PROF.MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, et. Al vs. HON.

EDUARDO ERMITA IN HIS

CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, et., al.
G.R. No.187167, 16 July 2011, EN BANC (Carpio, J.)

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

Respondents: HON. ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. ROMULO, IN

HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF DFA, HON. ANDAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF DBM,
HON. VENTURA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL MAPPING &
RESOURCE INFORMATION AUTHORITY, and HON. DAVIDE, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PERMANENT MISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES TO THE
UNITED NATIONS

Ponente: Caprio, J.

The Case
This original action for the writs of certiorari and prohibition assails the constitutionality of
Republic Act No. 95221(RA 9522) adjusting the country’s archipelagic baselines and classifying
the baseline regime of nearby territories.

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. Whether the petitioners posses locus standi to bring the suit; and
2. whether 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.