Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Case Digest
GR 187167 August 16, 2011
Prof. Magallona, Hontiveros, Prof. Roque and 38 UP College of Law Students
-vsErmita Exec.Sec., Romulo Sec DFA, Andaya Sec DBM, Ventura Administrator National
Mapping & Resource Information Authority and Davide Jr.
-writ of certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of RA 9522
Facts:
RA 3046 was passed in 1961 which provides among others the demarcation lines of the
baselines of the Philippines as an archipelago. This is in consonance with UNCLOS I.
RA 5446 amended RA 3046 in terms of typographical errors and included Section 2 in
which the government reserved the drawing of baselines in Sabah in North Borneo.
RA 9522 took effect on March 2009 amending RA 5446. The amendments, which are in
compliance with UNCLOS III in which the Philippines is one of the signatory, shortening one
baseline while optimizing the other and classifying Kalayaan Group of Island and Scarborough
Shoal as Regimes of Island.
Petitioners in their capacity as taxpayer, citizen and legislator assailed the
constitutionality of RA 9522:- it reduces the territory of the Philippines in violation to the
Constitution and it opens the country to maritime passage of vessels and aircrafts of other states
to the detriment of the economy, sovereignty, national security and of the Constitution as well.
They added that the classification of Regime of Islands would be prejudicial to the lives of the
fishermen.
Issues:
1. WON the petitioners have locus standi to bring the suit; and
2. WON RA 9522 is unconstitutional
Ruling:
Petition is dismissed.
1st Issue:
The SC ruled the suit is not a taxpayer or legislator, but as a citizen suit, since it is the
citizens who will be directly injured and benefitted in affording relief over the remedy sought.
2nd Issue:
resources within such zone. Such a maritime delineation binds the international community since
the delineation is in strict observance of UNCLOS III. If the maritime delineation is contrary to
UNCLOS III, the international community will of course reject it and will refuse to be bound by
it.
The Court expressed that it is within the Congress who has the prerogative to determine
the passing of a law and not the Court. Moreover, such enactment was necessary in order to
comply with the UNCLOS III; otherwise, it shall backfire on the Philippines for its territory shall
be open to seafaring powers to freely enter and exploit the resources in the waters and submarine
areas around our archipelago and it will weaken the countrys case in any international dispute
over Philippine maritime space.
The enactment of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for the Philippine archipelago
and adjacent areas, as embodied in RA 9522, allows an internationally-recognized delimitation of
the breadth of the Philippines maritime zones and continental shelf. RA 9522 is therefore a most
vital step on the part of the Philippines in safeguarding its maritime zones, consistent with the
Constitution and our national interest.