PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, et.al v. HON.

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

The conversion of internal waters into archipelagic

waters will not risk the Philippines because 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.

R.A. 9522 was enacted by the Congress in March 2009 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. Such
compliance shortened one baseline, optimized the location of some
basepoints around the Philippine archipelago and classified adjacent
territories such as the Kalayaan Island Ground (KIG) and the Scarborough
Shoal as “regimes of islands” whose islands generate their own applicable
maritime zones.

Petitioners, in their capacities as “citizens, taxpayers or legislators”

assail the constitutionality of R.A. 9522 with one of their arguments
contending that the law unconstitutionally “converts” internal waters into
archipelagic waters, thus subjecting these waters to the right of innocent
and sea lanes passage under UNCLOS III, including overflight. Petitioners
have contended that these passage rights will violate the Constitution as it
shall expose Philippine internal waters to nuclear and maritime pollution
hazard.

ISSUE:

Whether or not R.A. 9522 is unconstitutional for converting internal

waters into archipelagic waters

HELD:

Petition DISMISSED.
 The Court finds R.A. 9522 constitutional and is consistent with the
Philippine’s national interest. Aside from being a vital step in safeguarding
the country’s maritime zones, the law also allows an internationally-
recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippine’s maritime zones
and continental shelf.

The Court also 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.

Furthermore, due to the absence of its own legislation regarding

routes within the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and sea lanes
passage, the Philippines has no choice but to comply with the international
law norms. The Philippines is subject to UNCLOS III, which grants innocent
passage rights over the territorial sea or archipelagic waters, subject to the
treaty’s limitations and conditions for their exercise, thus, the right of
innocent passage, being a customary international law, is automatically
incorporated in the corpus of Philippine law. If the Philippines or any
country shall invoke its sovereignty to forbid innocent passage, it shall risk
retaliatory measures from the international community. With compliance to
UNCLOS III and the enactment of R.A. 9522, the Congress has avoided
such conflict.

Contrary to the contention of the petitioners, the compliance to

UNCLOS III through the R.A. 9522 will not expose Philippine internal
waters to nuclear and maritime pollution hazard. As a matter of fact, if the
Philippines did not comply with the baselines law, it will find itself devoid of
internationally acceptable baselines from where the breadth of its maritime
zones and continental shelf is measured and which will produce two-
fronted disaster: (1) open invitation to the seafaring powers to freely enter
and exploit the resources in the waters and submarine areas around the
archipelago and (2) it shall weaken the country’s case in any international
dispute over Philippine maritime space. Such disaster was avoided through
the R.A. 9522.