THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 185320. April 19, 2017.]

ROSENDO DE BORJA, petitioner, vs. PINALAKAS NA UGNAYAN

NG MALILIIT NA MANGINGISDA NG LUZON, MINDANAO AT
VISAYAS ("PUMALU-MV"), PAMBANSANG KATIPUNAN NG
MGA SAMAHAN SA KANAYUNAN ("PKSK") and TAMBUYOG
DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC. ("TDCI"), respondents;

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor.

[G.R. No. 185348. April 19, 2017.]

TAMBUYOG DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., represented by

DINNA L. UMENGAN, petitioner, vs. ROSENDO DE BORJA,
PINALAKAS NA UGNAYAN NG MALILIIT NA MANGINGISDA NG
LUZON, MINDANAO AT VISAYAS ("PUMALU-MV"),
represented by CESAR A. HAWAK, and PAMBANSANG
KATIPUNAN NG MGA SAMAHAN SA KANAYUNAN ("PKSK"),
represented by RUPERTO B. ALEROZA, respondents;

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor.

DECISION

JARDELEZA, J : p

Petitioners call upon us to disregard procedural rules on account of the

alleged novelty and transcendental importance of the issue involved here.
However, the transcendental importance doctrine cannot remedy the
procedural defects that plague this petition. In the words of former Supreme
Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno, "no amount of exigency can make this
Court exercise a power where it is not proper." 1 A petition for declaratory
relief, like any other court action, cannot prosper absent an actual
controversy that is ripe for judicial determination.
In these consolidated petitions, 2 petitioners Rosendo De Borja (De
Borja) and Tambuyog Development Center, Inc. (TDCI) seek to nullify the
February 21, 2008 Decision 3 and November 3, 2008 Resolution 4 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 87391. The CA reversed the March
31, 2006 Decision 5 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon City-Branch
74 and dismissed, on the ground of prematurity, the petition for declaratory
relief filed by De Borja and the petition-in-intervention filed by respondents
Pinalakas na Ugnayan ng Maliliit na Mangingisda ng Luzon, Mindanao at
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Visayas (PUMALU-MV), Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Samahan sa
Kanayunan (PKSK), and TDCI. 6
On February 16, 2004, De Borja, a commercial fishing operator, filed a
Petition for Declaratory Relief 7 (De Borja's petition) with the RTC of Malabon
City. He asked the court to construe and declare his rights under Section 4
(58) of Republic Act No. 8550 or The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 (1998
Fisheries Code). De Borja asked the court to determine the reckoning point
of the 15-kilometer range of municipal waters, as provided under Section 4
(58) of the 1998 Fisheries Code, in relation with Rule 4.1 (a) of its
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). 8 Section 4 (58) of the 1998
Fisheries Code and Rule 4.1 (a) of the IRR respectively read:
Sec. 4(58). Municipal waters — include not only streams,
lakes, inland bodies of water and tidal waters within the municipality
which are not included within the protected areas as defined under
Republic Act No. 7586 (The NIPAS Law), public forest, timber lands,
forest reserves or fishery reserves, but also marine waters
included between two (2) lines drawn perpendicular to the
general coastline from points where the boundary lines of the
municipality touch the sea at low tide and a third line parallel
with the general coastline including offshore islands and
fifteen (15) kilometers from such coastline. Where two (2)
municipalities are so situated on opposite shores that there is less
than thirty (30) kilometers of marine waters between them, the third
line shall be equally distant from opposite shore of the respective
municipalities. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.) CAIHTE

