Introduction
In the Philippines, the foreshore—the strip of land along the coast that is alternately covered and uncovered by the ordinary movement of the tides—represents a critical intersection of public domain, environmental protection, and economic interests. This area is governed by a complex web of constitutional provisions, statutes, and jurisprudence that balance the rights of the state, private entities such as beach resorts, and traditional users like fishermen. A common point of contention arises when fishermen seek to park or moor their boats in front of beach resorts, raising questions about public access, exclusive use, and the inalienable nature of foreshore lands. This article explores the legal framework surrounding foreshore rights in the Philippine context, with a focus on whether fishermen are permitted to park boats in such areas, drawing on relevant laws, regulations, and principles.
Constitutional and Statutory Foundations
The Philippine Constitution of 1987 establishes the foundational principles for natural resources, including foreshore areas. Article XII, Section 2 declares that all lands of the public domain, including waters and foreshore lands, are owned by the State and shall not be alienated except in cases expressly provided by law. Foreshore lands are classified as part of the public domain under the Regalian Doctrine, a colonial-era principle adopted in Philippine law, which posits that all lands not clearly under private ownership belong to the State.
The Water Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 1067, 1976) provides a specific definition of foreshore as "that part of the shore which is alternately covered and uncovered by the ebb and flow of the tide." Article 51 of the Water Code stipulates that the banks of rivers, streams, and the shores of seas and lakes throughout their entire length are subject to an easement of public use for navigation, fishing, and salvage, within a zone of three meters along their margins. For seashores, this easement extends to 20 meters from the shoreline during high tide, as reinforced by jurisprudence and related laws.
The Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141, 1936) further regulates the disposition of public lands, including foreshore areas. Section 59 allows for the lease of foreshore lands for a period not exceeding 25 years, renewable for another 25 years, but explicitly states that such leases do not confer ownership and must not impair public rights. Leases are typically granted for commercial purposes, such as tourism development for beach resorts, but they are subject to conditions that preserve public access.
The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 (Republic Act No. 8550, as amended by RA 10654) is particularly relevant to fishermen's rights. It prioritizes the welfare of municipal fisherfolk, defined as those engaged in fishing within municipal waters (up to 15 kilometers from the shoreline) using vessels of three gross tons or less. Section 7 of RA 8550 guarantees access to fishery resources for sustenance and livelihood, emphasizing that municipal waters shall be reserved for the exclusive use of municipal fisherfolk. This includes the right to utilize foreshore areas for ancillary activities like boat parking, net drying, and fish landing, as these are integral to fishing operations.
Additionally, the Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386, 1949) in Article 638 imposes an easement on riverbanks and seashores for public use in navigation, floatage, fishing, and salvage. This easement is imprescriptible and inalienable, meaning it cannot be lost through non-use or adverse possession.
Rights of Fishermen in Foreshore Areas
Fishermen, particularly municipal fisherfolk, enjoy preferential rights in foreshore zones due to their historical and economic dependence on coastal resources. Under RA 8550, fisherfolk organizations are granted priority in the management and utilization of municipal waters and foreshore lands. This includes the right to establish fish landing sites, which often involve parking boats on the beach or in shallow waters.
The Department of Agriculture (DA), through the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), issues guidelines that recognize these rights. For instance, Fisheries Administrative Order (FAO) No. 196 (2000) regulates the establishment of fish landing centers, allowing fishermen to use foreshore areas without needing individual permits, provided they do not obstruct navigation or cause environmental harm.
Jurisprudence supports these rights. In the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 103882, 1992), the Supreme Court affirmed that foreshore lands are inalienable and that any private occupation must yield to public interests, including fishing. Similarly, in Chavez v. Public Estates Authority (G.R. No. 133250, 2002), the Court invalidated reclamations that infringed on public access to foreshore areas, underscoring the priority of environmental and public use over commercial development.
Thus, fishermen are generally allowed to park their boats in front of beach resorts, as long as the activity is temporary, related to fishing, and does not involve permanent structures. This right stems from the public easement and the policy of promoting food security through small-scale fisheries.
Rights and Limitations of Beach Resorts
Beach resorts often operate under foreshore lease agreements issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) pursuant to the Public Land Act and Executive Order No. 192 (1987), which mandates DENR's oversight of public lands. These leases permit the construction of temporary structures like cottages or piers but explicitly prohibit exclusive possession that bars public access.
Section 3 of DENR Administrative Order No. 2004-24 outlines the guidelines for foreshore leases, requiring lessees to allow free public access to the beach and shoreline. Resorts cannot fence off the foreshore or prevent fishermen from using it, as this would violate the public easement. Violations can lead to lease cancellation, fines, or demolition orders.
However, resorts have rights to protect their investments. They can enforce reasonable regulations, such as prohibiting littering or unauthorized commercial activities within their leased area. If boat parking causes damage to resort property or poses safety risks, resorts may seek remedies through local government units (LGUs) under the Local Government Code (RA 7160, 1991), which empowers barangays and municipalities to resolve coastal disputes.
Conflicts and Resolutions
Conflicts between fishermen and beach resorts often arise from overlapping uses of foreshore areas. For example, resorts may view parked boats as eyesores affecting tourism, while fishermen see restrictions as threats to their livelihood. Resolution mechanisms include:
Local Government Intervention: Under RA 7160, LGUs have authority over municipal waters and can enact ordinances regulating foreshore use. Many coastal municipalities have Fishery and Aquatic Resource Management Councils (FARMCs) under RA 8550, comprising fisherfolk, government, and private sector representatives, to mediate disputes.
Administrative Remedies: Complaints can be filed with BFAR for fishing-related issues or DENR for lease violations. FAO No. 236 (2010) provides for the delineation of municipal waters to prevent encroachment.
Judicial Recourse: Parties can seek injunctions or damages in court. In Tan v. Pereña (G.R. No. 149743, 2006), the Court ruled that private lessees cannot exclude public users from foreshore easements.
Environmental laws like the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act (RA 7586, 1992) and the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003, 2000) add layers, requiring all users to avoid pollution or habitat destruction.
Enforcement and Challenges
Enforcement remains a challenge due to limited resources and corruption. Illegal reclamations and unauthorized structures by resorts sometimes go unchecked, displacing fisherfolk. Advocacy groups like the Pambansang Lakas ng Kilusang Mamamalakaya ng Pilipinas (PAMALAKAYA) often highlight these issues, pushing for stricter implementation.
Recent developments, such as the 2020 Supreme Court ruling in Mandanas v. Executive Secretary (expanding LGU fiscal autonomy), may empower local enforcement. Additionally, climate change impacts, governed by the Climate Change Act (RA 9729, 2009), necessitate adaptive management of foreshore areas to protect both livelihoods and tourism.
Conclusion
In summary, Philippine law firmly upholds the public nature of foreshore lands, allowing fishermen to park boats in front of beach resorts as part of their protected rights to access municipal waters and engage in fishing activities. While beach resorts hold valid leases for commercial use, these are subordinate to public easements and cannot exclude traditional users. Balancing these interests requires adherence to constitutional mandates, statutory protections, and collaborative governance. Stakeholders must prioritize sustainable practices to ensure that foreshore resources benefit all Filipinos, preserving both economic vitality and cultural heritage.