Magallona v.

Ermita

Magallona, et al., petitioners v. Ermita, et al.respondents

G.R No. 187167
August 16, 2011
CARPIO, J.:

Facts:

In 1961, Congress passed RA 3046 demarcating the maritime baselines of the Philippines
as an archipelagic State. This law followed the framing of the Convention of Territorial Sea
and the Contiguous Zone in 1958 (UNCLOS I), codifying among others, the sovereign right
of States parties over their territorial sea, the breadth of which, however, was left
undetermined.

RA 5446 amended RA 3046 in terms of typographical errors and included Section 2 in which
the government reserved the drawing of baselines in Sabah in North Borneo.

In March 2009, Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522. The change was
prompted by the need to make RA 3046 compliant with the terms of UNCLOS III. Complying
with the requirements, RA 9522 shortened one baseline, optimized the location of some
basepoints around the Philippine archipelago and classified adjacent territories, namely the
Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal, as “regimes of islands” whose
islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.

The petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 9522 on two principal grounds, namely: (1) it
reduces the Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the reach of the Philippine state’s
sovereign power, in violation of Article I of the 1987 Constitution, embodying the terms of the
Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties, and (2) it opens the country’s waters landward of the
baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine
sovereignty and national security, contravening the country’s neutral-free policy and
damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions.

Respondents defended RA 9522 as the country’s compliance with the terms of UNCLOS III,
preserving the Philippine territory over the KIG and Scarborough Shoal and that it does not
undermine the country’s security, environment and economic interests or relinquish the
Philippines’ claim over Sabah.

Issue/s:

Whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional.

Rulings:

The petition is DISMISSED.

First, RA 9522 is not unconstitutional, it is a statutory tool to demarcate the country’s

maritime zones and continental shelf under UNCLOS III, not to delineate Philippine territory.
UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a multilateral
treaty regulating, among others, sea-use rights over maritime zones and continental shelves
that UNCLOS III delimits.
On the other hand, baselines laws such as RA 9522 are enacted 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. Thus, baselines laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III
State parties to delimit with precision the extent of their maritime zones and continental
shelves. In turn, it gives notice to the rest of the international community of the scope of the
maritime space and submarine areas within which the State parties exercise treaty-based
rights.

Second, RA 9522’s use of framework of the regime islands to determine the maritime zones
of the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal is not inconsistent with the Philippines’ claim of
sovereignty over these areas. The Congress’ decision to classify KIG and Scarborough
Shoal as “regime islands” under the Republic of the Philippines is consistent with Article 121
of UNCLOS III which states that any “naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water,
which is above water at high tide,” such as portions of KIG, qualifies under the category of
“regime islands”, whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.

Third, The petitioners’ argument for the invalidity of RA 9522 for its failure to textualize the
Philippines’ claim over Sabah in North Borneo is also untenable. Section 2 of RA 5446 which
RA 9522 did not repeal, keeps open the door for drawing the baselines of Sabah.

Lastly, UNCLOS III and RA 9522 are not incompatible with the Constitution’s delineation of
internal waters. Whether referred to as “internal waters” under Article I of the Constitution or
as “archipelagic waters” under UNCLOS III Article 49, the Philippines exercises sovereignty
over the body water lying landward of the baselines, including the air space over it and the
submarine areas underneath. 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. It can be either passed by legislator as a municipal law or in the absence
thereof, it is deemed incorporated in the Philippines law since the right of innocent passage
is a customary international law, thus automatically incorporated thereto.

This does not mean that the states are placed in a lesser footing; it just signifies concession
of archipelagic states in exchange for their right to claim all waters inside the baseline. In
fact, the demarcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to delimit its exclusive
economic zone, reserving solely to the Philippines the exploitation of all living and non-living
resources within such zone.

The Court expressed that it is within the Congress who has the prerogative to determine the
passing of a law and not the Court. Moreover, such enactment 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.

The enactment of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for the Philippine archipelago and
adjacent areas, as embodied in RA 9522, allows an internationally-recognized delimitation of
the breadth of the Philippines' maritime zones and continental shelf. RA 9522 is therefore a
most vital step on the part of the Philippines in safeguarding its maritime zones, consistent
with the Constitution and our national interest.