Rule 4.1(a) Coastline — refers to the outline of the mainland

shore touching the sea at mean lower low tide.
De Borja pleaded that the construction of the reckoning point of the
15-kilometer range affects his rights because he is now exposed to
apprehensions and possible harassments that may be brought by conflicting
interpretations of the 1998 Fisheries Code. 9 He further claimed that varying
constructions of the law would spark conflict between fishermen and law
enforcers, and would ultimately affect food security and defeat the purpose
of the 1998 Fisheries Code. 10
De Borja, however, did not implead any party as respondent in his
petition. The RTC, in an Order 11 dated March 9, 2004, directed the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG) to file a comment.
Meanwhile, the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority
(NAMRIA), through Engr. Enrique A. Macaspac, Chief of Geodesy and
Geophysics Division, filed a letter-request to intervene and comment on the
petition. 12 In its Comment, 13 NAMRIA stated that Rule 4.1 (a) used the term
"coastline," while Section 4 (58) specified "general coastline." It thus
concluded that the definition of "coastline" in Rule 4.1 (a) is valid only for
municipalities without any island. NAMRIA explained that by definition, the
"general coastline" of a municipality without any island is simply the
coastline of the mainland (or mainland shore) of that municipality. On the
other hand, a municipality with island/s has the coastline/s of its island/s;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 hence, its general coastline consists of not only the coastline of its mainland
(or mainland shore) but also the coastline/s of its island/s. 14 Thus, where the
municipality is archipelagic, the archipelagic principle shall apply in
delineating municipal waters, i.e., the 15-kilometer range of the municipal
waters of an archipelagic municipality shall be reckoned not only from the
coastline of the mainland but also from the coastline/s of the island/s of that
municipality, such coastline/s of the island/s being part and parcel of the
general coastline of that municipality. 15
NAMRIA also gave their opinion as to whether the phrase "including
offshore islands" in the phrase "a third line parallel with the general coastline
including offshore islands and fifteen (15) kilometers from such coastline"
refer to the "third line" (meaning, the third line includes or encloses the
islands) or to the "general coastline" (meaning, the general coastline
includes the coastline/s of the island/s). NAMRIA noted that "general
coastline" precedes the word "including;" thus, "including offshore islands"
must be referring to the "general coastline." NAMRIA also noted that the
"third line" is qualified by two conditions: the third line is (1) parallel with the
general coastline including offshore islands and (2) 15 kilometers from such
coastline. NAMRIA concluded that to satisfy both conditions, the phrase
"including offshore islands" must refer to the "general coastline," or in other
words, must use the archipelagic principle. 16 NAMRIA stated that "including
offshore islands" appeared only in the 1998 Fisheries Code. Earlier laws,
which defined municipal waters, did not have it. NAMRIA then theorized that
its presence in Section 4 (58) of the 1998 Fisheries Code does not rule out
the applicability of the archipelagic principle in delineating municipal waters.
This interpretation is technically correct and consistent with the procedure in
delimiting maritime boundaries under the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea. 17
In its Comment, 18 the OSG narrated the events that led De Borja to file
the petition. The OSG averred that the root cause of the petition was the
adoption of the archipelagic principle in delineating and delimiting municipal
waters of municipalities with offshore islands under Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Order No. 2001-
17 19 (DAO 17). 20 Specifically, Section 5 (B) (1) (c) of DAO 17 provides:
Sec. 5. Systems and Procedures. x x x
B. Procedure for Delineation and Delimitation of Municipal Waters
1. Delineation of Municipal Waters

xxx xxx xxx

c) Use of Municipal archipelagic baselines

i. Where the territory of a municipality includes
several islands, the outermost points of such islands
shall be used as basepoints and connected by
municipal archipelagic baselines, provided that the
length of such baselines shall not exceed thirty (30)
kilometers.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 ii. The municipal archipelagic baselines shall
determine the general coastline of the municipality
for purposes of delineation and delimitation.
iii. Islands, isles, or islets located more than thirty (30)
kilometers from the mainland of the municipality shall have
their own separate coastlines.
iv. Rocks, reefs, cays, shoals, sandbars, and other features
which are submerged during high tide shall not be used as
basepoints for municipal archipelagic baselines. Neither
shall they have their own coastlines.
v. The outer limits of the municipal waters of the municipality
shall be enclosed by a line parallel to the municipal
archipelagic baselines and fifteen (15) kilometers
therefrom. (Emphasis supplied.)
The OSG detailed that on September 21, 2001, the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives adopted Committee
Resolution No. 2001-01 (House Committee Resolution) which recommended
the revocation of DAO 17 for being tainted with legal infirmities. 21 The
House Committee Resolution stated that the DENR has no jurisdiction to
issue DAO 17 because Section 123 22 of the 1998 Fisheries Code clearly
referred to the Department of Agriculture (DA) as the department which shall
determine the outer limits of municipal waters. 23 More importantly, the
House Committee Resolution claimed that DAO 17 directly contravened the
1998 Fisheries Code and the Local Government Code (LGC). The House
Committee Resolution explained that the phrase "including offshore islands"
in Section 4 (58) of the 1998 Fisheries Code means that offshore islands are
deemed to be within 15 kilometers from the shorelines; therefore, negating
the applicability of the archipelagic principle. 24 DAO 17, however,
authorized otherwise. The implementation of DAO 17, therefore, would
vastly reduce the fishing grounds already defined under the 1998 Fisheries
Code and result in adverse effects to the fishing industry and the nation's
food security. 25 DETACa

The House Committee Resolution was also sent to the DENR for
appropriate action. The DENR, however, did not act on it. Thus, upon request
of the House Committee on Appropriations, the Legal Affairs Bureau (LAB) of
the House of Representatives issued a legal opinion on the validity of DAO
17. The LAB echoed the legal arguments contained in the House Committee
Resolution. It asserted that the employment of the phrase "including
offshore islands" was intentional to remove any doubt as to where the 15
kilometers should be reckoned from — that is, from the general coastline of
the actual mainland and not from the archipelagic baseline. 26
The matter was also referred to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for
opinion. On November 27, 2002, the DOJ issued Opinion No. 100, which
stated that the DA, not the DENR, has jurisdiction to authorize the
delineation of municipal waters. 27 The DOJ then dispensed with the
determination of whether DAO 17, which adopted the archipelagic principle
in the delineation of municipal waters, was consistent with the provisions of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the 1998 Fisheries Code. 28 As a result of the DOJ Opinion, the DENR
Secretary revoked DAO 17 through DENR Administrative Order No. 2003-07.
29

