Magallona v.

Ermita
GR. No. 187167 Aug 16, 2011

-writ of certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of RA 9522

Issues:
Facts:
1. WON the petitioners have locus standi to bring the suit; and
2. WON RA 9522 is unconstitutional
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
Ruling:
consonance with UNCLOS I.
Petition is dismissed.
RA 5446 amended RA 3046 in terms of typographical errors and included
Section 2 in which the government reserved the drawing of baselines in
1st Issue:
Sabah in North Borneo.
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
RA 9522 took effect on March 2009 amending RA 5446. The amendments,
affording relief over the remedy sought.
which are in compliance with UNCLOS III in which the Philippines is one
of the signatory, shortening one baseline while optimizing the other and
2nd Issue:
classifying Kalayaan Group of Island and Scarborough Shoal as Regimes of
The SC upheld the constitutionality of RA 9522.
Island.
First, RA 9522 did not delineate the territory the Philippines but is merely a
Petitioners in their capacity as taxpayer, citizen and legislator assailed the
statutory tool to demarcate the country’s maritime zone and continental
constitutionality of RA 9522:- it reduces the territory of the Philippines in
shelf under UNCLOS III. SC emphasized that UNCLOS III is not a mode of
violation to the Constitution and it opens the country to maritime passage of
acquiring or losing a territory as provided under the laws of nations.
vessels and aircrafts of other states to the detriment of the economy,
UNCLOS III is a multi-lateral treaty that is a result of a long-time
sovereignty, national security and of the Constitution as well. They added
negotiation to establish a uniform sea-use rights over maritime zones (i.e.,
that the classification of Regime of Islands would be prejudicial to the lives
the territorial waters [12 nautical miles from the baselines], contiguous zone
of the fishermen.
[24 nautical miles from the baselines], exclusive economic zone [200
nautical miles from the baselines]), and continental shelves. In order to
measure said distances, it is a must for the state parties to have their
archipelagic doctrines measured in accordance to the treaty—the role played
by RA 9522. The contention of the petitioner that RA 9522 resulted to the
loss of 15,000 square nautical miles is devoid of merit. The truth is, RA
9522, by optimizing the location of base points, increased the Philippines
total maritime space of 145,216 square nautical miles.
Second, the classification of KGI and Scarborough Shoal as Regime of
Islands is consistent with the Philippines’ sovereignty. Had RA 9522
enclosed the islands as part of the archipelago, the country will be violating
UNCLOS III since it categorically stated that the length of the baseline shall
not exceed 125 nautical miles. So what the legislators did is to carefully
analyze the situation: the country, for decades, had been claiming
sovereignty over KGI and Scarborough Shoal on one hand and on the other
hand they had to consider that these are located at non-appreciable distance
from the nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipelago. So, the
classification is in accordance with the Philippines sovereignty and State’s
responsible observance of its pacta sunt servanda obligation under UNCLOS
III.
Third, the new base line introduced by RA 9522 is without prejudice with
delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea around the territory of
Sabah, situated in North Borneo, over which the Republic of the Philippines
has acquired dominion and sovereignty.
And lastly, the UNCLOS III and RA 9522 are not incompatible with the
Constitution’s delineation of internal waters. Petitioners contend that RA
9522 transformed the internal waters of the Philippines to archipelagic
waters hence subjecting these waters to the right of innocent and sea lanes
passages, exposing the Philippine internal waters to nuclear and maritime
pollution hazards. The Court emphasized that the Philippines exercises
sovereignty over the body of water lying landward of the baselines,
including the air space over it and the submarine areas underneath,
regardless whether internal or archipelagic waters. However, sovereignty
will not bar the Philippines to comply with its obligation in maintaining
freedom of navigation and the generally accepted principles of international
law. It can be either passed by legislator as a municipal law or in the
absence thereof, it is deemed incorporated in the Philippines law since the
right of innocent passage is a customary international law, thus
automatically incorporated thereto.
This does not mean that the states are placed in a lesser footing; it just
signifies concession of archipelagic states in exchange for their right to
claim all waters inside the baseline. In fact, the demarcation of the baselines
enables the Philippines to delimit its exclusive economic zone, reserving
solely to the Philippines the exploitation of all living and non-living
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
country’s 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.
MAGALLONA v. ERMITA, G.R. 187167, August 16, 2011
Facts:
In 1961, Congress passed R.A. 3046 demarcating the maritime baselines of
the Philippines as an Archepelagic State pursuant to UNCLOS I of 9158,
codifying the sovereignty of State parties over their territorial sea. Then in
1968, it was amended by R.A. 5446, correcting some errors in R.A. 3046
reserving the drawing of baselines around Sabah.
In 2009, it was again amended by R.A. 9522, to be compliant with the
UNCLOS III of 1984. The requirements complied with are: to shorten one
baseline, to optimize the location of some basepoints and classify KIG and
Scarborough Shoal as ‘regime of islands’.
Petitioner now assails the constitutionality of the law for three main reasons:
1. it reduces the Philippine maritime territory under Article 1;
2. it opens the country’s waters to innocent and sea lanes passages hence
undermining our sovereignty and security; and
3. treating KIG and Scarborough as ‘regime of islands’ would weaken our
claim over those territories.
Issue: Whether R.A. 9522 is constitutional?
Ruling:
1. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with acquisition or loss of territory. it is
just a codified norm that regulates conduct of States. On the other hand, RA
9522 is a baseline law to mark out basepoints along coasts, serving as
geographic starting points to measure. it merely notices the international
community of the scope of our maritime space.
2. If passages is the issue, domestically, the legislature can enact legislation
designating routes within the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and
sea lanes passages. but in the absence of such, international law norms
operate.
the fact that for archipelagic states, their waters are subject to both passages
does not place them in lesser footing vis a vis continental coastal states.
Moreover, RIOP is a customary international law, no modern state can
invoke its sovereignty to forbid such passage.
3. On the KIG issue, RA 9522 merely followed the basepoints mapped by
RA 3046 and in fact, it increased the Phils.’ total maritime space. Moreover,
the itself commits the Phils.’ continues claim of sovereignty and jurisdiction
over KIG.

If not, it would be a breach to 2 provisions of the UNCLOS III:

Art. 47 (3): ‘drawing of basepoints shall not depart to any appreciable extent
from the general configuration of the archipelago’.

Art 47 (2): the length of baselines shall not exceed 100 mm.

KIG and SS are far from our baselines, if we draw to include them, we’ll
breach the rules: that it should follow the natural configuration of the
archipelago.