Magallona v.

Ermita
G.R. No. 187167
16 August 2011
En Banc

Facts:
In 1961, RA 3046 was passed by Congress, following the framing of the
UNCLOS I, codifying among others, the sovereign right of states over their
territorial sea the breadth of which was left undetermined. Negotiation during the
UNCLOS II failed to fill the gaps in the void. In March 2009, the herein questioned
law was enacted to amend RA 3046 and make the Philippines compliant with the
UNCLOS III which it ratified in 27 February 1984. Said Multinational agreement
prescribe the water-land Ratio, length, and contour of baselines of archipelagic
states. RA 9522 optimized some baselines and classified the Kalayaan Island Group
as a “regime of islands”, which islands generate their own Maritime zone. Herein
petitioners contend that RA 9522 is unconstitutional on two principal grounds,
namely: 1) the law reduces Philippine Maritime Territory thereby reducing the
reach of Philippine sovereign power, violating the constitution, 2) it opens the
country’s waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and
aircraft, undermining Philippine Sovereignty, contravening the constitutional
provisions on a nuclear-free policy and damaging marine resources. Furthermore,
the treatment of the KIG as a “regime of Islands” results in the loss of a large
maritime area. Respondent officials allege that the petitioners have no legal
standing to raise the issues herein before court, and defend the constitutionality of
the law as a compliance with the UNCLOS III preserving territory over the KIG,
Scarborough Shoal, and that the law does not undermine Philippine Sovereignty.
Issues:
A) Do the herein petitioners have the legal standing to raise the issues
before court?
B) Is Republic Act 9522 Constitutional?

Ruling:
A) Yes. Petitioners’ contention that they have locus standi for being legislators
and taxpayers have no merit as the law subject of this petition involves
neither infringement of Legislative power nor does it involve misuse of public
funds. However, being Citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, the Court
finds that the petitioners have constitutionally sufficient interest for seeking
the resolution of the merits of the case, which raises issues of Moral
Significance.
B) Yes. the UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the loss or acquisition of
territory. It is a multinational treaty regulating the conduct of individual
states in the worlds’ oceans and submarine areas. Baseline laws such as 9522
are merely statutory mechanisms to allow the UNCLOS states to delimit
with precision the extent of their maritime zones. Far from relinquishing the
claims to KIG and Scarborough shoal, RA 9522’s classification of such islands
as “regime of islands” indicates the Philippines responsible compliance with
the terms of the UNCLOS III. In short, said island groups are still claimed by
the Philippines as part of its National Territory, but the KIG are not part of
the Philippine Archipelago itself. Furthermore, absent any UNCLOS III
compliant law, an archipelagic state like the Philippines will find itself devoid
of internationally accepted baselines from where the breadth of its maritime
zones and continental shelf is measured. RA 9522 allows an internationally
recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippines’ maritime zones and
continental shelf.