Magallona vs.

Ermita, 655 SCRA 476, August 16, 2011

Case Nature: SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and Prohibition.
Division: EN BANC
Docket Number: G.R. No. 187167
Counsel: Harry L. Roque, Jr. Joel Ruiz Butuyan and Rommel Regalado Bagares
Ponente: CARPIO,  J.

Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition.

Facts of the Case:

This case involves the constitutionality of RA 9522, which adjusts the country's archipelagic
baselines and classifies the baseline regime of nearby territories. Petitioners challenge the
constitutionality of RA 9522 on two (2) grounds:
1. It reduces Philippine maritime territory in violation of the 1987 Constitution; and
2. It opens the country's waters to maritime passage by all vessels and aircraft,
undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security.

They also argue that RA 9522's treatment of the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) as a "regime of
islands" results in the loss of a large maritime area and prejudices the livelihood of
subsistence fishermen.

Respondents question the petitioners' locus standi and the propriety of the writs of
certiorari and prohibition to challenge the constitutionality of RA 9522. The court held that
the petitioners have locus standi as citizens and that the writs of certiorari and prohibition
are proper remedies.

The court found no basis to declare RA 9522 unconstitutional. In this case, the respondents
argue that writs of certiorari and prohibition cannot be issued unless there is a showing of
grave abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice. The case involves the constitutionality of
RA 9522, which is a law that demarcates the country's maritime zones and continental shelf
under UNCLOS III. Petitioners argue that RA 9522 "dismembers a large portion of the
national territory" because it deviates from the pre-UNCLOS III demarcation under the
Treaty of Paris. They claim that Philippine sovereignty extends hundreds of nautical miles
around the Philippine archipelago based on the Treaty of Paris. The court explains that
UNCLOS III is a multilateral treaty that regulates sea-use rights and does not involve the
acquisition or loss of territory. Baseline laws, such as RA 9522, are enacted to delimit
maritime zones and continental shelves in accordance with UNCLOS III. Even if the Philippine
territory extends to the rectangular area in the Treaty of Paris, the baselines must still be
drawn from the "outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago." UNCLOS III and
baseline laws do not determine territorial claims to land features, which are governed by
general international law. Petitioners argue that RA 9522 weakens the Philippines' territorial
claim over the KIG, but the use of UNCLOS III's regime of islands framework is not
inconsistent with sovereignty claims over these areas.

This case involves a challenge to Republic Act (RA) 9522, which modifies the baselines of the
Philippine archipelago. The petitioners argue that the exclusion of certain features,
particularly the Kalayaan Islands Group (KIG) and Scarborough Shoal, weakens the country's
territorial claim over those areas. They assert that this exclusion results in the loss of
approximately 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters, negatively affecting the
livelihood of subsistence fishermen. The court finds that RA 9522 follows the basepoints
mapped by RA 3046, with only a few adjustments to comply with UNCLOS III.

Issue:
1. Whether or not RA 9522's use of the framework of the regime of islands to
determine the maritime zones of the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and Scarborough
Shoal weakens the Philippines' territorial claim over these areas.
2. Whether or not the exclusion of the KIG and Scarborough Shoal from the Philippine
archipelagic baselines under RA 9522 results in the loss of territorial waters.
3. Whether or not the KIG and Scarborough Shoal now lie outside Philippine territory
because the baselines drawn under RA 9522 do not enclose them.
4. Whether or not the amendment of the baselines law to draw the outer limits of
maritime zones in accordance with UNCLOS III is necessary.
5. Whether RA 5446 retains the Philippines' claim over Sabah.
6. Whether RA 9522 unconstitutionally converts internal waters into archipelagic waters
subject to passage rights under UNCLOS III.
7. Whether the right of innocent passage is incorporated in Philippine law.
8. Whether the imposition of passage rights through archipelagic waters under UNCLOS
III places archipelagic States in a lesser footing compared to continental coastal
States.
9. Whether the provisions in Article II of the Constitution regarding the right to a
healthful and balanced ecology, protection of marine wealth, and subsistence
fishermen were violated by RA 9522.
10. Whether Congress was bound to pass RA 9522 to comply with UNCLOS III.
11. Whether the enactment of RA 9522 is vital in safeguarding the Philippines' maritime
zones.

Ruling:
1. The use of the framework of the regime of islands under RA 9522 to determine the
maritime zones of the KIG and Scarborough Shoal is not inconsistent with the
Philippines' claim of sovereignty over these areas.
2. The assertion that RA 9522 results in the loss of about 15,000 square nautical miles
of territorial waters is unfounded. In fact, RA 9522 increased the Philippines' total
maritime space by 145,216 square nautical miles.
3. The exclusion of the KIG and Scarborough Shoal from the Philippine archipelagic
baselines under RA 9522 does not mean that these areas now lie outside Philippine
 territory. RA 9522 expressly states that the Philippines continues to exercise
sovereignty and jurisdiction over the KIG and Scarborough Shoal.
4. Yes, the amendment of the baseline law was necessary to comply with UNCLOS III.
The baselines drawn under RA 3046 suffer from technical deficiencies, such as
exceeding the maximum length allowed under UNCLOS III and the selection of
suboptimal basepoints.
5. Yes, RA 5446 retains the Philippines' claim over Sabah. Section 2 of RA 5446 keeps
open the door for drawing the baselines of Sabah.
6. No, RA 9522 does not unconstitutionally convert internal waters into archipelagic
waters subject to passage rights under UNCLOS III. The Philippines exercises
sovereignty over the body of water lying landward of the baselines, whether referred
to as internal waters or archipelagic waters. The fact of sovereignty does not
preclude the operation of municipal and international law norms subjecting these
waters to necessary burdens for maintaining unimpeded international navigation.
7. Yes, the right of innocent passage is incorporated in Philippine law as it is a
customary international law.
8. No, the imposition of passage rights through archipelagic waters under UNCLOS III
does not place archipelagic States in a lesser footing compared to continental coastal
States.
9. No, the provisions in Article II of the Constitution cited by the petitioners were not
violated by RA 9522.
10. Congress was not bound to pass RA 9522 to comply with UNCLOS III, but it was the
prerogative of Congress to choose this option.
11. Yes, the enactment of RA 9522 is vital in safeguarding the Philippines' maritime
zones.