Magallona vs.

Executive Secretary

 Constitutionality of RA 9522 (Amending the Baseline Law)

RA 9522 – make RA 3046 compliant with the terms of the UNCLOS (Ratified by the PHL on Feb 27
1984)
- Shortened one baseline, optimized the location of some basepoints around the PHL
archipelago and classified adjacent territories namely the Kalayaan Group of Islands and
Scarborough Shoal as “regime islands” whose islands generate their own applicable
maritime zones.

Petitioners:
Assail the unconstitutionality of RA 9522:
1) Reduces the Philippine maritime territory and the reach of the Philippine state’s sovereign power
in violation of Art. 1 of the 1987 PC embodying the treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties
2) RA 9522 opens the waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and
aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security, contravening the country’s
nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional
provisions.
3) RA 9522 treatment of the regime islands reduces large maritime area but also prejudices the
livelihood of fishermen

Respondent:
States:
1) Petitions compliance with the case or controversy requirement for judicial review grounded on
petitioners alleged lack of locus standi
2) Propriety of writ of certiorari and prohibition to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522.
3) RA 9522 complies with the terms of the UNCLOS III, preserving the Philippine territory over the
Spratlys or Scarbourgh Shoal.
4) RA 9522 does not undermine the country’s security, environment and economic interests or
relinquish the Philippines claim over Sabah

Ruling:
RA 9522 is not unconstitutional

RA 9522 is a statutory tool to demarcate (set boundaries) the Country’s Maritime Zone and Continental
Shelf under the UNCLOS III and not to delineate the Philippine Territory.

 UNCLOS III has nothing to do with acquisition or loss of territory. It is a multilateral treaty
regulating, among others sea-use rights over maritime zones and continental shelves that the
UNCLOS delimits.
 RA 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III States to mark-out specific basepoints along their coasts from
which baselines are drawn, either straight or contoured, to serve as geographic starting points, to
measure the breadth of the maritime zones and continental shelf.
 Article 48 of the UNCLOS
o Measurement of the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive
economic zone and the continental shelf. – The breadth of the territorial sea, the
contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf shall be
measured from archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47.
 This gives notice to the rest of the international community of the scope of the maritime space
and submarine areas which States parties exercise treaty-based rights,
1. such as the exercise of sovereignty over territorial waters,
2. jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitation law in the
contiguous zone
3. right to exploit the living and non-living resources in the EEZ and EC
  Even if the territory embraces the islands and all the waters within the rectangular area delimited
in the Treaty of Paris, the baselines of the Philippines would still have to be drawn in accordance
with RA 9522 because this is the only way to draw baselines in conformity with UNCLOS III.
(outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago)

 Modes of acquiring territory (Occupation, accretion, cession, and prescription, Subjugation)

 Thus, compliance to the UNCLOS III does not acquire or loss territory.

Regime Islands:
 Claim of the KIG framework
o “weakens our territorial claim over the area”
o Results to the loss of 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial water, prejudicing the
livelihood of fishermen
 Court:
o RA 9522 followed RA 3046 except for 9 basepoints
o Under RA 3046, the KIG and SS lie outside of the baselines drawn around the PHL
Archipelago
o RA 9522 increased the Philippine total maritime space compared to RA 3046
o If RA 9522 enclosed the KIG and SS as parts of the PHL Archipelago, it will commit a breach
of two provisions of the UNCLOS III
1. Art. 47 (3) – drawing of the baseline shall not depart to any appreciable extent
from the general configuration of the archipelago
2. Art. 47 (2) – requires that the “length of the baseline shall not extend 100
nautical miles” save for three percent of the total number of baselines which
can reach up to 125 nautical miles.
I.e. masyado malayo yng KPL and SS para maisama sa archipelagic baseline.
o Furthermore, one baseline drawn in RA 3046 exceeded UNCLOS III limits.

Sabah – RA 9522 did not repeal Section 2 of RA 5446

Internal waters vs. Archipelagic waters

 Petitioners contend that RA 9522 converts internal waters to archipelagic waters, meaning
subjecting these waters to the right of the innocent and sea lanes passage under UNCLOS III.
 Whether referred to as “internal waters” (Art. I Consti) or Archipelagic waters (Art. 49[1]) the
Philippines exercises sovereignty over the body of waters lying landward of the baselines,
including the air space and the submarine areas.
