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, Republic Act 9522, an act defining the archipelagic baselines of the Philippines
was enacted – the law is also known as the Baselines Law. This law was meant to comply with the terms
of the third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), ratified by the Philippines in
February 1984.

Issues:

Whether or not the Baselines law is constitutional considering that the petitioner contends that the
law decreased the national territory of the Philippines and considering further that the law gave nothing
less than an explicit definition in congruent with the archipelagic doctrine.

Held:

Yes. The Court finds R.A. 9522 constitutional.

RA 9522 is a Statutory Tool to Demarcate the Country’s Maritime Zones and Continental Shelf
Under UNCLOS III, not to Delineate Philippine Territory. It is a vital step in safeguarding the country’s
maritime zones. It also allows an internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippine’s
maritime zones and continental shelf.

In this case, 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.