CASE DISSECTION:

GR No. 187167 August 16, 2011

Prof. Magallona, Hontiveros, Prof. Roque and 38 UP College of Law Students
vs
Ermita Exec.Sec., Romulo Sec DFA, Andaya Sec DBM, Ventura Administrator National
Mapping & Resource Information Authority and Davide Jr.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FACTS:

In 2009, RA 5446 was amended by RA 9522 where a territorial baseline was shortened
while optimizing the other, as well as classifying Kalayaan Group of Islands and
Scarborough Shoal as “Regimes of Island”. This was done in compliance with United
Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) III.

With the statute above now under scrutiny, the petitioners, in their capacities as citizens,
taxpayers, legislators, assail the constitutionality of RA 9522 on the following grounds:
1. RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory and its reach as a sovereign power in
violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution embodying the terms of the Treaty of
Paris and ancillary treaties
2. RA 9522 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 nuclear-free policy, damaging marine
resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions.
They added that the classification of Regime of Islands would be prejudicial to the lives of
the fishermen.
The petition was submitted in their capacity as a taxpayer, citizen and legislator.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitioners have locus standi to bring the suit; and
2. Whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional.

RULING:

Petition is dismissed.

ANALYSIS:

LOCUS STANDI.

The court ruled that the petition is neither infringement of legislative prerogative (as
legislators) or misuse of public funds (as taxpayers), however, petitioners were recognized
as citizens with constitutionally sufficient interest in the resolution of the merits of the case
that raises issue of national significance.
CASE DISSECTION:
GR No. 187167 August 16, 2011
Prof. Magallona, Hontiveros, Prof. Roque and 38 UP College of Law Students
vs
Ermita Exec.Sec., Romulo Sec DFA, Andaya Sec DBM, Ventura Administrator National
Mapping & Resource Information Authority and Davide Jr.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF RA 9522

Article 48 of the UNCLOS III specifically states that:

“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 is merely a statutory mechanism on delimiting, with precision, the extent of maritime
zones and continental shelves. Territorial claims to land are features outside UNCLOS III
which are governed by rules on general international law. It does not play role in
acquisition, enlargement, or diminution of territory. Under traditional international law
typology, States acquire or lose territory through occupation, accretion, cession and
prescription, and not by executing multilateral treaties on regulations of sea-use rights or
enacting statutes to comply with the treaty’s terms to delimit maritime zones and
continental shelves.

Locus standi or legal standing is the -------

The SC ruled the suit is not a taxpayer or legislator, but as a citizen suit, since it is the
citizens who will be directly injured and benefitted in affording relief over the remedy
sought.

Petition is DISMISSED.