The OSG stressed that the DA was in the process of formulating

guidelines for the delineation and delimitation of municipal waters. In fact,
the DA conducted a Fisheries Summit on November 12 to 13, 2003 to
consult small fisherfolk and the commercial fishing sector on the definition of
municipal waters. However, these negotiations reached an impasse, which
then triggered De Borja's filing of the petition before the RTC. 30
The OSG explained the two conflicting views on the delineation of
municipal waters, namely: (1) the archipelagic principle espoused by the
Municipalities of the Philippines and small fisher folk; and (2) the mainland
principle favored by the commercial fishing sector. 31 Under the mainland
principle, the 15-kilometer range shall be reckoned from the municipality's
coastline including offshore islands. The archipelagic principle, on the other
hand, reckons the 15-kilometer range of municipal waters from the
outermost offshore islands, and not the mainland. The outer limits of the
municipal waters of the municipality shall be enclosed by a line parallel to
the municipal archipelagic baseline and 15 kilometers therefrom. 32
The OSG argued that the mainland principle should be adopted. It
stated that the adoption of the archipelagic principle found in Article I of the
1987 Constitution, which is utilized in defining the Philippine territory vis-à-
vis other states, is relevant only when the issue of intrusion into Philippine
territorial water arises — that is, when foreign fishing vessels enter
Philippine territorial waters. 33
The OSG further explained that:
The phrase "including offshore islands" used to modify general
coastline in Section 4 (58) of R.A. No. 8550 shows the legislative
intent that the mainland shall be the reckoning point of the fifteen
kilometer range of municipal waters, and not the archipelagic
municipal baseline. To adopt the archipelagic municipal baseline as
the reckoning point would be to render the phrase "including offshore
islands" redundant because offshore islands would be deemed
already included in drawing the archipelagic baseline.
A correct grammatical construction of the questioned provision
would indicate that the word "such" in the phrase "including offshore
islands and fifteen kilometers from such coastline" refers to the
general coastline, and not to an archipelagic municipal baseline.
Coastline as defined under Rule 4.1 (a) of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of R.A. No. 8550 "refers to the outline of the mainland
shore touching the sea at mean lower tide." x x x 34
The OSG also cited the House of Representatives Committee
Deliberations on the 1998 Fisheries Code to show that the intent of the
lawmakers is to reckon the 15-kilometer range of the municipal waters from
the "shoreline." 35
On August 16, 2004, PUMALU-MV, PKSK and TDCI (collectively, the
intervenors) filed a Motion for Leave to File Intervention, 36 which the RTC
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 granted. In their Petition-in-Intervention, 37 the intervenors claimed that, as
small fisherfolk engaged in community-based coastal resource management,
they have substantial rights over the issue of delineation of municipal
waters. 38 They maintained that Section 4 (58) of the 1998 Fisheries Code
should be construed in a manner that would give effect to the intent of
delineating and delimiting municipal waters of a municipality with or without
offshore islands. They posited that to apply the mainland principle to
municipalities with offshore islands would result in the latter's
dismemberment of their own islands or islets. 39 The intervenors also
contended that the application of the mainland principle to municipalities
with offshore islands would deny the local government units of their water
and territorial jurisdiction, which would not be in keeping with the principle
of autonomy under the LGC. 40
As to municipalities with offshore islands, the intervenors averred that
the archipelagic principle should be applied for consistency and congruence
of the legal framework, considering that Article I of the 1987 Constitution
adopts the archipelagic principle. 41 They argued that the application of the
archipelagic principle in delimiting municipal waters is evident in the
previous administrative issuances of the DA through the Bureau of Fisheries
and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), namely: Fisheries Administrative Order No.
(FAO) 164, 42 and FAO 156. 43 The intervenors noted that in defining the
municipal waters under the regime of Presidential Decree No. 704, 44 FAO
164 and FAO 156 reckoned municipal waters of municipalities with islands
and islets from the outer shorelines of such group of islands or islets. 45
Finally, the intervenors revealed that after the revocation of DAO 17,
the DA issued Department Order No. 01-04 46 (DAO 1) providing the
guidelines for delineating municipal waters for municipalities and cities
without offshore islands. 47 DAO 1, in effect, recognizes the need to
distinguish between municipalities with and without offshore islands.
In its Decision dated March 31, 2006, the RTC agreed with the position
of the OSG. It noted that the issuance of DAO 1 cited by the intervenors does
not tacitly indicate that the archipelagic principle must be adopted as a
means of delimitation or delineation of municipal waters in municipalities or
cities with offshore islands. The RTC found an existing controversy regarding
the definition of municipal waters for municipalities and cities with offshore
islands, which the DA has yet to settle through an administrative directive.
The RTC observed that the DA, through the OSG, opted to leave the matter
of interpretation to the court. 48 Thus, the RTC disposed of the case in this
wise:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that in
interpreting the phrase "and a third line parallel with the general
coastline including offshore islands and fifteen (15) kilometers from
such coastline,["] the "mainland principle["] and not the "archipelagic
principle" should be applied. 49
The intervenors appealed to the CA.
In its Decision dated February 21, 2008, the CA reversed and set aside
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the Decision of the RTC. According to the CA, De Borja's petition for
declaratory relief and the request for intervention should have been
dismissed due to prematurity. 50
The CA ruled that De Borja's petition did not meet the two requisites of
a petition for declaratory relief, namely: justiciable controversy and ripeness
for judicial determination. It noted that there is no actual case or controversy
regarding the definition of municipal waters for municipalities with offshore
islands because the DA has yet to issue guidelines with respect to these. 51
aDSIHc

De Borja filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Clarification.

