G.R No. 187167 Magallona Vs Ermita

9/16/2016
G.R.No.187167
TodayisFriday,September16,2016
RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.RNo.187167August16,2011
PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, AKBAYAN PARTYLIST REP. RISA HONTIVEROS, PROF. HARRY C.
ROQUE,JR.,ANDUNIVERSITYOFTHEPHILIPPINESCOLLEGEOFLAWSTUDENTS,ALITHEABARBARA
ACAS,VOLTAIREALFERES,CZARINAMAYALTEZ,FRANCISALVINASILO,SHERYLBALOT,RUBYAMOR
BARRACA, JOSE JAVIER BAUTISTA, ROMINA BERNARDO, VALERIE PAGASA BUENAVENTURA, EDAN
MARRI CAETE, VANN ALLEN DELA CRUZ, RENE DELORINO, PAULYN MAY DUMAN, SHARON ESCOTO,
RODRIGOFAJARDOIII,GIRLIEFERRER,RAOULLEOSENFERRER,CARLAREGINAGREPO,ANNAMARIE
CECILIA GO, IRISH KAY KALAW, MARY ANN JOY LEE, MARIA LUISA MANALAYSAY, MIGUEL RAFAEL
MUSNGI, MICHAEL OCAMPO, JAKLYN HANNA PINEDA, WILLIAM RAGAMAT, MARICAR RAMOS, ENRIK
FORTREVILLAS,JAMESMARKTERRYRIDON,JOHANNFRANTZRIVERAIV,CHRISTIANRIVERO,DIANNE
MARIEROA,NICHOLASSANTIZO,MELISSACHRISTINASANTOS,CRISTINEMAETABING,VANESSAANNE
TORNO,MARIAESTERVANGUARDIA,andMARCELINOVELOSOIII,Petitioners,
vs.
HON.EDUARDOERMITA,INHISCAPACITYASEXECUTIVESECRETARY,HON.ALBERTOROMULO,INHIS
CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HON. ROLANDO ANDAYA, IN
HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, HON. DIONY
VENTURA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL MAPPING & RESOURCE
INFORMATION AUTHORITY, and HON. HILARIO DAVIDE, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE PERMANENT MISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES TO THE UNITED NATIONS,
Respondents.
DECISION
CARPIO,J.:
TheCase
ThisoriginalactionforthewritsofcertiorariandprohibitionassailstheconstitutionalityofRepublicActNo.95221
(RA9522)adjustingthecountrysarchipelagicbaselinesandclassifyingthebaselineregimeofnearbyterritories.
TheAntecedents
In 1961, Congress passed Republic Act No. 3046 (RA 3046)2 demarcating the maritime baselines of the
PhilippinesasanarchipelagicState.3ThislawfollowedtheframingoftheConventionontheTerritorialSeaand
the Contiguous Zone in 1958 (UNCLOS I),4 codifying, among others, the sovereign right of States parties over
their "territorial sea," the breadth of which, however, was left undetermined. Attempts to fill this void during the
second round of negotiations in Geneva in 1960 (UNCLOS II) proved futile. Thus, domestically, RA 3046
remained unchanged for nearly five decades, save for legislation passed in 1968 (Republic Act No. 5446 [RA
5446])correctingtypographicalerrorsandreservingthedrawingofbaselinesaroundSabahinNorthBorneo.
InMarch2009,CongressamendedRA3046byenactingRA9522,thestatutenowunderscrutiny.Thechange
waspromptedbytheneedtomakeRA3046compliantwiththetermsoftheUnitedNationsConventiononthe
LawoftheSea(UNCLOSIII),5whichthePhilippinesratifiedon27February1984.6Amongothers,UNCLOSIII
prescribesthewaterlandratio,length,andcontourofbaselinesofarchipelagicStateslikethePhilippines7 and
sets the deadline for the filing of application for the extended continental shelf.8 Complying with these
requirements,RA9522shortenedonebaseline,optimizedthelocationofsomebasepointsaroundthePhilippine
archipelago and classified adjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough
Shoal,as"regimesofislands"whoseislandsgeneratetheirownapplicablemaritimezones.
Petitioners,professorsoflaw,lawstudentsandalegislator,intheirrespectivecapacitiesas"citizens,taxpayersor
xxxlegislators,"9asthecasemaybe,assailtheconstitutionalityofRA9522ontwoprincipalgrounds,namely:
(1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the reach of the Philippine states sovereign
power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution,10 embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris11 and
ancillarytreaties,12and(2)RA9522opensthecountryswaterslandwardofthebaselinestomaritimepassage
byallvesselsandaircrafts,underminingPhilippinesovereigntyandnationalsecurity,contraveningthecountrys
nuclearfreepolicy,anddamagingmarineresources,inviolationofrelevantconstitutionalprovisions.13
Inaddition,petitionerscontendthatRA9522streatmentoftheKIGas"regimeofislands"notonlyresultsinthe
loss of a large maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.14 To buttress their
argumentofterritorialdiminution,petitionersfaciallyattackRA9522forwhatitexcludedandincludeditsfailure
to reference either the Treaty of Paris or Sabah and its use of UNCLOS IIIs framework of regime of islands to
determinethemaritimezonesoftheKIGandtheScarboroughShoal.
Commentingonthepetition,respondentofficialsraisedthresholdissuesquestioning(1)thepetitionscompliance
withthecaseorcontroversyrequirementforjudicialreviewgroundedonpetitionersallegedlackoflocusstandi
and (2) the propriety of the writs of certiorari and prohibition to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522. On the
merits, respondents defended RA 9522 as the countrys compliance with the terms of UNCLOS III, preserving
PhilippineterritoryovertheKIGorScarboroughShoal.RespondentsaddthatRA9522doesnotunderminethe
countryssecurity,environmentandeconomicinterestsorrelinquishthePhilippinesclaimoverSabah.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html
1/18
9/16/2016
G.R.No.187167
Respondentsalsoquestionthenormativeforce,underinternationallaw,ofpetitionersassertionthatwhatSpain
ceded to the United States under the Treaty of Paris were the islands and all the waters found within the
boundariesoftherectangularareadrawnundertheTreatyofParis.
