weebly.

com

Attorney Morena

Case Digest: GR No. 187167

2/2/2015

1 Comment

Prof. Magallona, Hontiveros, Prof. Roque and 38 UP College of Law Students

-vs-

Ermita Exec.Sec., Romulo Sec DFA, Andaya Sec DBM, Ventura Administrator National Mapping &
Resource Information Authority and Davide Jr.

-writ of certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of RA 9522

Facts:

RA 3046 was passed in 1961 which provides among others the demarcation lines of the baselines of the
Philippines as an archipelago. This is in consonance with UNCLOS I.

RA 5446 amended RA 3046 in terms of typographical errors and included Section 2 in which the
government reserved the drawing of baselines in Sabah in North Borneo.
RA 9522 took effect on March 2009 amending RA 5446. The amendments, which are in compliance with
UNCLOS III in which the Philippines is one of the signatory, shortening one baseline while optimizing the
other and classifying Kalayaan Group of Island and Scarborough Shoal as Regimes of Island.

Petitioners in their capacity as taxpayer, citizen and legislator assailed the constitutionality of RA 9522:- it
reduces the territory of the Philippines in violation to the Constitution and it opens the country to
maritime passage of vessels and aircrafts of other states to the detriment of the economy, sovereignty,
national security and of the Constitution as well. They added that the classification of Regime of Islands
would be prejudicial to the lives of the fishermen.

Issues:

1. WON the petitioners have locus standi to bring the suit; and

2. WON RA 9522 is unconstitutional

Ruling:

Petition is dismissed.

1st Issue:

The SC ruled the suit is not a taxpayer or legislator, but as a citizen suit, since it is the citizens who will be
directly injured and benefitted in affording relief over the remedy sought.

2nd Issue:

The SC upheld the constitutionality of RA 9522.

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.

1 Comment

robin

7/8/2015 02:39:09 am

thanks for posting this digest. it's a great help.

Reply

Leave a Reply.
Name (required)

Email (not published)

Website

Comments (required)

<img src="https://cdn2.editmysite.com/images/old/blogging/blog-comment-field-bg.png" data-lite-img-

sprite="{"background_position_x":"0px","background_position_y":"0px","rendered_width":"338","rend
ered_height":"40","background_size":"auto","background_repeat":"repeat-x"}">

Notify me of new comments to this post by email

Submit

Submit

Archives

February 2015

Categories

All

RSS Feed

Picture

Author

Maria Salmiyah Cruz

Law Student

Dura Lex Sed Lex

View more

Case Digest: Public International Law

Personal Insights

Contact