MAGALLONA VS.

ERMITA

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’.

Professor Merlin Magallona et al now assails the validity of RA 9522 as they contend,
among others, that the law decreased the national territory of the Philippines. Some of
their particular arguments are as follows:
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,
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.

ISSUE:
WON RA 9522 is unconstitutional.

RULING:
NO, RA 9522 is NOT unconstitutional.

First, RA 9522 did not delineate the territory the Philippines but is merely a statutory tool
to demarcate the country’s maritime zone and continental shelf under UNCLOS III. SC
emphasized that UNCLOS III is not a mode of acquiring or losing a territory as provided
under the laws of nations. UNCLOS III is a multi-lateral treaty that is a result of a long-time
negotiation to establish a uniform sea-use rights over maritime zones (i.e., the territorial
waters [12 nautical miles from the baselines], contiguous zone [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.