Weleftunactedpetitionersprayerforaninjunctivewrit.
TheIssues
Thepetitionraisesthefollowingissues:
1.Preliminarily
1.Whetherpetitionerspossesslocusstanditobringthissuitand
2.Whetherthewritsofcertiorariandprohibitionaretheproperremediestoassailtheconstitutionality
ofRA9522.
2.Onthemerits,whetherRA9522isunconstitutional.
TheRulingoftheCourt
Onthethresholdissues,weholdthat(1)petitionerspossesslocusstanditobringthissuitascitizensand(2)the
writsofcertiorariandprohibitionareproperremediestotesttheconstitutionalityofRA9522.Onthemerits,we
findnobasistodeclareRA9522unconstitutional.
OntheThresholdIssues
PetitionersPossessLocus
StandiasCitizens
Petitionersthemselvesunderminetheirassertionoflocusstandiaslegislatorsandtaxpayersbecausethepetition
allegesneitherinfringementoflegislativeprerogative15normisuseofpublicfunds,16occasionedbythepassage
and implementation of RA 9522. Nonetheless, we recognize 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. Indeed, owing to the peculiar nature of RA 9522, it is
understandablydifficulttofindotherlitigantspossessing"amoredirectandspecificinterest"tobringthesuit,thus
satisfyingoneoftherequirementsforgrantingcitizenshipstanding.17
TheWritsofCertiorariandProhibition
AreProperRemediestoTest
theConstitutionalityofStatutes
In praying for the dismissal of the petition on preliminary grounds, respondents seek a strict observance of the
offices of the writs of certiorari and prohibition, noting that the writs cannot issue absent any showing of grave
abuseofdiscretionintheexerciseofjudicial,quasijudicialorministerialpowersonthepartofrespondentsand
resultingprejudiceonthepartofpetitioners.18
Respondents submission holds true in ordinary civil proceedings. When this Court exercises its constitutional
power of judicial review, however, we have, by tradition, viewed the writs of certiorari and prohibition as proper
remedial vehicles to test the constitutionality of statutes,19 and indeed, of acts of other branches of
government.20 Issues of constitutional import are sometimes crafted out of statutes which, while having no
bearingonthepersonalinterestsofthepetitioners,carrysuchrelevanceinthelifeofthisnationthattheCourt
inevitablyfindsitselfconstrainedtotakecognizanceofthecaseandpassupontheissuesraised,noncompliance
withtheletterofproceduralrulesnotwithstanding.Thestatutesoughttobereviewedhereisonesuchlaw.
RA9522isNotUnconstitutional
RA9522isaStatutoryTool
toDemarcatetheCountrys
MaritimeZonesandContinental
ShelfUnderUNCLOSIII,notto
DelineatePhilippineTerritory
PetitionerssubmitthatRA9522"dismembersalargeportionofthenationalterritory"21 because it discards the
preUNCLOS III demarcation of Philippine territory under the Treaty of Paris and related treaties, successively
encoded in the definition of national territory under the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Petitioners theorize
thatthisconstitutionaldefinitiontrumpsanytreatyorstatutoryprovisiondenyingthePhilippinessovereigncontrol
overwaters,beyondtheterritorialsearecognizedatthetimeoftheTreatyofParis,thatSpainsupposedlyceded
totheUnitedStates.PetitionersarguethatfromtheTreatyofParistechnicaldescription,Philippinesovereignty
over territorial waters extends hundreds of nautical miles around the Philippine archipelago, embracing the
rectangularareadelineatedintheTreatyofParis.22
Petitionerstheoryfailstopersuadeus.
UNCLOSIIIhasnothingtodowiththeacquisition(orloss)ofterritory.Itisamultilateraltreatyregulating,among
others, seause rights over maritime zones (i.e., the territorial waters [12 nautical miles from the baselines],
contiguous zone [24 nautical miles from the baselines], exclusive economic zone [200 nautical miles from the
baselines]),andcontinentalshelvesthatUNCLOSIIIdelimits.23UNCLOSIIIwastheculminationofdecadeslong
negotiations among United Nations members to codify norms regulating the conduct of States in the worlds
oceans and submarine areas, recognizing coastal and archipelagic States graduated authority over a limited
spanofwatersandsubmarinelandsalongtheircoasts.
On the other hand, baselines laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III States parties to markout
specific basepoints along their coasts from which baselines are drawn, either straight or contoured, to serve as
geographic starting points to measure the breadth of the maritime zones and continental shelf. Article 48 of
UNCLOSIIIonarchipelagicStateslikeourscouldnotbeanyclearer:
2/18
9/16/2016
G.R.No.187167
Article48.Measurementofthebreadthoftheterritorialsea,thecontiguouszone,theexclusiveeconomiczone
andthecontinentalshelf.Thebreadthoftheterritorialsea,thecontiguouszone,theexclusiveeconomiczone
andthecontinentalshelfshallbemeasuredfromarchipelagicbaselinesdrawninaccordancewitharticle47.
(Emphasissupplied)
Thus,baselineslawsarenothingbutstatutorymechanismsforUNCLOSIIIStatespartiestodelimitwithprecision
theextentoftheirmaritimezonesandcontinentalshelves.Inturn,thisgivesnoticetotherestoftheinternational
communityofthescopeofthemaritimespaceandsubmarineareaswithinwhichStatespartiesexercisetreaty
based rights, namely, the exercise of sovereignty over territorial waters (Article 2), the jurisdiction to enforce
customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitation laws in the contiguous zone (Article 33), and the right to exploit the
livingandnonlivingresourcesintheexclusiveeconomiczone(Article56)andcontinentalshelf(Article77).