52 He argued that Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court allows any

interested person to bring an action for declaratory relief for the

construction of a statute, such as the 1998 Fisheries Code. Hence, it may be
the subject of a petition for declaratory relief independent and regardless of
the issuance of implementing guidelines, since implementing rules only flow
from the statute. 53
De Borja further asserted that the controversy is ripe for judicial
determination considering the diverse interpretations of the parties on the
scope of the phrase "and a third line parallel with the general coastline
including offshore islands and fifteen (15) kilometers from such coastline." 54
He also claimed that the construction of the reckoning point of the 15-
kilometer range of municipal waters under the law is, in any case, of national
importance with transcendental implications because it affects the entire
local fishing industry. He thus prayed for the CA to relax procedural rules and
take cognizance of the petition. 55
TDCI also filed its Motion for Reconsideration 56 of the CA Decision. It
argued that the petition should have been given due course because the
issues in the case are not only novel, but are of transcendental importance.
They involve the protection of small and marginal fisherfolk, and the
delimitation of municipal waters throughout the country for fisheries or
coastal resource management and law enforcement. TDCI prayed for the CA
to declare the archipelagic doctrine as adopted in interpreting Section 4 (58)
of the 1998 Fisheries Code, with respect to municipalities with offshore
islands. 57
PKSK, on the other hand, filed its Comment 58 to De Borja's Motion for
Reconsideration with Motion for Clarification, praying that it be dismissed for
lack of merit. PKSK insisted that there is no actual case or controversy
between the parties as to the provisions of the 1998 Fisheries Code, and that
De Borja simply wants an interpretation by the court. 59 PKSK, however,
argued that the dismissal of the petition meant that the archipelagic doctrine
is the prevailing interpretation. 60
In its Resolution 61 dated November 3, 2008, the CA denied De Borja's
and TDCI's motions. The CA held:
x x x At present, the DA has yet to issue guidelines for
delineating/delimiting municipal waters for municipalities and cities
with offshore islands. Since the DA still has to issue such guidelines to
carry into effect the requirement imposed by Rule 123.2 of the IRR of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 RA No. 8550, whatever ramifications petitioner-appellee [De Borja]
and intervenors-appellants fear may result from the enforcement of
the questioned provision of RA No. 8550 remain to be merely
hypothetical.
While this Court acknowledges the importance of the issue
raised by petitioner-appellee and intervenors-appellants in SP Civil
Action No. 04-007-MN as well as in the present case it must be
emphasized that this Court may not act upon a hypothetical issue
that has not yet ripened into a justiciable controversy. 62 (Citations
omitted.)
Thus, De Borja and TDCI filed their own petitions for review before us,
which we consolidated in our Resolution 63 dated January 14, 2009. De Borja
and TDCI both insist that the CA erred in dismissing the petition for
declaratory relief on the ground of prematurity. They assert that only a
judicial declaration will finally settle the different interpretations of Section 4
(58) of the 1998 Fisheries Code. According to De Borja, a petition for
declaratory relief is the proper remedy for the construction of the provision
regardless of the issuance of implementing guidelines. As for TDCI, it
maintains that all the requisites for a valid petition for declaratory relief are
present.
De Borja and TDCI also both reiterate the issues' national significance
and transcendental implications to the entire local fishing industry. They,
however, differ in the principle they want the court to uphold in interpreting
Section 4 (58) of the 1998 Fisheries Code, respecting municipalities of cities
with offshore islands. De Borja opines that the provision unqualifiedly adopts
only the mainland principle in defining municipal waters. 64 TDCI, on the
other hand, maintains that using the mainland principle in interpreting the
provision would violate the constitutional rights of simple fisherfolk to
subsistence fishing, and of municipalities and cities with offshore islands to
meaningful autonomy in managing their resources. 65
In its Comment 66 dated June 10, 2009, the OSG concurs with the CA
that De Borja's petition before the RTC failed to allege a justiciable
controversy. The OSG avers that the petition must fail because it was based
on mere speculations, contingent events, and hypothetical issues that have
not yet ripened into an actual controversy. 67 Notwithstanding this position,
the OSG still submits that the mainland principle, and not the archipelagic
principle, should be adopted in defining municipal waters under the 1998
Fisheries Code. 68
The sole issue presented is whether De Borja's petition for declaratory
relief should prosper.
We deny the petition.
For a petition for declaratory relief 69 to prosper, it must be shown that
(a) there is a justiciable controversy, (b) the controversy is between persons
whose interests are adverse, (c) the party seeking the relief has a legal
interest in the controversy, and (d) the issue invoked is ripe for judicial
determination. 70 We agree with the CA when it dismissed De Borja's petition
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 for being premature as it lacks the first and fourth requisites. We hasten to
add that the petition, in fact, lacks all four requisites.
First, we find that De Borja's petition does not present a justiciable
controversy or the "ripening seeds" of one as to warrant a court's
intervention. A justiciable controversy is a definite and concrete dispute
touching on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests,
which may be resolved by a court of law through the application of a law. 71
It must be appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, admitting of specific
relief through a decree that is conclusive in character. It must not be
conjectural or merely anticipatory, which only seeks for an opinion that
advises what the law would be on a hypothetical state of facts. 72
In his five-page petition for declaratory relief, De Borja failed to provide
factual allegations showing that his legal rights were the subject of an
imminent or threatened violation that should be prevented by the
declaratory relief sought. He simply went on to conclude that the
construction or interpretation of the reckoning point of the 15-kilometer
range of municipal waters under the 1998 Fisheries Code would affect his
rights as he is "now exposed to apprehensions and possible harassments
that may be brought about by conflicting interpretations of the said statute
x x x." 73 As to how these apprehensions and harassments shall come about,
De Borja did not elaborate. Clearly, therefore, there is no actual or imminent
threat to his rights which is ripe for judicial review. As we have explained in
Republic v. Roque: 74
A perusal of private respondents' petition for
declaratory relief would show that they have failed to
demonstrate how they are left to sustain or are in immediate
danger to sustain some direct injury as a result of the
enforcement of the assailed provisions of RA 9372. Not far
removed from the factual milieu in the Southern Hemisphere cases,
private respondents only assert general interests as citizens,
and taxpayers and infractions which the government could
prospectively commit if the enforcement of the said law
would remain untrammelled. As their petition would disclose,
private respondents' fear of prosecution was solely based on remarks
of certain government officials which were addressed to the general
public. They, however, failed to show how these remarks tended
towards any prosecutorial or governmental action geared towards the
implementation of RA 9372 against them. In other words, there was
no particular, real or imminent threat to any of them. As held in
Southern Hemisphere:
Without any justiciable controversy, the petitions
have become pleas for declaratory relief, over which the
Court has no original jurisdiction. Then again, declaratory
actions characterized by "double contingency," where
both the activity the petitioners intend to undertake and
the anticipated reaction to it of a public official are merely
theorized, lie beyond judicial review for lack of ripeness.
The possibility of abuse in the implementation
of RA 9372 does not avail to take the present
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 petitions out of the realm of the surreal and merely
imagined. Such possibility is not peculiar to RA
9372 since the exercise of any power granted by
law may be abused. Allegations of abuse must be
anchored on real events before courts may step in
to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable. 75
(Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.)
ETHIDa

