Magallona v.

Ermita

FACTS:

Congress passed RA 3046 demarcating the maritime baselines of the Philippines as an archipelagic state.
This law followed the framing of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in 1958
(UNCLOS I). RA 5446 reserved the drawing of baselines around Sabah in North Borneo. Congress amended
RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522, which was prompted by the need to make RA 3046 compliant with the
terms of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III). UNCLOS III prescribes the
water-land ratio, length, and contour of baselines of archipelagic states like the Philippines. RA 9522
shortened one baseline, optimized the location of some base points 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 maritime zones. Laws professors, law students,
and a legislator as citizens, taxpayers, or legislators assail the constitutionality of RA 9522 on 2 points:
(1) RA 9522 reduces Philippines maritime territory and its reach of sovereign power (in violation of Art. 1
of the 1987 Constitution) and (2) RA 9522 opens the countrys waters landward of the baselines to
maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security.
Petitioners also contend that RA 9522s treatment of the KIG as regime of islands results in the loss of a
large maritime area and prejudices the livelihood of fishermen. Respondents defended RA 9522 as the
countrys compliance with UNCLOS III, and it does not undermine the countrys security, environment,
and economic interests nor relinquish the Philippines claim over Sabah.

ISSUES:

Preliminary:

1. Whether petitioners possess locus standi to bring the suit.

2. Whether the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies to assail the
constitutionality of RA 9522.

On the merits:

- Whether RA9522 is unconstitutional?

RULING:

Preliminary:

1. YES.
- Although petitioners undermine their assertion of locus standi as legislators and taxpayers
because the petition alleges neither infringement of legislative prerogative or misuse of public
funds occasioned by the passage and implementation of RA 9522, the Court recognizes
petitioners locus standi as CITIZENS with constitutionally sufficient interest in the resolution
of the merits of the case which undoubtedly raises ISSUES OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
NECESSITATING URGENT RESOLUTION.
2. YES
- Even though the respondents submitted correctly that the issuance of writs of certiorari and
prohibition involves showing of grave abuse of discretion, the court, by tradition viewed the
 writs of certiorari and prohibition as proper remedial vehicles to test the
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTES and ACTS OF OTHER BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT.

On the merits:

1. RA 9522 is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL

- Petitioners submits that RA 9522 dismembers a large portion of the national territory
because it discards the pre-UNCLOS III demarcation of Philippine territory under the Treaty of
Paris (territorial waters extends hundreds of nautical miles around the Philippine archipelago
embraced by rectangular area) and related treaties, successively encoded in the definition off
national territory under the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitution. This constitutional definition
trumps any treaty or statutory provision denying the Philippines sovereign control over
waters.
- Court said that UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition or loss of territory. It is a
multilateral treaty regulating SEA-USE RIGHTS over maritime zones. It is a code of norms
regulating the conduct of States in the worlds oceans and submarine areas. Territorial claims
are outside the scope of UNCLOS III.
- RA 9522 are baselines laws enacted by UNCLOS III States parties to mark-out specific
basepoints along their coasts to serve as geographic starting points to measure the breadth
of the maritime zones and continental shelves.(Article 48 of UNCLOS III)
- Under traditional international law typology, states acquire territory through occupation,
accretion, cession and prescription.
2. RA 9522S use of framework of Regime of islands to determine maritime zones of the KIG and
the Scarborough Shoal, NOT INCONSISTENT with the PH Claim of Sovereignty over these areas.
- Petitioners argued that this law weakens the PH territorial claim over the area. They added
that KIG exclusion from PH archipelagic baselines results in loss of about 15000 nautical miles
of territorial waters prejudicing the livelihood of subsistence of fishermen
- RA 9522 merely followed the basepoints mapped by RA 3046, save for at least nine basepoints
that RA 9522 skipped to optimize the location of basepoints and adjust the length of one
baseline to comply with UNCLOS III
- RA 9522, by optimizing the location of basepoints, INCREASED the PH total maritime space.
- Petitioners added that KIG lies outside the Philippine territory as it was not enclosed by RA
9522.
- Section 2 of RA 9522 commits to text the PHs continued claim of sovereignty and
jurisdiction over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal.
- If the Congress enclosed KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as part of PH archipelago, it would
violate Article 47(3) of UNCLOS III which states that the drawing of such baselines SHALL
NOT DEPART TO ANY APPRECIABLE EXTENT FROM THE GENERAL CONFIGURATION OF THE
ARCHIPELAGO and Article 47(2) that the LENGTH OF THE BASELINES SHALL NOT EXCEED 100
NAUTICAL MILES, SAVE FOR THREE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF BASELINES WHICH
CAN REACH UP TP 125 MILES. (Miriam Defensor-Santiago principal author emphasized
this)
- The length of one baseline that RA 3046 drew exceeded UNCLOS IIIs limits. (Moro Gulf
140.06 nautical miles)
 - Congress decision to classify KIG and Scarborough as Regime of Islands manifests the
observance of its PACTA SUNT SERVANDA obligation under the UNCLOS III.
3. Statutory claim over Sabah under RA 5446 RETAINED.
- Section 2 of RA 5446 was not repealed by RA 9522.
- It states that the definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of PH Archipelago as
provided in this act is without prejudice to the 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
4. UNCLOS III and RA 9522 NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONS DELINEATION OF
INTERNAL WATERS
- Petitioners contend that RA 9522 unconstitutionally converts internal waters into archipelagic
waters, hence subjecting these waters to the right of innocent and sea lanes passage under
UNCLOS III, including overflight. It exposes the PH internal waters to nuclear and maritime
pollution hazards
- Whether referred to as PH internal waters under the Art 1 of the Constitution, or as
archipelagic waters under UNCLOS III, Art 49(1), the PH exercises sovereignty over the body
of water lying landward of the baselines, including the air space over it and submarine areas
underneath (affirmed by UNCLOS III, Art 49)
- Sovereignty, however, does not preclude the operation of municipal and international law
norms (e.g. freedom of navigation).Domestically, political branches may pass legislation
designating routes within the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and sea lanes passage.
- In the absence of municipal legislation, international law norms, now codified by the UNCLOS
III, operate to grant innocent passage rights over territorial sea or archipelagic waters subject
to the treatys limitations and conditions for their exercise
- Right of innocent passage is a customary international law which incorporated in the corpus
of the PH law.
- Petitioners invoke Article II provisions of Constitution but jurisprudence dictates that these
are not self-executory and an enabling legislation is needed.

DISPOSITION: DISMISSED.