Even under petitioners theory that the Philippine territory embraces the islands and all the waters within the
rectangularareadelimitedintheTreatyofParis,thebaselinesofthePhilippineswouldstillhavetobedrawnin
accordancewithRA9522becausethisistheonlywaytodrawthebaselinesinconformitywithUNCLOSIII.The
baselinescannotbedrawnfromtheboundariesorotherportionsoftherectangularareadelineatedintheTreaty
ofParis,butfromthe"outermostislandsanddryingreefsofthearchipelago."24
UNCLOSIIIanditsancillarybaselineslawsplaynoroleintheacquisition,enlargementor,aspetitionersclaim,
diminution of territory. Under traditional international law typology, States acquire (or conversely, lose) territory
throughoccupation,accretion,cessionandprescription,25notbyexecutingmultilateraltreatiesontheregulations
ofseauserightsorenactingstatutestocomplywiththetreatystermstodelimitmaritimezonesandcontinental
shelves. Territorial claims to land features are outside UNCLOS III, and are instead governed by the rules on
generalinternationallaw.26
RA9522sUseoftheFramework
ofRegimeofIslandstoDeterminethe
MaritimeZonesoftheKIGandthe
ScarboroughShoal,notInconsistent
withthePhilippinesClaimofSovereignty
OvertheseAreas
Petitioners next submit that RA 9522s use of UNCLOS IIIs regime of islands framework to draw the baselines,
andtomeasurethebreadthoftheapplicablemaritimezonesoftheKIG,"weakensourterritorialclaim"overthat
area.27 Petitioners add that the KIGs (and Scarborough Shoals) exclusion from the Philippine archipelagic
baselinesresultsinthelossof"about15,000squarenauticalmilesofterritorialwaters,"prejudicingthelivelihood
of subsistence fishermen.28 A comparison of the configuration of the baselines drawn under RA 3046 and RA
9522andtheextentofmaritimespaceencompassedbyeachlaw,coupledwithareadingofthetextofRA9522
anditscongressionaldeliberations,visvisthePhilippinesobligationsunderUNCLOSIII,beliethisview.
1 a v v p h i1
TheconfigurationofthebaselinesdrawnunderRA3046andRA9522showsthatRA9522merelyfollowedthe
basepointsmappedbyRA3046,saveforatleastninebasepointsthatRA9522skippedtooptimizethelocation
of basepoints and adjust the length of one baseline (and thus comply with UNCLOS IIIs limitation on the
maximum length of baselines). Under RA 3046, as under RA 9522, the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal lie
outside of the baselines drawn around the Philippine archipelago. This undeniable cartographic fact takes the
windoutofpetitionersargumentbrandingRA9522asastatutoryrenunciationofthePhilippinesclaimoverthe
KIG,assumingthatbaselinesarerelevantforthispurpose.
Petitionersassertionoflossof"about15,000squarenauticalmilesofterritorialwaters"underRA9522issimilarly
unfoundedbothinfactandlaw.Onthecontrary,RA9522,byoptimizingthelocationofbasepoints,increasedthe
Philippines total maritime space (covering its internal waters, territorial sea and exclusive economic zone) by
145,216squarenauticalmiles,asshowninthetablebelow:29
Extent of maritime
area using RA
3046, as amended,
taking into account
the Treaty of Paris
delimitation
(in
square
nautical
miles)
Extent of maritime
area using RA
9522, taking into
account UNCLOS
III
(in
square
nauticalmiles)
Internalor
archipelagic
waters
166,858
171,435
TerritorialSea
274,136
32,106
382,669
440,994
586,210
Exclusive
EconomicZone
TOTAL
Thus,asthemapbelowshows,thereachoftheexclusiveeconomiczonedrawnunderRA9522evenextends
waybeyondthewaterscoveredbytherectangulardemarcationundertheTreatyofParis.Ofcourse,wherethere
are overlapping exclusive economic zones of opposite or adjacent States, there will have to be a delineation of
maritimeboundariesinaccordancewithUNCLOSIII.30
3/18
9/16/2016
G.R.No.187167
Further, petitioners argument that the KIG now lies outside Philippine territory because the baselines that RA
9522 draws do not enclose the KIG is negated by RA 9522 itself. Section 2 of the law commits to text the
PhilippinescontinuedclaimofsovereigntyandjurisdictionovertheKIGandtheScarboroughShoal:
SEC.2.ThebaselinesinthefollowingareasoverwhichthePhilippineslikewiseexercisessovereigntyand
jurisdiction shall be determined as "Regime of Islands" under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with
Article121oftheUnitedNationsConventionontheLawoftheSea(UNCLOS):
a)TheKalayaanIslandGroupasconstitutedunderPresidentialDecreeNo.1596and
b)BajodeMasinloc,alsoknownasScarboroughShoal.(Emphasissupplied)
Had Congress in RA 9522 enclosed the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as part of the Philippine archipelago,
adverse legal effects would have ensued. The Philippines would have committed a breach of two provisions of
UNCLOSIII.First,Article47(3)ofUNCLOSIIIrequiresthat"[t]hedrawingofsuchbaselinesshallnotdepartto
anyappreciableextentfromthegeneralconfigurationofthearchipelago."Second,Article47(2)ofUNCLOSIII
requiresthat"thelengthofthebaselinesshallnotexceed100nauticalmiles,"saveforthreepercent(3%)ofthe
totalnumberofbaselineswhichcanreachupto125nauticalmiles.31
Although the Philippines has consistently claimed sovereignty over the KIG32 and the Scarborough Shoal for
several decades, these outlying areas are located at an appreciable distance from the nearest shoreline of the
Philippine archipelago,33 such that any straight baseline loped around them from the nearest basepoint will
inevitably"departtoanappreciableextentfromthegeneralconfigurationofthearchipelago."
TheprincipalsponsorofRA9522intheSenate,SenatorMiriamDefensorSantiago,tookpainstoemphasizethe
foregoingduringtheSenatedeliberations:
What we call the Kalayaan Island Group or what the rest of the world call[] the Spratlys and the Scarborough
Shoalareoutsideourarchipelagicbaselinebecauseifweputtheminsideourbaselineswemightbeaccusedof
violating the provision of international law which states: "The drawing of such baseline shall not depart to any
appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago." So sa loob ng ating baseline, dapat
magkalapit ang mga islands. Dahil malayo ang Scarborough Shoal, hindi natin masasabing malapit sila sa atin
althoughwearestillallowedbyinternationallawtoclaimthemasourown.
