Magalona vs Ermita

Archipelagic Doctrine

MAGALONA VS ERMITA
G.R. No. 187167 16Aug2011
Prof. Merlin Magalona, et al., Petitioners,
vs
Hon. Eduardo Ermita in his capacityas Executive Secretary, et al., Respondents.

Facts:
In March 2009, R.A. 9522 was enacted by the Congress to comply with the terms of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which the Philippines ratified on February 27, 1984.

Professor Merlin Magallona et al questioned 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 states sovereign
power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution, embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris and
ancillary treaties.
2. RA 9522 opens the countrys waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and
aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security, contravening the countrys nuclear-
free policy, and damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions.
3. RA 9522s treatmentof 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 countrys archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline regime of
nearby territories.
Issues:
Whether or not RA 9522, the amendatory Philippine Baseline Law is unconstitutional.

Discussions:
The provision of Art I 198 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 Countrys Maritime Zones and Continental
Shelf Under UNCLOS III, gave nothing less than an explicit definition in congruent with the archipelagic
doctrine.

Rulings:
No. The Court finds R.A. 9522 constitutional. It is a Statutory Tool to Demarcate the Countrys Maritime
Zones and Continental Shelf Under UNCLOS III, not to Delineate Philippine Territory. It is a vital step in
safeguarding the countrys maritime zones. It also allows an internationally-recognized delimitation of the
breadth of the Philippines 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.