De Borja neither established his legal interest in the controversy nor

demonstrated the adverse interests between him and others. He did not
even implead any respondent and merely stated that he was engaged in
fishing operations in various fishing grounds within the internal waters of the
Philippines. He simply made a general statement that there are varying
interpretations of the reckoning point of the 15-kilometer range of municipal
waters under the 1998 Fisheries Code, without elaborating as to what these
conflicting interpretations of the law were.
In the early case of Delumen v. Republic , 76 we concurred with the
Solicitor General's contention that a justiciable controversy is one involving
an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right on one side and a denial
thereof on the other concerning a real and not a merely theoretical question
or issue. 77 We held that the petitioners in Delumen were not entitled to a
declaratory relief because their petition did not mention any specific person
having or claiming adverse interest in the matter. As such, they were
invoking an action for declaratory judgment solely to determine a
hypothetical, abstract, theoretical, or uncertain claim, which we cannot
allow. 78
We stress that neither the OSG's filing of its Comment nor the petition-
in-intervention of PUMALU-MV, PKSK, and TDCI endowed De Borja's petition
with an actual case or controversy. The Comment, for one, did not contest
the allegations in De Borja's petition. Its main role was to supply De Borja's
petition with the factual antecedents detailing how the alleged controversy
reached the court. It also enlightened the RTC as to the two views, the
mainland principle versus the archipelagic principle, on the definition of
municipal waters. Even if the Comment did oppose the petition, there would
still be no justiciable controversy for lack of allegation that any person has
ever contested or threatened to contest De Borja's claim of fishing rights. 79
The petition-in-intervention, on the other hand, also did not dispute or
oppose any of the allegations in De Borja's petition. While it did espouse the
application of the archipelagic principle in contrast to the mainland principle
advocated by the OSG, it must be recalled that De Borja did not advocate for
any of these principles at that time. He only adopted the OSG's position in
his Memorandum before the RTC. Thus, the petition-in-intervention did not
create an actual controversy in this case as the cause of action for
declaratory relief must be made out by the allegations of the petition without
the aid of any other pleading. 80
Simply put, De Borja's petition does not contain ultimate facts to
support his cause of action. De Borja merely wants the court to give him an
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 opinion on the proper interpretation of the definition of municipal waters.
This is a prayer which we cannot grant. Our constitutional mandate to settle
only actual controversies involving rights that are legally demandable and
enforceable 81 proscribes us from giving an advisory opinion.
Second, closely associated with the requirement of actual or justiciable
controversy is the requirement of ripeness for adjudication. In this regard,
we cite our ruling in Lozano v. Nograles, 82 viz.:
An aspect of the "case-or-controversy" requirement is the
requisite of "ripeness." x x x In our jurisdiction, the issue of ripeness
is generally treated in terms of actual injury to the plaintiff. Hence, a
question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has
had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. An
alternative road to review similarly taken would be to determine
whether an action has already been accomplished or performed by a
branch of government before the courts may step in. 83 (Emphasis
and citations omitted.)
The requisite of ripeness has a two-fold aspect: fitness of the issues for
judicial decision and the hardship to the parties entailed by withholding court
consideration. 84 The first aspect requires that the issue tendered is a purely
legal one and that the regulation subject of the case is a "final agency
action." The second aspect mandates that the effects of the regulation are
felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties. 85 Applying these tests, we
find that De Borja's petition is not ripe for adjudication.
The question calling for the interpretation of the definition of municipal
waters for municipalities with offshore islands is not a purely legal question