Thisiscalledcontestedislandsoutsideourconfiguration.Weseethatourarchipelagoisdefinedbytheorange
line which [we] call[] archipelagic baseline. Ngayon, tingnan ninyo ang maliit na circle doon sa itaas, that is
ScarboroughShoal,itongmalakingcirclesaibaba,thatisKalayaanGrouportheSpratlys.Malayonasilasaating
archipelago kaya kung ilihis pa natin ang dating archipelagic baselines para lamang masama itong dalawang
circles,hindinasilamagkalapitatbakahindinatatanggapinngUnitedNationsbecauseoftherulethatitshould
followthenaturalconfigurationofthearchipelago.34(Emphasissupplied)
Similarly,thelengthofonebaselinethatRA3046drewexceededUNCLOSIIIslimits. Theneedtoshortenthis
baseline, and in addition, to optimize the location of basepoints using current maps, became imperative as
discussedbyrespondents:
1 a v v p h i1
[T]he amendment of the baselines law was necessary to enable the Philippines to draw the outer limits of its
maritimezonesincludingtheextendedcontinentalshelfinthemannerprovidedbyArticle47of[UNCLOSIII].As
definedbyR.A.3046,asamendedbyR.A.5446,thebaselinessufferfromsometechnicaldeficiencies,towit:
4/18
9/16/2016
G.R.No.187167
1.ThelengthofthebaselineacrossMoroGulf(fromMiddleof3RockAwashtoTongquilPoint)is140.06
nautical miles x x x. This exceeds the maximum length allowed under Article 47(2) of the [UNCLOS III],
whichstatesthat"Thelengthofsuchbaselinesshallnotexceed100nauticalmiles,exceptthatupto3per
centofthetotalnumberofbaselinesenclosinganyarchipelagomayexceedthatlength,uptoamaximum
lengthof125nauticalmiles."
2. The selection of basepoints is not optimal. At least 9 basepoints can be skipped or deleted from the
baselinessystem.Thiswillencloseanadditional2,195nauticalmilesofwater.
3.Finally,thebasepointsweredrawnfrommapsexistingin1968,andnotestablishedbygeodeticsurvey
methods. Accordingly, some of the points, particularly along the west coasts of Luzon down to Palawan
were later found to be located either inland or on water, not on lowwater line and drying reefs as
prescribedbyArticle47.35
Hence,farfromsurrenderingthePhilippinesclaimovertheKIGandtheScarboroughShoal,Congressdecision
to classify the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as "Regime[s] of Islands under the Republic of the Philippines
consistentwithArticle121"36ofUNCLOSIIImanifeststhePhilippineStatesresponsibleobservanceofitspacta
suntservandaobligationunderUNCLOSIII.UnderArticle121ofUNCLOSIII,any"naturallyformedareaofland,
surroundedbywater,whichisabovewaterathightide,"suchasportionsoftheKIG,qualifiesunderthecategory
of"regimeofislands,"whoseislandsgeneratetheirownapplicablemaritimezones.37
StatutoryClaimOverSabahunder
RA5446Retained
PetitionersargumentfortheinvalidityofRA9522foritsfailuretotextualizethePhilippinesclaimoverSabahin
North Borneo is also untenable. Section 2 of RA 5446, which RA 9522 did not repeal, keeps open the door for
drawingthebaselinesofSabah:
Section2.ThedefinitionofthebaselinesoftheterritorialseaofthePhilippineArchipelagoasprovidedinthisAct
iswithoutprejudicetothedelineationofthebaselinesoftheterritorialseaaroundtheterritoryofSabah,
situated in North Borneo, over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and
sovereignty.(Emphasissupplied)
UNCLOSIIIandRA9522not
IncompatiblewiththeConstitutions
DelineationofInternalWaters
As their final argument against the validity of RA 9522, petitioners contend that the law unconstitutionally
"converts"internalwatersintoarchipelagicwaters,hencesubjectingthesewaterstotherightofinnocentandsea
lanes passage under UNCLOS III, including overflight. Petitioners extrapolate that these passage rights
indubitably expose Philippine internal waters to nuclear and maritime pollution hazards, in violation of the
Constitution.38
WhetherreferredtoasPhilippine"internalwaters"underArticleIoftheConstitution39oras"archipelagicwaters"
underUNCLOSIII(Article49[1]),thePhilippinesexercisessovereigntyoverthebodyofwaterlyinglandwardof
thebaselines,includingtheairspaceoveritandthesubmarineareasunderneath.UNCLOSIIIaffirmsthis:
Article 49. Legal status of archipelagic waters, of the air space over archipelagic waters and of their bed and
subsoil.
1. The sovereignty of an archipelagic State extends to the waters enclosed by the archipelagic
baselinesdrawninaccordancewitharticle47,describedasarchipelagicwaters,regardlessoftheirdepth
ordistancefromthecoast.
2.This sovereignty extends to the air space over the archipelagic waters, as well as to their bed
andsubsoil,andtheresourcescontainedtherein.
xxxx
4. The regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage established in this Part shall not in other respects
affect the status of the archipelagic waters, including the sea lanes, or the exercise by the
archipelagicStateofitssovereigntyoversuchwatersandtheirairspace,bedandsubsoil,andthe
resourcescontainedtherein.(Emphasissupplied)
The fact of sovereignty, however, does not preclude the operation of municipal and international law norms
subjecting the territorial sea or archipelagic waters to necessary, if not marginal, burdens in the interest of
maintaining unimpeded, expeditious international navigation, consistent with the international law principle of
freedomofnavigation.Thus,domestically,thepoliticalbranchesofthePhilippinegovernment,inthecompetent
dischargeoftheirconstitutionalpowers,maypasslegislationdesignatingrouteswithinthearchipelagicwatersto
regulate innocent and sea lanes passage.40 Indeed, bills drawing nautical highways for sea lanes passage are
nowpendinginCongress.41
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 treatys limitations and
conditionsfortheirexercise.42Significantly,therightofinnocentpassageisacustomaryinternationallaw,43thus
automaticallyincorporatedinthecorpusofPhilippinelaw.44NomodernStatecanvalidlyinvokeitssovereigntyto
absolutelyforbidinnocentpassagethatisexercisedinaccordancewithcustomaryinternationallawwithoutrisking
retaliatorymeasuresfromtheinternationalcommunity.
