Magallona v.

Ermita (Case Digest)

MissIdea Uncategorized August 24, 2014 2 Minutes

MAGALLONA v. ERMITA, G.R. 187167, August 16, 2011

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’.

Petitioner now assails the constitutionality of the law for three main reasons:

1. it reduces the Philippine maritime territory under Article 1;

2. it opens the country’s waters to innocent and sea lanes passages hence undermining our sovereignty
and security; and

3. treating KIG and Scarborough as ‘regime of islands’ would weaken our claim over those territories.

Issue: Whether R.A. 9522 is constitutional?

Ruling:

1. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with acquisition or loss of territory. it is just a codified norm that
regulates conduct of States. On the other hand, RA 9522 is a baseline law to mark out basepoints along
coasts, serving as geographic starting points to measure. it merely notices the international community
of the scope of our maritime space.

2. If passages is the issue, domestically, the legislature can enact legislation designating routes within
the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and sea lanes passages. but in the absence of such,
international law norms operate.

the fact that for archipelagic states, their waters are subject to both passages does not place them in
lesser footing vis a vis continental coastal states. Moreover, RIOP is a customary international law, no
modern state can invoke its sovereignty to forbid such passage.

3. On the KIG issue, RA 9522 merely followed the basepoints mapped by RA 3046 and in fact, it
increased the Phils.’ total maritime space. Moreover, the itself commits the Phils.’ continues claim of
sovereignty and jurisdiction over KIG.

If not, it would be a breach to 2 provisions of the UNCLOS III:

Art. 47 (3): ‘drawing of basepoints shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general
configuration of the archipelago’.
Art 47 (2): the length of baselines shall not exceed 100 mm.

KIG and SS are far from our baselines, if we draw to include them, we’ll breach the rules: that it should
follow the natural configuration of the archipelago.

CASE DIGEST OF MAGALLONA VS ERMITA

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The antecedent facts of this case emerged upon the passing of Republic Act 3046 in 1961. The law’s
purpose is

to demarcate the maritime baselines of the Philippines as it was deemed to be an archipelago. RA 3046
stoodunchallenged until 2009, when Congress amended it and passed RA 9522. This amending law
shortened onebaseline and determined new base points of the archipelago. Moreso, it has identified the
Kalayaan IslandGroup and the Scarborough Shoal, as "regimes of islands", generating their own
maritime zones.The petitioners filed a case assailing the constitutionality of RA 9522. To their opinion,
the law has effectivelyreduced the maritime territory of the country. With this, Article I of the 1987
Constitution will be violated. Thepetitioners also worried that that because of the suggested changes in
the maritime baselines will allow for

foreign aircrafts and vessels to traverse the Philippine territory freely. In effect, it steps on the state’s

sovereignty and national security.Meanwhile, the Congress insisted that in no way will the amendments
affect any pertinent power of the state. Italso deferred to agree that the law impliedly relinquishes the
Philippines claims over Sabah. Lastly, they havequestioned the normative force of the notion that all the
waters within the rectangular boundaries in the Treatyof Paris. Now, because this treaty still has
undetermined controversies, the Congress believes that in theperspective of international law, it did
not see any binding obligation to honor it. Thus, this case of prayer forwrits of certiorari and prohibition
is filed before the court, assailing the constitutionality of RA 9522.

HE COURT’S RULING:

The Court dismissed the case. It upheld the constitutionality of the law and made it clear that it has
merely

demarcated the country’s 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 terri

torial sovereignty over the areas of Kalayaan Group of Islands and theScarborough. Third, the court
reiterated that the claims over Sabah remained even with the adoption of theamendments.Further, the
Court importantly stressed that the baseline laws are mere mechanisms for the UNCLOS III toprecisely
describe the delimitations. It serves as a notice to the international family of states and it is in no
wayaffecting or producing any effect like enlargement or diminution of territories.With regard to th

e 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 willregulate innocent passage. Since the Court emphasized innocent passage as a right
based on customary law, italso 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 aconcession in lieu of their right to claim the entire waters landward
baseline. It also made it possible forarchipelagic states to be recognized as a cohesive entity under the
UNCLOS II