk argued that the Court effectively applied a stricter level of scrutiny in assessing FAO 266 despite recognizing rational-basis review as the appropriate standard.

They urged the Court to give greater deference to the government's regulatory judgment, particularly because fisheries involve publicly owned natural resources and the Constitution gives the State full control and supervision over their exploration, development and utilization.

The motion argued that commercial fishing operators do not acquire ownership of fishery resources merely by obtaining a license or permit and therefore remain subject to reasonable government regulation.

It also warned that invalidating FAO 266 could leave municipal fisherfolk without an effective mechanism to detect commercial fishing vessels entering waters reserved for them.

Continuous monitoring, they argued, is particularly important because commercial operators have greater capital, vessel capacity, fishing gear, mobility and technology than municipal fisherfolk.

Without effective monitoring, they said, enforcement could largely depend on physically apprehending vessels after violations have already occurred.

Rosales and Reyes asked the Supreme Court to grant their motion for reconsideration, consider their Answer-in-Intervention and proposed testimony, and reverse, set aside or modify the portion of its decision affirming the trial court's declaration that FAO 266 is unconstitutional.

They also asked the Court to consider lifting the permanent injunction against the regulation's implementation.