The fact that for archipelagic States, their archipelagic waters are subject to both the right of innocent passage
and sea lanes passage45 does not place them in lesser footing visvis continental coastal States which are
subject, in their territorial sea, to the right of innocent passage and the right of transit passage through
internationalstraits.TheimpositionofthesepassagerightsthrougharchipelagicwatersunderUNCLOSIIIwasa
concessionbyarchipelagicStates,inexchangefortheirrighttoclaimallthewaterslandwardoftheirbaselines,
regardlessoftheirdepthordistancefromthecoast,asarchipelagicwaterssubjecttotheirterritorialsovereignty.
5/18
9/16/2016
G.R.No.187167
Moreimportantly,therecognitionofarchipelagicStatesarchipelagoandthewatersenclosedbytheirbaselines
asonecohesiveentitypreventsthetreatmentoftheirislandsasseparateislandsunderUNCLOSIII.46Separate
islands generate their own maritime zones, placing the waters between islands separated by more than 24
nauticalmilesbeyondtheStatesterritorialsovereignty,subjectingthesewaterstotherightsofotherStatesunder
UNCLOSIII.47
Petitioners invocation of nonexecutory constitutional provisions in Article II (Declaration of Principles and State
Policies)48 must also fail. Our present state of jurisprudence considers the provisions in Article II as mere
legislativeguides,which,absentenablinglegislation,"donotembodyjudiciallyenforceableconstitutionalrightsxx
x."49 Article II provisions serve as guides in formulating and interpreting implementing legislation, as well as in
interpretingexecutoryprovisionsoftheConstitution.AlthoughOposav.Factoran50treatedtherighttoahealthful
and balanced ecology under Section 16 of Article II as an exception, the present petition lacks factual basis to
substantiatetheclaimedconstitutionalviolation.Theotherprovisionspetitionerscite,relatingtotheprotectionof
marinewealth(ArticleXII,Section2,paragraph251)andsubsistencefishermen(ArticleXIII,Section752 ), are
notviolatedbyRA9522.
Infact,thedemarcationofthebaselinesenablesthePhilippinestodelimititsexclusiveeconomiczone,reserving
solely to the Philippines the exploitation of all living and nonliving resources within such zone. Such a maritime
delineation binds the international community since the delineation is in strict observance of UNCLOS III. If the
maritimedelineationiscontrarytoUNCLOSIII,theinternationalcommunitywillofcourserejectitandwillrefuse
tobeboundbyit.
UNCLOS III favors States with a long coastline like the Philippines. UNCLOS III creates a sui generis maritime
spacetheexclusiveeconomiczoneinwaterspreviouslypartofthehighseas.UNCLOSIIIgrantsnewrights
tocoastalStatestoexclusivelyexploittheresourcesfoundwithinthiszoneupto200nauticalmiles.53UNCLOS
III,however,preservesthetraditionalfreedomofnavigationofotherStatesthatattachedtothiszonebeyondthe
territorialseabeforeUNCLOSIII.
RA9522andthePhilippinesMaritimeZones
Petitionersholdtheviewthat,basedonthepermissivetextofUNCLOSIII,CongresswasnotboundtopassRA
9522.54 We have looked at the relevant provision of UNCLOS III55 and we find petitioners reading plausible.
Nevertheless,theprerogativeofchoosingthisoptionbelongstoCongress,nottothisCourt.Moreover,theluxury
of choosing this option comes at a very steep price. Absent an UNCLOS III compliant baselines law, an
archipelagicStatelikethePhilippineswillfinditselfdevoidofinternationallyacceptablebaselinesfromwherethe
breadthofitsmaritimezonesandcontinentalshelfismeasured.Thisisrecipeforatwofronteddisaster:first,it
sends an open invitation to the seafaring powers to freely enter and exploit the resources in the waters and
submarineareasaroundourarchipelagoandsecond,itweakensthecountryscaseinanyinternationaldispute
overPhilippinemaritimespace.TheseareconsequencesCongresswiselyavoided.
The enactment of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for the Philippine archipelago and adjacent areas, as
embodiedinRA9522,allowsaninternationallyrecognizeddelimitationofthebreadthofthePhilippinesmaritime
zonesandcontinentalshelf.RA9522isthereforeamostvitalsteponthepartofthePhilippinesinsafeguarding
itsmaritimezones,consistentwiththeConstitutionandournationalinterest.
WHEREFORE,weDISMISSthepetition.
SOORDERED.
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice
ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice
DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice
LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice
MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice
ROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJustice
MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice
JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice
JOSEC.MENDOZA
AssociateJustice
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJustice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
beenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt.
RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
6/18
9/16/2016
G.R.No.187167
Footnotes
1Entitled"AnActtoAmendCertainProvisionsofRepublicActNo.3046,asAmendedbyRepublicActNo.
5446,toDefinetheArchipelagicBaselinesofthePhilippines,andforOtherPurposes."
2Entitled"AnActtoDefinetheBaselinesoftheTerritorialSeaofthePhilippines."
3 The third "Whereas Clause" of RA 3046 expresses the import of treating the Philippines as an
archipelagicState:
"WHEREAS, all the waters around, between, and connecting the various islands of the Philippine
archipelago, irrespective of their width or dimensions, have always been considered as necessary
appurtenancesofthelandterritory,formingpartoftheinlandwatersofthePhilippines."
4OneofthefourconventionsframedduringthefirstUnitedNationsConventionontheLawoftheSeain
Geneva,thistreaty,excludingthePhilippines,enteredintoforceon10September1964.
5UNCLOSIIIenteredintoforceon16November1994.
6ThePhilippinessignedthetreatyon10December1982.