because the given set of facts from which our interpretation will be based
are not yet complete. In other words, the question demands an agency
action from the DA. An agency action is defined in Book VII, Chapter I,
Section 2 (15) of the Administrative Code of 1987 86 as referring to the
whole or part of every agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief or its
equivalent or denial thereof. As applied here, the action required from the
DA involves further factual determination of a kind that necessitates the
application of the Department's expertise and authority, both of which we do
not have.
Under Section 123 of the 1998 Fisheries Code (now Section 157 of the
1998 Fisheries Code as amended by Republic Act No. 10654 87 [hereinafter,
the Amended Fisheries Code]), the DA has the mandate to authorize the
NAMRIA to designate and chart navigational lanes in fisheries areas and to
delineate municipal waters. In the legitimate exercise of its power of
subordinate legislation, the DA issued the IRR of the Amended Fisheries
Code. 88 The IRR of the Amended Fisheries Code, particularly Sections 157.1
to 157.4, echoes the mandate of the DA and NAMRIA under Section 157 of
the law. It provides the details and the process of delineation of municipal
waters, to wit:
Sec. 157. Charting of Navigational Lanes and Delineation of
Municipal Waters. — The Department shall authorize the
National Mapping and Resource Information Authority
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 (NAMRIA) for the designation and charting of navigational
lanes in fishery areas and delineation of municipal waters. The
Philippine Coast Guard shall exercise control and supervision over
such designated navigational lanes.
Rule 157.1. Delineation of Municipal Waters. —
Recognizing that all municipal waters have not yet
been delineated, the DA-BFAR shall issue
guidelines for the delineation of all municipal
waters in the Philippines following the process
stated in Rule 65.2.
Rule 157.2. Navigational Lanes. — The DA-BFAR, shall
facilitate the designation and charting of navigational
lanes in fishery areas, by convening an Inter-Agency
committee composed of NAMRIA, PN, PCG, MARINA, other
concerned agencies and the NFARMC.
Rule 157.3. Mapping. — The DA-BFAR, in
coordination with the NAMRIA and with the
participation of local government units concerned
shall determine the outer limits of the municipal
waters. Overlapping boundaries in municipal
waters shall be governed by the Rules embodied in
this law and the Local Government Code of 1991.
Rule 157.4. Navigational Charts. — Charts of
navigational lane and outer limits of municipal waters
shall be produced, published and regularly updated by
NAMRIA.
Rule 157.5. Funding. — The Department, through
DBM, shall allocate sufficient funds for these purposes.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Pertinently, Rule 65.2 provides:
Rule 65.2. Formulation of Rules and Regulations. — In formulating
rules and regulations, the DA-BFAR shall observe these principles:
a. The regulation shall be based on scientific studies. In the
conduct of scientific studies, stakeholders in the
affected region shall be informed of the conduct of
the study, its duration and the expert/s who will
conduct the same. The stakeholders may nominate their
own scientist/s to participate in the study or will be given
the chance to provide comments on the scientist who will
conduct the study;
b. The consultation shall be conducted in all affected regions
as may be practicable, taking into consideration the safety
and accessibility of the venue to the stakeholders;
c. Stakeholders shall be given at least fifteen (15)
days prior notice of the date and venue of the
consultation including the subject matter of the
proposed regulation. The notice shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the region, where
feasible; and,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 d. The proposed regulation shall be made publicly available
at the BFAR website and BFAR Regional Offices at least
seven (7) days prior to the consultation. (Emphasis
supplied.)
The DA, however, has not yet performed any of the above acts. The
record shows that no rule, regulation, or guidelines have been issued by the
DA to date, in coordination with BFAR, as regards municipalities with
offshore islands. There are serious gaps in the implementation of the law
which the DA and the concerned agencies would still need to fill in. As it
stands, therefore, there is no agency action to speak of, much less a "final
agency action" required under the ripeness doctrine. cSEDTC

