Catherine V.

Geturbos – Al Farabi
Magallona -vs-Ermita
G.R No. 187167
August 16, 2011

Facts:

Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522 in March 2009 demarcating the maritime
baseline of the Philippine archipelago. The former is a rectangular baseline based on the Treaty of
Paris and UNCLOS I while the latter followed a straight baseline method prescribed by UNCLOS III.
Measurement of maritime zones will begin from these baselines.
Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of RA 9522 . They contended that 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.

Issue:
Is RA 9522 is unconstitutional.

Ruling:

No. The SC upheld the constitutionality of RA 9522. First, RA 9522 did not delineate the territory of
the Philippines but is merely a statutory tool to demarcate the country’s maritime zone and
continental shelf under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) III which is the
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 that UNCLOS III delimits . 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. 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.

In accordance to Article 2 of the revised penal code on the application of its provisons, 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. The enactment of RA 9522 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.