7Article47,paragraphs13,provide:
1.AnarchipelagicStatemaydrawstraightarchipelagicbaselinesjoiningtheoutermostpointsofthe
outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago provided that within such baselines are
includedthemainislandsandanareainwhichtheratiooftheareaofthewatertotheareaofthe
land,includingatolls,isbetween1to1and9to1.
2.Thelengthofsuchbaselinesshallnotexceed100nauticalmiles,exceptthatupto3percentof
thetotalnumberofbaselinesenclosinganyarchipelagomayexceedthatlength,uptoamaximum
lengthof125nauticalmiles.
3. The drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general
configurationofthearchipelago.(Emphasissupplied)
xxxx
8 UNCLOS III entered into force on 16 November 1994. The deadline for the filing of application is
mandatedinArticle4,AnnexII:"WhereacoastalStateintendstoestablish,inaccordancewitharticle76,
theouterlimitsofitscontinentalshelfbeyond200nauticalmiles,itshallsubmitparticularsofsuchlimitsto
the Commission along with supporting scientific and technical data as soon as possible but in any case
within10yearsoftheentryintoforceofthisConventionforthatState.ThecoastalStateshallatthesame
time give the names of any Commission members who have provided it with scientific and technical
advice."(Underscoringsupplied)
Inasubsequentmeeting,theStatespartiesagreedthatforStateswhichbecameboundbythetreaty
before 13 May 1999 (such as the Philippines) the tenyear period will be counted from that date.
Thus,RA9522,whichtookeffecton27March2009,barelymetthedeadline.
9Rollo,p.34.
10 Which provides: "The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and
watersembracedtherein,andallotherterritoriesoverwhichthePhilippineshassovereigntyorjurisdiction,
consistingofitsterrestrial,fluvial,andaerialdomains,includingitsterritorialsea,theseabed,thesubsoil,
theinsularshelves,andothersubmarineareas.Thewatersaround,between,andconnectingtheislands
of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the
Philippines."
11EnteredintobetweentheUnitesStatesandSpainon10December1898followingtheconclusionofthe
SpanishAmerican War. Under the terms of the treaty, Spain ceded to the United States "the archipelago
knownasthePhilippineIslands"lyingwithinitstechnicaldescription.
12TheTreatyofWashington,betweenSpainandtheUnitedStates(7November1900),transferringtothe
US the islands of Cagayan, Sulu, and Sibutu and the USGreat Britain Convention (2 January 1930)
demarcatingboundarylinesbetweenthePhilippinesandNorthBorneo.
13ArticleII,Section7,Section8,andSection16.
14AllegedlyinviolationofArticleXII,Section2,paragraph2andArticleXIII,Section7oftheConstitution.
15Kilosbayan,Inc.v.Morato,320Phil.171,186(1995).
16Pascualv.SecretaryofPublicWorks,110Phil.331(1960)Sanidadv.COMELEC,165Phil.303(1976).
17Francisco,Jr.v.HouseofRepresentatives,460Phil.830,899(2003)citingKilosbayan,Inc.v.Guingona,
Jr., G.R. No. 113375, 5 May 1994, 232 SCRA 110, 155156 (1995) (Feliciano, J., concurring). The two
other factors are: "the character of funds or assets involved in the controversy and a clear disregard of
constitutionalorstatutoryprohibition."Id.
18.Rollo,pp.144147.
19Seee.g.AquinoIIIv.COMELEC,G.R.No.189793,7April2010,617SCRA623(dismissingapetition
forcertiorariandprohibitionassailingtheconstitutionalityofRepublicActNo.9716,notfortheimpropriety
7/18
9/16/2016
G.R.No.187167
ofremedybutforlackofmerit)Aldabav.COMELEC,G.R.No.188078,25January2010,611SCRA137
(issuingthewritofprohibitiontodeclareunconstitutionalRepublicActNo.9591)Macalintalv.COMELEC,
453 Phil. 586 (2003) (issuing the writs of certiorari and prohibition declaring unconstitutional portions of
RepublicActNo.9189).
20 See e.g. Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, G.R. No.
180643, 25 March 2008, 549 SCRA 77 (granting a writ of certiorari against the Philippine Senate and
nullifyingtheSenatecontemptorderissuedagainstpetitioner).
21Rollo,p.31.
22 Respondents state in their Comment that petitioners theory "has not been accepted or recognized by
either the United States or Spain," the parties to the Treaty of Paris. Respondents add that "no State is
knowntohavesupportedthisproposition."Rollo,p.179.
23 UNCLOS III belongs to that larger corpus of international law of the sea, which petitioner Magallona
himself defined as "a body of treaty rules and customary norms governing the uses of the sea, the
exploitation of its resources, and the exercise of jurisdiction over maritime regimes. x x x x" (Merlin M.
Magallona,PrimerontheLawoftheSea1[1997])(Italicizationsupplied).
24FollowingArticle47(1)ofUNCLOSIIIwhichprovides:
An archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost points of the
outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago provided that within such baselines are
includedthemainislandsandanareainwhichtheratiooftheareaofthewatertotheareaofthe
land,includingatolls,isbetween1to1and9to1.(Emphasissupplied)
25UndertheUnitedNationsCharter,useofforceisnolongeravalidmeansofacquiringterritory.
26ThelastparagraphofthepreambleofUNCLOSIIIstatesthat"mattersnotregulatedbythisConvention
continuetobegovernedbytherulesandprinciplesofgeneralinternationallaw."
27Rollo,p.51.
28Id.at5152,6466.
29BasedonfiguresrespondentssubmittedintheirComment(id.at182).
30UnderArticle74.
31Seenote7.
32PresidentialDecreeNo.1596classifiestheKIGasamunicipalityofPalawan.
33KIGliesaround80nauticalmileswestofPalawanwhileScarboroughShoalisaround123nauticalwest
ofZambales.
34Journal,Senate14thCongress44thSession1416(27January2009).
35Rollo,p.159.
36Section2,RA9522.
37Article121provides:"Regimeofislands.
1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high
tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive
economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the
provisionsofthisConventionapplicabletootherlandterritory.
