Magallona v.

Ermita (Case Digest)

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 countrys 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, well
breach the rules: that it should follow the natural configuration of the
archipelago.