PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, et.al v. HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, et.al G.R. No.

187167, 16 July 2011, EN

BANC (Carpio, J.)

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: Is R.A. 9522 unconstitutional for converting internal waters into archipelagic waters? RULING:
NO. 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 155 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.