3.Rockswhichcannotsustainhumanhabitationoreconomiclifeoftheirownshallhavenoexclusive
economiczoneorcontinentalshelf."
38Rollo,pp.5657,6064.
39 Paragraph 2, Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution uses the term "archipelagic waters" separately
from "territorial sea." Under UNCLOS III, an archipelagic State may have internal waters such as those
enclosedbyclosinglinesacrossbaysandmouthsofrivers.SeeArticle50,UNCLOSIII.Moreover,Article8
(2)ofUNCLOSIIIprovides:"Wheretheestablishmentofastraightbaselineinaccordancewiththemethod
set forth in article 7 has the effect of enclosing as internalwaters areas which had not previously been
consideredassuch,arightofinnocentpassageasprovidedinthisConventionshallexistinthosewaters."
(Emphasissupplied)
40MandatedunderArticles52and53ofUNCLOSIII:
Article52.Rightofinnocentpassage.
1.Subjecttoarticle53andwithoutprejudicetoarticle50,shipsofallStatesenjoythe
right of innocent passage through archipelagic waters, in accordance with Part II,
section3.
2. The archipelagic State may, without discrimination in form or in fact among foreign
ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its archipelagic waters the innocent
8/18
9/16/2016
G.R.No.187167
passageofforeignshipsifsuchsuspensionisessentialfortheprotectionofitssecurity.
Such suspension shall take effect only after having been duly published. (Emphasis
supplied)
Article53.Rightofarchipelagicsealanespassage.
1.AnarchipelagicStatemaydesignatesealanesandairroutesthereabove,suitablefor
thecontinuousandexpeditiouspassageofforeignshipsandaircraftthroughoroverits
archipelagicwatersandtheadjacentterritorialsea.
2.Allshipsandaircraftenjoytherightofarchipelagicsealanespassageinsuch
sealanesandairroutes.
3. Archipelagic sea lanes passage means the exercise in accordance with this
Convention of the rights of navigation and overflight in the normal mode solely for the
purpose of continuous, expeditious and unobstructed transit between one part of the
high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an
exclusiveeconomiczone.
4.Suchsealanesandairroutesshalltraversethearchipelagicwatersandtheadjacent
territorial sea and shall include all normal passage routes used as routes for
internationalnavigationoroverflightthroughoroverarchipelagicwatersand,withinsuch
routes, so far as ships are concerned, all normal navigational channels, provided that
duplicationofroutesofsimilarconveniencebetweenthesameentryandexitpointsshall
notbenecessary.
5. Such sea lanes and air routes shall be defined by a series of continuous axis lines
from the entry points of passage routes to the exit points. Ships and aircraft in
archipelagic sea lanes passage shall not deviate more than 25 nautical miles to either
side of such axis lines during passage, provided that such ships and aircraft shall not
navigate closer to the coasts than 10 per cent of the distance between the nearest
pointsonislandsborderingthesealane.
6. An archipelagic State which designates sea lanes under this article may also
prescribe traffic separation schemes for the safe passage of ships through narrow
channelsinsuchsealanes.
7. An archipelagic State may, when circumstances require, after giving due publicity
thereto, substitute other sea lanes or traffic separation schemes for any sea lanes or
trafficseparationschemespreviouslydesignatedorprescribedbyit.
8. Such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes shall conform to generally accepted
internationalregulations.
9.Indesignatingorsubstitutingsealanesorprescribingorsubstitutingtrafficseparation
schemes, an archipelagic State shall refer proposals to the competent international
organization with a view to their adoption. The organization may adopt only such sea
lanesandtrafficseparationschemesasmaybeagreedwiththearchipelagicState,after
whichthearchipelagicStatemaydesignate,prescribeorsubstitutethem.
10.ThearchipelagicStateshallclearlyindicatetheaxisofthesealanesandthetraffic
separationschemesdesignatedorprescribedbyitonchartstowhichduepublicityshall
begiven.
11.Shipsinarchipelagicsealanespassageshallrespectapplicablesealanesandtraffic
separationschemesestablishedinaccordancewiththisarticle.
12. If an archipelagic State does not designate sea lanes or air routes, the right of
archipelagicsealanespassagemaybeexercisedthroughtheroutesnormallyusedfor
internationalnavigation.(Emphasissupplied)
41 Namely, House Bill No. 4153 and Senate Bill No. 2738, identically titled "AN ACT TO ESTABLISH THE
ARCHIPELAGICSEALANESINTHEPHILIPPINEARCHIPELAGICWATERS,PRESCRIBINGTHERIGHTS
ANDOBLIGATIONSOFFOREIGNSHIPSANDAIRCRAFTSEXERCISINGTHERIGHTOFARCHIPELAGIC
SEA LANES PASSAGE THROUGH THE ESTABLISHED ARCHIPELAGIC SEA LANES AND PROVIDING
FORTHEASSOCIATEDPROTECTIVEMEASURESTHEREIN."
42TherelevantprovisionofUNCLOSIIIprovides:
Article17.Rightofinnocentpassage.
SubjecttothisConvention,shipsofallStates,whethercoastalorlandlocked,enjoy the right
ofinnocentpassagethroughtheterritorialsea.(Emphasissupplied)
Article19.Meaningofinnocentpassage.
1.Passageisinnocentsolongasitisnotprejudicialtothepeace,goodorderorsecurityofthe
coastalState.SuchpassageshalltakeplaceinconformitywiththisConventionandwithother
rulesofinternationallaw.
