Magallona vs.

Ermita (2011)
Petitioners: Prof. Merlin M. Magallona, Akbayan Party-List Rep. Risa Hontiveros, Prof. Harry C. Roque,
Jr., And University Of The Philippines College Of Law Students, Alithea Barbara Acas, Voltaire Alferes,
Czarina May Altez, Francis Alvin Asilo, Sheryl Balot, Ruby Amor Barraca, Jose Javier Bautista, Romina
Bernardo, Valerie Pagasa Buenaventura, Edan Marri Canete, Vann Allen Dela Cruz, Rene Delorino,
Paulyn May Duman, Sharon Escoto, Rodrigo Fajardo III, Girlie Ferrer, Raoulle Osen Ferrer, Carla Regina
Grepo, Anna Marie Cecilia Go, Irish Kay Kalaw, Mary Ann Joy Lee, Maria Luisa Manalaysay, Miguel
Rafael Musngi, Michael Ocampo, Jaklyn Hanna Pineda, William Ragamat, Maricar Ramos, Enrik Fort
Revillas, James Mark Terry Ridon, Johann Frantz Rivera IV, Christian Rivero, Dianne Marie Roa,
Nicholas Santizo, Melissa Christina Santos, Cristine Mae Tabing, Vanessa Anne Torno, Maria Ester
Vanguardia, and Marcelino Veloso III
Respondents: Hon. Eduardo Ermita, In His Capacity As Executive Secretary
TERRITORY
SUMMARY: The petitioners are requesting for writs of certiorari and prohibition assailing the
constitutionality of RA 9522 adjusting the countrys archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline
regime of nearby territories. The Court dismissed their petitions.
FACTS:
In 1961 Congress passed RA 3046 defining the maritime baselines of the Philippines as an
archipelagic state following the framing of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the
Contiguous Zone in 1958 (UNCLOS I) codifying the sovereign right of State parties over their
territorial sea the breath of which, however was left undetermined.
In March 2009, Congress amended RA 3046 RA 9522 (the statute in question). It was made to
comply with UNCLOS III prescribing that:
o Article 47, paragraphs 1-3
An archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the
outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago
provided that within such baselines are included the main islands and an area in
which the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land, including atolls, is
between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1.
The length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, except that up
to 3 per cent of the total number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may
exceed that length, up to a maximum length of 125 nautical miles.
The drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the
general configuration of the archipelago.
RA 9522 classified the KIG (Kalayaan Island Group) and Scarborough Shoal as regimes of
islands (islands generate their own applicable maritime zone)
Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of RA9522 in the ff gorunds:
o RA reduces Philippine maritime territory + the reach of Philippine States sovereign
power (violates Article 1 of 1987 Constitution)

RA opens the countrys waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all
vessels and aircrafts. The regime of islands also prejudices the livelihood of
subsistence fishermen.
Respondents replied with these issues:
o Petitioners lack locus standi
o The propriety of the writs of certiorari and prohibition to assail the constitutionality of
RA.
o RA is a compliance to UNCLOS III and that it does not undermine Philippines interests.
o

ISSUE:
Whether petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit YES.
Not as taxpayers nor legislators but as citizens who have constitutionally sufficient
interest in the resolution of the merits of the case as an issue of national significance.
Whether the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies to assail the
constitutionality of RA 9522 YES.
The respondents said that there has been no grave abuse of discretion but the SC can
exercise their constitutional power of judicial review and view the writs of certiorari and
prohibition as proper remedial vehicles to test the constitutionality of statutes.
On the merits, whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional NO.
RA 9522 is a Statutory Tool to Demarcate the Country's Maritime Zones and Continental
Shelf Under UNCLOS III, not to Delineate Philippine Territory
Petitioners said that the RA dismembers a large portion of the national territory under the
Treaties of Paris and related treaties that Phil. Sovereignty over territorial waters extends
hundreds of nautical miles around the Phil. Archipelago. This did not persuade the Court.
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 (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.
The archipelagic baselines serve as the geographic starting point to measure the
breadth of the maritime zones and continental shelf. They are just statutory
mechanisms.
The RA and UNCLOS III did not diminish the territoriality under traditional
international law, States acquire territory thought occupation, accretion, cession, and
prescription not by executing treaties.
RAs use of the framework of Regime of Islands to determine maritime zones of KIG and
Scarborough is not inconsistent with the Philippines claim of sovereignty over the areas.
Their argument that the total maritime space diminished was actually the opposite of
what happened the total space actually increased by 145 216 square nautical miles.
Petitioners argument that KIG is now outside the territory because of RA 9522 is negated
by the RA itself that states in Section 2 that the Philippines continued claim of
sovereignty and jurisdiction over KIG and Scarborough Shoal.
If included as part of Phil archipelago, legal issues will happen since UNCLOS
III requires that the drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any
appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago." Second,
Article 47 (2) of UNCLOS III requires that "the length of the baselines shall not

exceed 100 nautical miles," save for three per cent (3%) of the total number of
baselines which can reach up to 125 nautical miles.
Another argument of the petitioners was that RA 9522 failed to textualize Phil claim over
Sabah but Sec 2 of RA 5446 stating Phil claim over Sabah was not repealed by RA 9522.
On the last argument that the RA unconstitutionally converts internal waters to
archipelagic waters (submitting waters to the right of innocent and sea lanes passage)
Being referred to as Philippine "internal waters" under Article I of the
Constitution39 or as "archipelagic waters" under UNCLOS III, 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.
UNCLOS III affirms this through Article 49.1
Without UNCLOS III is the possibility of a recipe for a two-fronted disaster:
first, it sends an open invitation to the seafaring powers to freely enter and
exploit the resources in the waters and submarine areas around our archipelago;
and second, it weakens the country's case in any international dispute over
Philippine maritime space

1 Legal status of archipelagic waters, of the air space over archipelagic waters and of their bed and
subsoil.1. The sovereignty of an archipelagic State extends to the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines
drawn in accordance with article 47, described as archipelagic waters, regardless of their depth or distance from the
coast.
2. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the archipelagic waters, as well as to their bed and subsoil,
and the resources contained therein.
4. The regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage established in this Part shall not in other respects affect the
status of the archipelagic waters, including the sea lanes, or the exercise by the archipelagic State of its sovereignty
over such waters and their air space, bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein.