Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Digest of Magallona Vs Ermita Facts of The Case
Case Digest of Magallona Vs Ermita Facts of The Case
COURTS RULING:
The Court dismissed the case. It upheld the constitutionality of the law and made it clear that it has merely
demarcated the countrys maritime zones and continental shelves in accordance to UNCLOS III.
Secondly, the Court found that the framework of the regime of islands suggested by the law is not incongruent with the
Philippines enjoyment of territorial sovereignty over the areas of Kalayaan Group of Islands and the Scarborough.
Third, the court reiterated that the claims over Sabah remained even with the adoption of the amendments. Further, the
Court importantly 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. With regard to the petitioners assertion that RA 9522 has converted the
internal waters into archipelagic waters, the Court did not appear to be persuaded. Instead, the Court suggested that
the political branches of Government can pass domestic laws that will aid in the competent security measures and policies
that will regulate innocent passage. Since the Court emphasized innocent passage as a right based on customary law, it also
believes that no state can validly invoke sovereignty to deny a right acknowledged by modern states. In the case of
archipelagic states such as ours, UNCLOS III required the imposition of innocent passage as a concession in lieu of their right to
claim the entire waters landward baseline. It also made it possible for archipelagic states to be recognized as a cohesive entity
under the UNCLOS III