This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Republic Act No. 10654 | |
|---|---|
| Short title | RA 10654 |
| Long title | An Act Increasing the Penalties for Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and for Other Purposes |
| Enacted by | Congress of the Philippines |
| Enacted | 2015 |
| Citation | Republic Act No. 10654 |
| Signed by | Benigno Aquino III |
| Date signed | 2015 |
Republic Act No. 10654 is a Philippine statute amending provisions related to fishing offenses to strengthen measures against illegal, unreported and unregulated activities in Philippine waters. The act modifies penalties under existing legislation to align with international instruments, and was enacted during the administration of Benigno Aquino III following debates in the Senate of the Philippines and the House of Representatives of the Philippines. It interfaces with regional frameworks such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and global agreements like the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The statute arose from concerns about maritime resources linked to disputes involving the South China Sea, Spratly Islands, and incidents implicated in confrontations with vessels from People's Republic of China. Debates referenced precedents including the Magellan expedition historical claims and modern adjudications like the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling. Legislative sponsors cited scientific assessments by institutions such as the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, reports from the Philippine Coast Guard, and analyses by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization on overfishing, piracy, and maritime environmental harm. Stakeholders spanned from indigenous fisherfolk associated with Tawi-Tawi and Palawan communities to international partners like Australia, Japan, and United States agencies cooperating on maritime security.
The act increases administrative, civil and criminal liabilities for offenses previously codified in the Fisheries Administrative Order and the Republic Act No. 8550 framework. It specifies enhanced penalties for vessel operators and owners, commands for forfeiture paralleling measures in instruments such as the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement, and establishes protocols for boarding and inspection akin to practices of the International Maritime Organization. The law empowers authorities including the Philippine Coast Guard, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, and local Sangguniang Bayan entities to enforce sanctions, revoke licenses registered with the Department of Agriculture, and coordinate with the National Bureau of Investigation on criminal investigations. It also sets out administrative adjudication procedures reminiscent of processes used by the Sandiganbayan for asset forfeiture and the Supreme Court of the Philippines for judicial review.
Drafting involved committees from both the Senate of the Philippines and the House of Representatives of the Philippines, with principal sponsors including legislators from provinces such as Zambales, Cavite, and Sorsogon. The bill underwent readings and debates referencing international law positions articulated by the Department of Foreign Affairs and technical inputs from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Hearings featured testimonies from representatives of the National Economic and Development Authority, academic experts from the University of the Philippines, and civil society groups like Haribon Foundation and fisherfolk federations allied with the Kilusan ng Manggagawang Pilipino. Passage was followed by signature from Benigno Aquino III at Malacañang, drawing commentary from media outlets including ABS-CBN and Philippine Daily Inquirer.
Operationalization required implementing rules and regulations coordinated by the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, with enforcement activities conducted by the Philippine Coast Guard, Armed Forces of the Philippines maritime units, and municipal fishery officers. Inter-agency memoranda linked operations to mechanisms used by the National Task Force and cooperation with international partners such as United States Agency for International Development and Japan International Cooperation Agency. Prosecutions under the act proceeded through regional trial courts and the Ombudsman where public officers were implicated, while confiscated assets entered processes similar to those supervised by the Bureau of Customs.
Advocacy groups including the World Wide Fund for Nature in the Philippines and fisherfolk unions from Iloilo and Cebu hailed stronger deterrents, while human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch cautioned about potential overreach in boarding powers. Academic evaluations by scholars at the Ateneo de Manila University and the University of Santo Tomas assessed effects on fish stocks in regions like the Visayas and Mindanao. International observers tied the law to regional maritime security dynamics involving actors like Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei. Litigation and enforcement trends prompted commentary in legal journals citing precedents from the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
The act interacts with earlier statutes including Republic Act No. 8550 (amendments on fisheries), international agreements such as the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, and regulatory issuances from the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Subsequent administrative orders and proposed bills in both the Senate of the Philippines and the House of Representatives of the Philippines have sought to refine provisions on port state measures akin to the Port State Measures Agreement. Related policy instruments include programs administered by the Department of Agriculture and conservation initiatives involving the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau.
Category:Philippine law