Magallona vs Ermita

GR 187167 August 16, 2011

Ponente: Carpio
Case overview:
This original action for the writs of certiorari and prohibition assails the constitutionality of RA
9522 adjusting the country's archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline regime of
nearby territories.
Antecedent:
RA 3046 was passed to demarcate the maritime baselines of the Philippines as an
archipelagic state in 1961, following the framing of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and
the Contiguous Zone (UNCLOS 1) in 1958. This convention codifies the rights of State parties
over their territorial sea, though it lacks the breadth of which. After 5 years, RA 5446 was
passed to correct errors and reserve the drawing of baselines around Sabah in North Borneo.
Finally, RA 9522, in which it amends RA 3046, was passed to be in compliance with UNCLOS
III, and the statute under scrutiny in this case.
Facts:
Petitioners: professors of law, law students, and a legislator as "citizens, taxpayers, or
legislators"
Respondents: Executive Secretary, DFA, DBM, et al
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the statute due to the following grounds:
1. it reduces the State's maritime territory and sovereign power, in violation of Art 1 of Consti
2. it grants right of passage to all vessels and aircraft which can put the Philippines'
sovereignty and security in scrutiny
Issues:
1. Procedural
a. W/N petitioners possess locus standi
b. W/N writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies to assail the
constitutionality of the statute
2. Substantive
W/N RA 9522 is unconstitutional
Held:
1. Procedural
a. YES
Locus standing as citizens was enough to possess such personality, since the issue at
hand if of national significance necessitating urgent resolution.
b. YES
By tradition, writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies in testing
constitutionality of statutes.

2. Substanstive: NO
a. PETITIONERS SUBMIT THAT THE STATUTE DISMEMBERS A LARGE PORTION OF
THE PHILIPPINE TERRITORY, AS DEFINED IN THE TREATY OF PARIS AND OTHER
TREATIES)
Said statute is a tool to demarcate country's maritime zones and continental
shelf under UNCLOS III, not to delineate Philippine territory (
UNCLOS has nothing to do with the acquisition or loss of territory. It merely
regulates sea-use rights over maritime zones, contiguous zones, exclusive
economic zones and continental shelves
Baseline laws such as this are to serve as geographic starting point points to
measure breadth of maritime zones and continental shelf. These are nothing but
statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III to delimit with precision the extent of their
maritime zones and continental shelves.
b. PETITIONERS CLAIM THAT STATUTE WEAKENS PHILIPPINES' CLAIM OVER KIG
AND SCARBOROUGH SHOAL
Nothing in the law provides that the Philippines will lose sovereignty over KIG
and Scarborough. RA 9522 explicitly states that the State shall exercise
sovereignty over the said areas.
Putting these areas in our baselines might violate the international law which
states that "The drawing of such baseline shall not depart to any appreciable
extent from the general configuration of the archipelago". Since these areas are
far from our configuration, we are not allowed to draw it within the baseline,
although we are to exercise sovereignty over it.
c. PETITIONERS SUBMIT THAT CLAIM OVER SABAH WAS NOT RETAINED
RA 9522 explicitly provides that the act is not in prejudice of the sovereignty over
Sabah
d. PETITIONERS CLAIM THAT THE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONALLY CONVERTS INTERNAL
WATERS INTO ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS, SUBJECTING THESE WATERS TO RIGHT OF
INNOCENT AND SEA LANES PASSAGE, EXPOSING PHILIPPINES TO NUCLEAR AND
MARITIME POLLUTION HAZARDS, IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Internal waters - enclosed by closing lines arose bays and mouths of rivers
Archipelagic waters - waters enclosed by the archipelagic baseline
State has the freedom to pass laws to regulate innocent and sea lanes passage.
Additionally, right of innocent passage is a customary international law, thus this
cannot be disobeyed without retaliation from the international community.
PETITION WAS DISMISSED.