MARIANO, Dean Allyson Fhey P.

1-J Legal Research

Magallona vs Ermita

G.R. No. 187167

August 16, 2011

FACTS:

The case at bar is an original action for writs of certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioners Prof. Merlin Magallona

et al. against Hon. Eduardo Ermita, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, et al., assailing the constitutionality of Republic

Act No. 9522 (RA 9522) passed in March 2009 which amended Republic Act No. 3046 (RA 3046) pursuant to the terms of

the United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea III (UNCLOS III) which adjusted the country’s archipelagic baselines

and classified the baseline regime of nearby territories.

Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of RA 9522 for three reasons. First, they alleged that it reduced the

Philippine maritime territory under Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution. Second, they alleged that treating the Kalayaan Group

of Islands (KIG) and Scarborough Shoal as “regime of islands” led to the weakening of our claim over those territories.

Third, they alleged that it opened the country’s waters to innocent and sea lanes passage hence undermining our security and

sovereignty.

Respondents, on the other hand, denied the claims of petitioners by stating that UNCLOS III has nothing to do with

acquisitions or loss of territory as it is merely a codified norm that regulates the conduct of party States. On the other hand,

RA 9522 is a baseline law enacted to strategically map base points along coasts, serving as geographic starting points to

measure, and merely gives notice to the international community of the scope of our maritime space.

ISSUES:

Whether of not Republic Act No. 9522 is unconstitutional

RULING:

No. Republic Act No. 9522 is consistent with Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution. Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution

which states that “The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced

therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial

and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The

waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part

of the internal waters of the Philippines.” embraces the archipelagic doctrine. This doctrine ensures that by connecting the

outermost points of the archipelago with straight baselines and considering the waters enclosed thereby as internal waters, t​ he

entire archipelago is regarded as one integrated unit of being fragmented into so many thousand islands.

First, RA 9522 did not delineate the territory the Philippines it is but a statutory tool to demarcate the country’s

maritime zone and continental shelf under UNCLOS III. 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. 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 the legislature 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.