MAGALLONA v.

ERMITA

G.R. No. 187167 August 16, 2011 Velasco, Jr., J.

Art.1 Created by:

Petitioners Respondents
Prof. Merlin M. Magallona, et. al Hon. Eduardo Ermita, et. al

Recit Ready Summary

RA 9522 was enacted in 2009 in order to comply with the terms of UNCLOS III. RA 9522 made changes on the
archipelagic baseline and classified territories such as the KGI and Scarborough Shoal as “regime of islands”.
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 9522 on two grounds. Firstly, RA 9533 reduces Philippine maritime
territory in violation of the Constitution. Secondly, RA 9522 opens the country’s waters to maritime passage by all
vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security and in violation of the Constitution.
The issue in this case is whether or not RA 9522 violates Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution. The Court held that
RA 9522 is constitutional because it is merely a statutory tool to demarcate and measure the breadth of the
country’s maritime zones and continental shelf by drawing baselines. Petitioner’s contention that the new law
effectively reduces the Philippines’ territory is without basis. In fact, due to RA 5922’s optimization of basepoints,
the Philippines’ total maritime space increased from 440,994 sq. nm to 556,210, sq. nm. Furthermore, petitioner’s
contention that the sovereignty of the Philippines is jeopardized because the new law allows maritime passage to
all vessels and aircrafts, cannot stand. It is a principle of international law that innocent passage rights are
granted in the interest of maintaining unimpeded international navigation consistent with the international principle
of freedom of navigation.

Facts of the Case

1. Following UNCLOS I, Congress passed R.A. 3046 in 1961 which defined and set the boundaries of the
baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippines as an archipelagic State.

2. Congress later amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522 in March 2009 to comply with the terms of
UNCLOS III.

3. RA 9522 shortened one baseline, optimized the location of some basepoints of the Philippine
archipelago, and reclassified Scarborough Shoal and Kalayaan Group of Islands (KGI) as “regime of
islands”.

4. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 9522 on the grounds that (1) RA 9533 reduces Philippine
maritime territory in violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution and (2) RA 9522 opens the country’s
waters to maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national
security and in violation of the Constitution.

5. Petitioners also contend that RA 9522’s treatment of the KGI and Scarborough Shoal as regime of islands
results in a loss of a large maritime area and prejudices in the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.

6. Petitioners facially attacked RA9522 for its failure to reference either the Treaty of Paris or Sabah and its
use of UNCLOS III’s framework of regime of islands to determine the maritime zones of the KIG and the
Scarborough Shoal.

Issues Ruling

1. Whether or not RA 9522 is constitutional. Yes. It is

constitutional.
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis

RA 9522 is a statutory tool to demarcate the country’s maritime zones and continental shelf under
UNCLOS III, not to delineate Philippines.
- UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition or loss of territory. It is a multilateral treaty to regulate
sea-use rights. Art. 48 of UNCLOS III provides that the breadth of the territorial sea, contiguous zone,
etc. is to be measured by drawing archipelagic baselines.
- RA 9522, as a baseline law, was enacted in response to such provision of the UNCLOS in order to mark-
out the basepoints along the coasts which shall be drawn to form baselines. Such baselines are to be
used in measuring the breadth of the territorial sea, etc.
- Thus baseline laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III States parties to delimit with
precision the extent of their maritime zones and continental shelves.

RA 9522’s use of the framework of regime of islands to determine maritime zones of the KIG and
Scarborough Shoal is not inconsistent with the Philippines’ claim of sovereignty over these areas.
- a comparison of the configuration of the baselines drawn under RA 3046 and RA 9522 shows that RA
9522 merely followed the basepoints mapped by RA 3046 save for 9, which were optimized for maximum
length.
- Petitioner’s assertion of the loss of “15,000 sq. nautical miles of territorial waters” is unfounded. On the
contrary, RA 9522’s optimization of the basepoints increased the Philippine’s total maritime space by
145,216 square nautical miles. (from 440,994 sq.nm to 556,210 sq nm)

KGI and Scarborough Shoal lies outside our archipelagic baselines

- Therefore, we cannot just include them inside the baselines to form the archipelago because this will be
in violation of UNCLOS III provisions. They are too far from the natural configuration of the archipelago,
which must be followed when drawing the baseline.
- Congress’ decision to classify KIG and Scarborough Shoal as ‘regime of islands’ under the Republic of
the Philippines manifests the State’s observance of its pacta sut servanda obligation under UNCLOS III.

Statutory claim over Sabah under RA 5446 is retained.

- Sec. 2 of RA 9522 provides that the drawing of baselines is without prejudice to the delineation of the
baselines of the territorial sea around the territory of Sabah.

UNCLOS III and RA 9522 are not incompatible with the Constitution’s delineation of internal waters
- While the Philippines exercises sovereignty over the body of water lying landward of the baselines, the
fact of sovereignty does not preclude the operation of municipal and international law norms subjecting
the territorial sea or archipelagic waters to necessary burdens in consistency with the international law
principle of freedom of navigation.
- In the absence of municipal legislation, international law norms (now codified in UNCLOS III) operate to
grant innocent passage rights over the territorial sea or archipelagic waters, subject to the treaty’s
limitations and conditions for their exercise. [Right of innocent passage]

It is Congress’s prerogative to enact RA 9522

- Absent an UNCLOS III compliant baseline laws, (1) we send an open invitation to seafaring powers to
freely enter and exploit the resources in the waters and submarine areas around the archipelago and (2)
weakens the country’s case in any international dispute over Ph maritime space.

Disposition

Petition DISMISSED.
Terms and Definitions
UNCLOS I – codified the sovereign right of state parties over their “territorial sea”
Breadth – distance from side to side
Demarcate – set the boundaries of
Delineate – indicate the exact position of
Regime of islands – islands which generate their own applicable maritime zone
Normative force – evaluative standard