Equally significant, we find that if we were to grant the petition for

declaratory relief, it would mean an intrusion into the domain of the
executive, preempting the actions of the DA and other concerned
government agencies and stakeholders. As clearly set out in the provisions
of the IRR, the primary duty of determining the reckoning point of the 15-
kilometer range of municipal waters of municipalities with offshore islands
falls with the DA, NAMRIA, and the BFAR. They shall do so through public
consultation or with the participation of stakeholders, such as the concerned
municipalities, fishing operators, and fisherfolk.
Nonetheless, De Borja insists that a statute may be the subject of a
petition for declaratory relief regardless of the issuance of an implementing
guideline. He pleads that the "persisting and actual confusion brought about
by the different interpretations of the interested groups in the local fishing
industry is ripe for judicial action." 89 We disagree. In Garcia v. Executive
Secretary, 90 we ruled that a petition assailing the constitutionality of
Republic Act No. 7042 or the Foreign Investments Act of 1991 is not ripe for
adjudication, there being "no actual case or controversy, particularly
because of the absence of the implementing rules that are supposed to carry
the Act into effect." 91
I n Bayan Telecommunications, Inc. v. Republic , 92 we affirmed the
ruling of the CA in dismissing a petition for declaratory relief after we found
that Bayantel's fear of sanction under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 7925 93
was merely hypothetical, as there are yet no implementing rules or
guidelines to carry into effect the requirement imposed by the said provision.
94

Likewise, in Lozano, 95 we noted that judicial intervention 96 was

premature because the House of Representatives has yet to adopt rules of
procedure in relation to Resolution No. 1109. 97
Corollarily, since no implementing rule or agency action is involved in
this case, no real hardship may be felt by De Borja if we were to withhold
judicial consideration. As earlier discussed, the petition did not state any
specific right to which De Borja was entitled, and which was threatened to be
violated, prejudiced or denied by the DA. We emphasize that court action is
discretionary in petitions for declaratory relief. 98 We may refuse to construe
the instrument, or in this case, the statute involved, if the construction is not
necessary and proper under the circumstances and/or if the construction
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 would not terminate the controversy. 99 Here, the lack of a purely legal
question, the absence of agency action, and the nonexistence of a
threatened direct injury, make the construction of Section 4 (58) of the 1998
Fisheries Code inappropriate and unripe for judicial resolution at this time.
We cannot give relief merely because De Borja has a "real problem" and "a
genuine need for legal advice." 100 As aptly put in Abbott Laboratories v.
Gardner: 101
x x x Without undertaking to survey the intricacies of the
ripeness doctrine, it is fair to say that its basic rationale is to prevent
the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from
entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative
policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference
until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects
felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties. (Citation omitted.)
Considering the foregoing, the DA's decision, through the OSG, to
submit the interpretation of municipal waters to the court's wisdom and
discretion was improper. The executive cannot simply pass the buck to the
judiciary. As we have explained in Tan v. Macapagal: 102
x x x The doctrine of separation of powers calls for the other
departments being left alone to discharge their duties as they see fit.
The judiciary as Justice Laurel emphatically asserted "will neither
direct nor restrain executive [or legislative] action x x x." The
legislative and executive branches are not bound to seek its
advice as to what to do or not to do. Judicial inquiry has to be
postponed in the meanwhile. It is a prerequisite that
something had by then been accomplished or performed by
either branch before a court may come into the picture. At
such a time, it may pass on the validity of what was done but only
"when x x x properly challenged in an appropriate legal proceeding."
103 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.)

Finally, in their attempt to salvage the case, both De Borja and

intervenor TDCI invoked transcendental importance. However, their
contention is misplaced. The transcendental importance doctrine dispenses
only with the requirement of locus standi. 104 It cannot and does not override
the requirements of actual and justiciable controversy and ripeness for
adjudication, which are conditions sine qua non for the exercise of judicial
power.
WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions are DENIED. The February
21, 2008 Decision and November 3, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CV No. 87391 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Bersamin, Reyes and Tijam, JJ., concur.
Footnotes

1. Lozano v. Nograles , G.R. No. 187883, June 16, 2009, 589 SCRA 356, 357.

2. De Borja's Petition, rollo (G.R. No. 185320), pp. 3-27; TDCI's Petition, rollo, (G.R.
No. 185348), pp. 7-32.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 3. Rollo (G.R. No. 185320), pp. 30-42; penned by Associate Justice Hakim S.
Abdulwahid and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and
Arturo G. Tayag.

4. Id. at 44-49.
5. Id. at 172-184.

6. Id. at 41.

7. Id. at 84-89.
8. DA Administrative Order No. 3 (1998).

9. Rollo (G.R. No. 185320), pp. 86-87.

10. Id.

11. Records, p. 81.

12. Id. at 82.

13. Id. at 88-105.

14. Id. at 91.

15. Id. at 94-95.

16. Id. at 91-92; 100.

17. Id. at 93-94.

18. Id. at 111-150.

19. Guidelines for Delineating/Delimiting Municipal Waters.

20. Rollo (G.R. No. 185320), p. 94.

21. Id. at 94-95.

22. Sec. 123. Charting of Navigational Lanes and Delineation of Municipal Waters.
— The Department shall authorize the National Mapping and Resource
Information Authority (NAMRIA) for the designation and charting of
navigational lanes in fishery areas and delineation of municipal waters. The
Philippine Coast Guard shall exercise control and supervision over such
designated navigational lanes.

