MAGALLONA V.

ERMITA
G.R No. 187167
July 16, 2011
ANGULO ● ASANI ● ARANDA ● ARNOCO ● ATARI
FACTS OF THE CASE
• In 1961, Congress passed R.A. 3046 demarcating the
maritime baselines of the Philippines as an
Archipelagic State pursuant to UNCLOS I of 1958,
codifying the sovereignty of State parties over their
territorial sea.
• Then in 1968, it was amended by R.A. 5446,
correcting some errors in R.A. 3046 reserving the
drawing of baselines around Sabah.
FACTS OF THE CASE
• Then in 2009, it was again amended by R.A. 9522, to
be compliant with the UNCLOS III of 1984.
• The requirements complied with are:
• to shorten one baseline,
• to optimize the location of some basepoints and
classify KIG and Scarborough Shoal as ‘regime of
islands’.
FACTS OF THE CASE
• The petitioners, professors of law, law students and a
legislator, in their respective capacities as "citizens,
taxpayers and legislators, assail the constitutionality
of the law on two principal grounds.
FACTS OF THE CASE
• RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and
logically, the reach of the Philippine state’s sovereign
power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987
Constitution,10 embodying the terms of the Treaty of
Paris and ancillary treaties.
FACTS OF THE CASE
• 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, and damaging marine resources, in
violation of relevant constitutional provisions.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
• Whether petitioners possess locus standi to bring this
suit; and
• Whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional.
COURT RULING: FIRST ISSUE
• The Supreme Court 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.
COURT RULING: SECOND ISSUE
• First, RA 9522 did not delineate the territory the
Philippines but is merely a statutory tool to
demarcate the country’s maritime zone and
continental shelf under UNCLOS III.
• SC emphasized that UNCLOS III is not a mode of
acquiring or losing a territory as provided under the
laws of nations.
 COURT RULING: SECOND ISSUE
• UNCLOS III is a multi-lateral treaty that is a result of a long-
time negotiation to establish a uniform sea-use rights over
maritime zones, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone,
and continental shelves.
• In order to measure said distances, it is a must for the state
parties to have their archipelagic doctrines measured in
accordance to the treaty—the role played by RA 9522.
COURT RULING: SECOND ISSUE
• The contention of the petitioner that RA 9522 resulted
to the loss of 15,000 square nautical miles is devoid
of merit.
• The truth is, RA 9522, by optimizing the location of
base points, increased the Philippines total maritime
space of 145,216 square nautical miles.
COURT RULING: SECOND ISSUE
• Second, the classification of KGI and Scarborough
Shoal as Regime of Islands is consistent with the
Philippines’ sovereignty. 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.
 COURT RULING: SECOND ISSUE
• So, what the legislators did is to carefully analyze the
situation: the country, for decades, had been claiming
sovereignty over KGI and Scarborough Shoal on one hand
and on the other hand they had to consider that these are
located at non-appreciable distance from the nearest
shoreline of the Philippine archipelago.
• So, the classification is in accordance with the Philippines
sovereignty and State’s responsible observance of its pacta
sunt servanda obligation under UNCLOS III.
 COURT RULING: SECOND ISSUE
• 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.
 COURT RULING: SECOND ISSUE
• And lastly, the UNCLOS III and RA 9522 are not incompatible
with the Constitution’s delineation of internal waters.
• Petitioners contend that RA 9522 transformed the internal
waters of the Philippines to archipelagic waters hence
subjecting these waters to the right of innocent and sea
lanes passages, exposing the Philippine internal waters to
nuclear and maritime pollution hazards.
COURT RULING: SECOND ISSUE
• 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 of whether
internal or archipelagic waters.
 COURT RULING: SECOND ISSUE
• 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.
COURT RULING
• Therefore, the petition was dismissed.