B2022 ANNOTATED
Magallona v. Exec Sec Ermita
I. Recit-Ready summary
Petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of RA 9522 (New Baselines Law of
2009) which mandates the adjustment of the country’s archipelagic baselines and
classifying the baseline regime of nearby territories.
II. Facts of the case
• The Congress passed RA 3046 which is the ruling law that demarcates the
maritime baselines of the Philippines as an archipelagic State. This law
followed the framing of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the
Contiguous Zone in 1958 (UNCLOS I).
o RA 3046 follows the framing of the Convention on the territorial
Sea and the Contiguous zone of 1958, which codifies the
sovereign rights of States over their territorial sea.
• RA 9522 aims to amend RA 3046 by complying with the terms of
UNLCOS III (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea – Ratified
FEB 27, 1984)
• UNCLOS prescribes the water-land ratio, length and contour of baselines
of archipelagic states and sets a deadline for filing the application for the
extended continental shelf.
• RA 9522 shorted one baseline, optimized the location of basepoints (some
and classified adjacent territories like the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and
the Scarborough Shoal as regimes of islands which generate their own
applicable maritime zones.
III. Issue/s
A. Main Issue
a. Whether RA 9522 reduces the PH maritime territory and,
logically, the reach of the Philippine State’s sovereign power in
Violation of Art 1 of the 1987 constitution which embodies the
terms of the Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties. (In short, is the
RA unconstitutional?) No.
B. Sub-Issue
a. (Preliminary) Whether the petitioners possess locus standi to
bring this suit? Yes.
b. Whether 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. No.
c. Whether there is a loss of a large maritime area (loss of 15,000
nautical miles), also prejudicing the livelihood of subsistence
fishermen by treating the KIF as regime of islands. No
G.R. NO:
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Article I Validity of New baselines Law of 2009
VOL #
Magallona v. Exec Sec Ermita
IV. Ratio/Legal Basis
Main Issue:
• No, petitioners’ theory fails to persuade the Court. the UNCLOS III
has nothing to do with the acquisition or the loss of territory. It is
a multilateral treaty regulating sea-use rights over maritime zones.
Baseline laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III only
serve to mark out specific basepoints from which baselines are
drawn either straight or contoured, and to serve as geographic starting
points to measure the breadth of maritime zones and continental
shelf. Thus, baselines laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for
UNCLOS III States parties to delimit with precision the extent of
their maritime zones and continental shelves. This baseline
delimitation done by states serves to give notice to the international
community of the scope that the states can exercise treaty based
rights.
Sub- Issues:
a. Yes. Court recognizes the petitioners’ locus standi as citizens with
constitutionally sufficient interest in the resolution of the merits of the
case which undoubtedly raises issues of national significance
necessitating urgent resolution. Indeed, owing to the peculiar nature of
RA 9522, it is understandably difficult to find other litigants
possessing "a more direct and specific interest" to bring the suit, thus
satisfying one of the requirements for granting citizenship standing.
b. No, the Philippines cannot defy customary International law of right to
safe passage as identified by Section 2 of Article II which states that
“Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of Int’l law as
part of the law of the land. UNCLOS III provides a safeguard, since it
allows states to exercise sovereignty over the body of water lying
landward of the baselines, the airspace over it and the submarine areas
underneath. But in order to be consistent with the international law
principle of freedom of navigation, the government may pass
legislation designating routes within the archipelagic waters for
innocent and sea lanes passage. The petitioners’ invocation of non-
executory constitutional provisions in Article 2 also fail. The
provisions that the petitioners cited (protection of marine wealth,
subsistence to fishermen are not violated by the RA 9522)
c. No. RA 9522 followed the basepoints of RA 3046 except for at least 9
basepoints that it skipped to optimize the location of basepoints and
adjust the length to comply with the limitation of UNCLOS III. This
PONENTE: Justice Carpio
DIGEST MAKER: Shanen Valerie D. Valmonte + NERDS
 B2022 ANNOTATED VOL #
Magallona v. Exec Sec Ermita Magallona v. Exec Sec Ermita

resulted in an increase of the Philippines’ total maritime space by

145,216 square nautical miles.

d. Disposition

Wherefore, we DISMISS the petition.

e. Anti-Massacre Notes

• Although the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal are outside the
baselines drawn around the archipelago under RA 9522, the
determination of KIG as a Regime of Islands under the Philippines
means that the International community should respect Philippines’
claim to the regime of islands as part of its territory of islands.
• According to Senator Miriam Santiago, we are still allowed by
international law to claim them as our own, these are called contested
islands outside our configuration. The decision to classify them as
regimes of islands under the Republic of the PH manifests the state’s
observance of its pacta sunt servanda obligation under UNCLOS
III.

Two Ways of Drawing the Baseline:

a. Normal baseline: one drawn following the “low water line” along the coast
as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal state –
> follows the sinuosity of the coast and would normally not consist of
straight lines
b. Straight Baseline: Straight lines are drawn connecting selected points on
the coast without appreciable departure from the general shape –> general
direction of the coast. These divide internal waters from territorial waters.

G.R. NO: PONENTE: Justice Carpio
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Article I Validity of New baselines Law of 2009 DIGEST MAKER: Shanen Valerie D. Valmonte + NERDS