23. Rollo (G.R. No. 185320), p. 96.

24. Id. at 96-98.

25. Id. at 97.

26. Id. at 101-102.

27. Id. at 105-106.

28. Id. at 106.

29. Revocation of Administrative Order 17, Series of 2001.

30. Rollo (G.R. No. 185320), pp. 108-110.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 31. Id. at 108-109.
32. Id. at 111-112.

33. Id. at 116-117.

34. Id. at 120.

35. Id. at 120-127.

36. Records, pp. 186-190.

37. Rollo (G.R. No. 185320), pp. 130-149.

38. Id. at 131.

39. Id. at 134-135.

40. Id. at 137.

41. Id. at 136-138.

42. Rules and Regulations Governing the Operation of "Hulbot-Hulbot" in the
Philippine Waters (1987).

43. Guidelines and Procedure in the Effective Implementation of LOI No. 1328
(1986).
44. Fisheries Decree of 1975.

45. Rollo (G.R. No. 185320), pp. 138-139.

46. Guidelines for Delineating/Delimiting Municipal Waters for Municipalities and

Cities without Offshore Islands. Dated January 14, 2004, published on January
24, 2004 and took effect 15 days thereafter.

47. Rollo (G.R. No. 185320), p. 131.

48. Id. at 180-184.

49. Id. at 184.

50. Id. at 41.

51. Id. at 40.

52. Id. at 295-309.

53. Id. at 299.

54. Id. at 302.

55. Id. at 303.

56. Id. at 310-316.

57. Id. at 312.

58. CA rollo, pp. 292-299.

59. Id. at 294.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 60. Id. at 295-296.

61. Rollo (G.R. No. 185320), pp. 44-49.

62. Id. at 48.

63. Id. at 317-318.

64. Id. at 18-20.

65. Rollo (G.R. No. 185348), pp. 21-27.

66. Rollo (G.R. No. 185320), pp. 357-404.

67. Id. at 381-383.

68. Id. at 383.

69. RULES OF COURT, Rule 63, Sec. 1. Who may file petition. — Any person
interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose
rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or
any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof
bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any
question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights
or duties, thereunder.
70. Bayan Telecommunications, Inc. v. Republic, G.R. No. 161140, January 31,
2007, 513 SCRA 562, 568, citing Office of the Ombudsman v. Ibay, G.R. No.
137538, September 3, 2001, 364 SCRA 281, 286.

71. Bayan Telecommunications, Inc. v. Republic, supra at 568, citing Cutaran v.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, G.R. No. 134958,
January 31, 2001, 350 SCRA 697, 704-705.

72. See Republic of the Philippines v. Roque, G.R. No. 204603, September 24, 2013
706 SCRA 273, 284, citing Velarde v. Social Justice Society , G.R. No. 159357,
April 28, 2004, 428 SCRA 283, 291; and Guingona, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 125532, July 10, 1998, 292 SCRA 402, 413-414.
73. Rollo (G.R. No. 185320), pp. 86-87; emphasis ours.

74. G.R. No. 204603, September 24, 2013, 706 SCRA 273.
75. Id. at 284-285.

76. 94 Phil. 287 (1954).

77. Id. at 288-289.

78. Id. at 289.

79. See Obiles v. Republic , 92 Phil. 864 (1953).

80. See Delumen v. Republic, supra at 289.

81. CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 1.

82. G.R. No. 187883, June 16, 2009, 589 SCRA 356.
83. Id. at 358-359.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 84. Id. at 359, citing Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967).
85. National Automatic Laundry and Cleaning Council v. Shultz , 443 F.2d 689
(1971), citing Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, supra.

86. Executive Order No. 292.

87. An Act to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated
Fishing, Amending Republic Act No. 8550, Otherwise Known as "The
Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998" (2015).

88. DA Administrative Order No. 10 (2015).

89. Rollo (G.R. No. 185320), p. 13.

90. G.R. No. 100883, December 2, 1991, 204 SCRA 516.

91. Id. at 522.

92. G.R. No. 161140, January 31, 2007, 513 SCRA 562.

93. Public Telecommunications Policy Act of the Philippines (1995).

94. Bayan Telecommunications, Inc. v. Republic, supra at 568.

95. Supra note 82.

96. Petitioners, in Lozano, called for the nullification of House Resolution No. 1109.

97. A Resolution Calling Upon the Members of Congress to Convene for the Purpose
of Considering Proposals to Amend or Revise the Constitution, Upon a Three-
fourths Vote of All the Members of Congress, Fourteenth Congress.
98. Chan v. Galang, G.R. No. L-21732, October 17, 1966, 18 SCRA 345, 351.

99. See RULES OF COURT, Rule 63, Sec. 5.

100. National Automatic Laundry and Cleaning Council v. Shultz , 443 F.2d 689
(1971), citing F.W. Maurer & Sons Co. v. Andrews, 30 F. Supp. 637, 638 (E.D.
Pa. 1939).

101. 387 U.S. 136 (1967).

102. G.R. No. L-34161, February 29, 1972, 43 SCRA 677.

103. Id. at 681.

104. Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council ,

G.R. No. 178552, October 5, 2010, 632 SCRA 146, 168, citing Chavez v.
Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 130716. December
9, 1998, 299 SCRA 744.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com