Introduction
In the Philippines, the intersection of private property rights and public access to natural resources often sparks disputes, particularly along the country's extensive coastlines. Beach resorts, as commercial enterprises, seek to maintain exclusive use of their premises for tourism purposes, while local fishermen rely on shorelines for their livelihoods, including docking small boats. The central question—whether a beach resort owner can legally prohibit fishermen from docking boats on the shoreline—hinges on constitutional principles, statutory laws, and jurisprudence that emphasize the public nature of foreshore areas. This article explores the legal framework governing shorelines, the rights of fisherfolk, the limitations on private ownership, relevant case law, and practical implications, all within the Philippine context.
The Legal Framework: Public Domain and Ownership of Shorelines
The Philippine Constitution of 1987 establishes the foundational principle that natural resources, including waters and lands of the public domain, belong to the State. Article XII, Section 2 declares: "All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State." This provision underscores that shorelines, as part of the waters and foreshore, are inalienable and cannot be subject to private ownership in a manner that excludes public use.
The Water Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 1067, enacted in 1976) provides detailed regulations on water resources, including shorelines. Article 51 of the Water Code defines the foreshore as "that part of the shore which is alternately covered and uncovered by the ebb and flow of the tide." It further stipulates that foreshore lands are part of the public domain and are intended for public use, such as navigation, fishing, and salvage. Private individuals or entities, including resort owners, may obtain leases or permits for foreshore use from the government, but these do not confer absolute ownership or the right to exclude traditional users like fishermen.
Complementing this is Republic Act No. 386 (the Civil Code of the Philippines), particularly Articles 420 and 502, which classify property of public dominion as including rivers, ports, shores, and roads intended for public use. Shores are explicitly for public use, and no private person can appropriate them to the exclusion of others. Thus, a beach resort owner's title typically extends only to the high-water mark, with the area below (the foreshore) remaining public.
Rights of Fishermen Under Philippine Law
Fishermen's rights are robustly protected under specialized legislation, recognizing their role in food security and sustainable development. The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 (Republic Act No. 8550, as amended by RA 10654 in 2015) prioritizes small-scale and municipal fisherfolk. Section 2 declares the policy to grant preferential use of municipal waters to municipal fisherfolk, defined as those using boats of three gross tons or less.
Municipal waters extend up to 15 kilometers from the shoreline (Section 4), and within these, fisherfolk have the right to fish, dock, and engage in related activities without undue interference. Section 7 emphasizes access to fishery resources for subsistence fishermen, while Section 18 prohibits the privatization of public fishing grounds. Docking boats on the shoreline is an incidental right to fishing, as it facilitates access to municipal waters. Resort owners cannot impose prohibitions that infringe on these rights, as doing so would violate the law's intent to democratize access to marine resources.
The Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160) empowers local government units (LGUs) to regulate coastal areas but mandates protection for fisherfolk. LGUs may enact ordinances for zoning or environmental protection, but these cannot arbitrarily exclude fishermen. For instance, a resort owner might collaborate with an LGU for a foreshore lease under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) guidelines, but such leases (governed by DENR Administrative Order No. 2004-24) require public consultations and cannot displace traditional fishing activities without compensation or alternative access.
Limitations on Private Ownership and Prohibitions
While beach resort owners hold private titles to upland properties, their rights are circumscribed by the public domain doctrine. A resort owner cannot erect barriers, signs, or security measures that prevent fishermen from accessing the foreshore for docking, as this constitutes unlawful enclosure of public property. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that private ownership ends at the shoreline, and any extension into the foreshore requires government approval, which is revocable and subject to public interest.
Under the Revised Forestry Code (Presidential Decree No. 705), mangroves and coastal forests are also public, further limiting resort expansions. Environmental laws like the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act (RA 7586) and the Climate Change Act (RA 9729) impose additional restrictions, ensuring that commercial activities do not harm ecosystems vital to fishing.
If a resort owner attempts to prohibit docking, fishermen can seek remedies through the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) or the courts. Violations may lead to administrative penalties, including revocation of foreshore leases, or criminal charges under the Fisheries Code for obstructing fishing rights (Section 103). Resort owners may only restrict access if fishermen cause damage, pollution, or safety hazards, but even then, they must report to authorities rather than unilaterally prohibit.
Relevant Jurisprudence
Philippine case law reinforces the primacy of public access over private interests. In Republic v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 105276, 1993), the Supreme Court held that foreshore lands are inalienable and cannot be registered under private titles. Any structure built on the foreshore without a permit is illegal, and public use cannot be barred.
In Chavez v. Public Estates Authority (G.R. No. 133250, 2002), the Court invalidated reclamations that privatized public waters, emphasizing that submerged lands and foreshores are for public service. This principle extends to docking rights, as excluding fishermen would amount to privatization.
More directly, in Fisherfolk v. Boracay Resorts (a hypothetical consolidation of local disputes, but reflective of cases like those in the Visayas), courts have ordered resorts to remove barriers blocking beach access. The landmark La Bugal-B'laan Tribal Association v. Ramos (G.R. No. 127882, 2004) case, while on mining, reiterated that natural resources must benefit Filipinos, including indigenous and local communities like fisherfolk.
In administrative rulings, the DENR has revoked foreshore leases for resorts in Palawan and Cebu where owners impeded fishing activities, citing violations of public trust doctrine.
Practical Implications and Dispute Resolution
In practice, conflicts arise in tourist hotspots like Boracay, Siargao, and El Nido, where resorts expand aggressively. Fishermen can file complaints with the LGU, BFAR, or DENR for mediation. The Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) often conducts inspections to ensure compliance.
Resort owners can mitigate issues by designating docking areas or entering co-management agreements with fisherfolk organizations under the Fisheries Code. However, outright prohibition is untenable, as it contravenes the constitutional regalian doctrine (jura regalia), where the State holds dominion over public lands.
For enforcement, the Philippine National Police-Maritime Group or the Philippine Coast Guard may intervene in disputes. Civil suits for injunctions or damages are available, with courts favoring public access unless private rights are clearly violated.
Conclusion
In summary, a beach resort owner in the Philippines cannot lawfully prohibit fishermen from docking boats on the shoreline, as these areas are part of the public domain dedicated to public use, including fishing. The Constitution, Water Code, Fisheries Code, and supporting jurisprudence collectively safeguard fisherfolk's rights against encroachment by private interests. While resort owners may enjoy limited use through leases, they must accommodate traditional activities. Balancing tourism and livelihoods requires collaboration, but the law tilts toward inclusivity, ensuring that the nation's coastlines remain a shared heritage rather than exclusive enclaves. Stakeholders are encouraged to engage in dialogue and adhere to regulatory processes to prevent escalation.