CASE 14

I. CASE NUMBER: G.R. No. 187167

II. TOPIC:
Concept of Auto Limitation

III. CASE TITLE: Magallona, et. al. vs. Ermita

IV. FACTS:
Congress in faithful compliance with the terms of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522.
Petitioner, Prof. Merlin M. Magallona and among others questioned the constitutionality
of RA. 9522 on the following grounds:
(1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the reach of the
Philippine state’s sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution,10
embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties, and
(2) RA 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage
by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security,
contravening the country’s nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in
violation of relevant constitutional provisions.
(3) RA 9522’s treatment of the KIG as "regime of islands" not only results in the loss of a
large maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.
Hence, petitioners files action for the writs of certiorari and prohibition assails the
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 95221 (RA 9522) adjusting the country’s
archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline regime of nearby territories.

V. ISSUE:
VI. Whether or not the Philippines may mark-out baseline points.

VII. RULING:

- Yes. Baselines laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III States parties to
mark-out specific basepoints along their coasts from which baselines are drawn, either
straight or contoured, to serve as geographic starting points to measure the breadth of
the maritime zones and continental shelf. Article 48 of UNCLOS III on archipelagic
States like ours could not be any clearer. Baseline Laws are nothing but a statutory
mechanism to delimit the extent of their maritime zone and continental shelves.
 CASE DIGEST 15
VIII. CASE NUMBER: G.R. No. 187167
IX. TOPIC:
Archipelagic Doctrine
X. CASE TITLE: Magallona, et. al. vs. Ermita
XI. FACTS:
Congress in faithful compliance with the terms of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522.
Petitioner, Prof. Merlin M. Magallona and among others questioned the constitutionality
of RA. 9522 on the following grounds:
(1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the reach of the
Philippine state’s sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution,10
embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties, and
(2) RA 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage
by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security,
contravening the country’s nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in
violation of relevant constitutional provisions.
(3) RA 9522’s treatment of the KIG as "regime of islands" not only results in the loss of a
large maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.
Hence, petitioners files action for the writs of certiorari and prohibition assails the
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 95221 (RA 9522) adjusting the country’s
archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline regime of nearby territories.
XII. ISSUE:
Whether or not the ammended RA 9522 or Philippine Baseline Law is constitutionally
valid.
XIII. RULING:
- Yes. The Court finds R.A. 9522 constitutional. The statue was a vital step to
safeguard the country’s maritime zones. It also allows an internationally-recognized
delimitation of the breadth of the Philippine’s maritime zones and continental shelf.
Additionally, The Court finds that the conversion of internal waters into archipelagic
waters will not risk the Philippines as affirmed in the Article 49 of the UNCLOS III, an
archipelagic State has sovereign power that extends to the waters enclosed by the
archipelagic baselines, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast. It is
further stated that the regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage will not affect the
status of its archipelagic waters or the exercise of sovereignty over waters and air
space, bed and subsoil and the resources therein.
The Court further stressed that the baseline laws are mere mechanisms for the
UNCLOS III to precisely describe the delimitations. It serves as a notice to the
international family of states and it is in no way affecting or producing any effect like
enlargement or diminution of territories.

XIV. MAIN POINT:

The provision of Art I 1987 Constitution clearly affirms the archipelagic doctrine, which we
connect the outermost points of our archipelago with straight baselines and consider all the
waters enclosed thereby as internal waters. RA 9522, as a Statutory Tool to Demarcate the
Country’s Maritime Zones and Continental Shelf Under UNCLOS III, gave nothing less than an
explicit definition in congruent with the archipelagic doctrine.