MAGALLONA vs. ERMITA GR No. 187167 July 16, 2011 Ponente: Carpio, J.

FACTS In 1958, the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone (UNCLOS I) was framed, codifying the right of the states over the territorial sea, but it did not define the breadth of said territory. The subsequently framed UNCLOS II in 1960 failed to still fill the void. The Philippine Congress then passed RA 3046 in 1961, which demarcated the maritime baselines of the Philippines as an archipelagic force. RA 3046 remained in force for five decades, with RA 5446 correcting typographical errors found in the law, and including the baselines in Sabah. On February 27, 1984, the Philippines ratified UNCLOS III which prescribed water-land ration, length and contour of baselines, and set the deadline for the filing of the application for the extended continental shelf. In compliance with UNCLOS III, Congress passed RA 9522 in 2009, repealing RA 3046, which shortened one baseline, optimized the location of some base points, and classified adjacent territories, such as the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG), and Scarborough Shoal as regime of islands that would have their own maritime zones. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 9522 on the grounds that: (1) it reduced Philippine territory, in violation of Art. I of the 1987 Constitution that embodies the Treaty of Paris; (2) and it opened landward baselines to maritime passage, thereby effectively allowing foreign vessels passing to violate pertinent provisions in the Constitution, such as that provision prohibiting nuclear arms in Philippine territory. Respondents contended petitioners allegations by stating that petitioners lack locus standi, and questioning the propriety of the procedural remedies chosen certiorari and prohibition. ISSUES 1. Whether or not petitioners have locus standi 2. Whether or not certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies filed in assailing the constitutionality of RA 9522 3. WHETHER OR NOT RA 9522 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL HELD 1. YES. Petitioners have standing because they have direct and specific interest in the matter. 2. YES. Certiorai and prohibition are proper vehicles in seeking judicial review of a statute. 3. NO. First, UNCLOS III called for the determination of baselines only, and this does not include the acquisition of territory. This would mean that the regulation of the usage of waters or maritime

zones is necessary. The baseline laws passed by Congress are statutory mechanisms for the determination of Philippine maritime zones and continental shelf. Second, RA 9522 increased the Philippines maritime space, contrary to petitioners assertion. The use of the classification of regime of islands for these territories meant compliance with UNCLOS III, without necessarily compromising the sovereignty asserted by the country over these territories. Moreover, the country still has sovereignty over Sabah, by virtue of RA 5446, which was not repealed by RA 9522. If these territories would be included in the drawing of the baselines, their appreciable distance from the general configuration of the archipelago would distort said baselines. Third, the provision in RA 9522 which allows innocent passage of foreign vessels in internal waters prevent superpowers from taking an interest in the country and exploiting its resources; the absence of such a provision would severely weaken the countrys claim, should a conflict arise.