2.Passageofaforeignshipshallbeconsideredtobeprejudicialtothepeace,goodorderor
securityofthecoastalStateifintheterritorialseaitengagesinanyofthefollowingactivities:
(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political
independenceofthecoastalState,orinanyothermannerinviolationoftheprinciplesof
internationallawembodiedintheCharteroftheUnitedNations
(b)anyexerciseorpracticewithweaponsofanykind
9/18
9/16/2016
G.R.No.187167
(c)anyactaimedatcollectinginformationtotheprejudiceofthedefenceorsecurityof
thecoastalState
(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal
State
(e)thelaunching,landingortakingonboardofanyaircraft
(f)thelaunching,landingortakingonboardofanymilitarydevice
(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the
customs,fiscal,immigrationorsanitarylawsandregulationsofthecoastalState
(h)anyactofwillfulandseriouspollutioncontrarytothisConvention
(i)anyfishingactivities
(j)thecarryingoutofresearchorsurveyactivities
(k)anyactaimedatinterferingwithanysystemsofcommunicationoranyotherfacilities
orinstallationsofthecoastalState
(l)anyotheractivitynothavingadirectbearingonpassage
Article21.LawsandregulationsofthecoastalStaterelatingtoinnocentpassage.
1.ThecoastalStatemayadoptlawsandregulations,inconformitywiththeprovisionsofthis
Convention and other rules of international law, relating to innocent passage through the
territorialsea,inrespectofalloranyofthefollowing:
(a)thesafetyofnavigationandtheregulationofmaritimetraffic
(b)theprotectionofnavigationalaidsandfacilitiesandotherfacilitiesorinstallations
(c)theprotectionofcablesandpipelines
(d)theconservationofthelivingresourcesofthesea
(e) the prevention of infringement of the fisheries laws and regulations of the coastal
State
(f)thepreservationoftheenvironmentofthecoastalStateandtheprevention,reduction
andcontrolofpollutionthereof
(g)marinescientificresearchandhydrographicsurveys
(h) the prevention of infringement of the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws
andregulationsofthecoastalState.
2.Suchlawsandregulationsshallnotapplytothedesign,construction,manningorequipment
of foreign ships unless they are giving effect to generally accepted international rules or
standards.
3.ThecoastalStateshallgiveduepublicitytoallsuchlawsandregulations.
4. Foreign ships exercising the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea shall
complywithallsuchlawsandregulationsandallgenerallyacceptedinternationalregulations
relatingtothepreventionofcollisionsatsea.
43Therightofinnocentpassagethroughtheterritorialseaappliesonlytoshipsandnottoaircrafts(Article
17,UNCLOSIII).TherightofinnocentpassageofaircraftsthroughthesovereignterritoryofaStatearises
only under an international agreement. In contrast, the right of innocent passage through archipelagic
watersappliestobothshipsandaircrafts(Article53(12),UNCLOSIII).
44 Following Section 2, Article II of the Constitution: "Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an
instrumentofnationalpolicy,adoptsthegenerallyacceptedprinciplesofinternationallawaspartof
thelawofthelandandadherestothepolicyofpeace,equality,justice,freedom,cooperation,andamity
withallnations."(Emphasissupplied)
45"Archipelagicsealanespassageisessentiallythesameastransitpassagethroughstraits"towhichthe
territorialseaofcontinentalcoastalStateissubject.R.R.ChurabillandA.V.Lowe,TheLawoftheSea127
(1999).
46FallingunderArticle121ofUNCLOSIII(seenote37).
47Withintheexclusiveeconomiczone,otherStatesenjoythefollowingrightsunderUNCLOSIII:
Article58.RightsanddutiesofotherStatesintheexclusiveeconomiczone.
1. In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or landlocked, enjoy,
subjecttotherelevantprovisionsofthisConvention,thefreedomsreferredtoinarticle
87ofnavigationandoverflightandofthelayingofsubmarinecablesandpipelines,and
other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those
associatedwiththeoperationofships,aircraftandsubmarinecablesandpipelines,and
compatiblewiththeotherprovisionsofthisConvention.
10/18
9/16/2016
G.R.No.187167
2.Articles88to115andotherpertinentrulesofinternationallawapplytotheexclusive
economiczoneinsofarastheyarenotincompatiblewiththisPart.
xxxx
Beyondtheexclusiveeconomiczone,otherStatesenjoythefreedomofthehighseas,defined
underUNCLOSIIIasfollows:
Article87.Freedomofthehighseas.
1.ThehighseasareopentoallStates,whethercoastalorlandlocked.Freedomofthe
highseasisexercisedundertheconditionslaiddownbythisConventionandbyother
rulesofinternationallaw.Itcomprises,interalia,bothforcoastalandlandlockedStates:
(a)freedomofnavigation
(b)freedomofoverflight
(c)freedomtolaysubmarinecablesandpipelines,subjecttoPartVI
(d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under
internationallaw,subjecttoPartVI
(e)freedomoffishing,subjecttotheconditionslaiddowninsection2
(f)freedomofscientificresearch,subjecttoPartsVIandXIII.
2.ThesefreedomsshallbeexercisedbyallStateswithdueregardfortheinterestsof
otherStatesintheirexerciseofthefreedomofthehighseas,andalsowithdueregard
fortherightsunderthisConventionwithrespecttoactivitiesintheArea.
48Seenote13.
49Kilosbayan,Inc.v.Morato,316Phil.652,698(1995)Taadav.Angara,338Phil.546,580581(1997).
50G.R.No.101083,30July1993,224SCRA792.
51"TheStateshallprotectthenationsmarinewealthinitsarchipelagicwaters,territorialsea,andexclusive
economiczone,andreserveitsuseandenjoymentexclusivelytoFilipinocitizens."
52 "The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities, to the
preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide
support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production,
and marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such
resources.Theprotectionshallextendtooffshorefishinggroundsofsubsistencefishermenagainstforeign
intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing
resources."
53 This can extend up to 350 nautical miles if the coastal State proves its right to claim an extended
continentalshelf(seeUNCLOSIII,Article76,paragraphs4(a),5and6,inrelationtoArticle77).
54Rollo,pp.6769.
55 Article 47 (1) provides: "An archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the
outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago provided that within such
baselinesareincludedthemainislandsandanareainwhichtheratiooftheareaofthewatertothearea
oftheland,includingatolls,isbetween1to1and9to1."(Emphasissupplied)intheArea.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation
CONCURRINGOPINION
VELASCO,JR.,J.:
Iconcurwiththeponenciaandaddthefollowingcomplementaryargumentsandobservations:
A statute is a product of hard work and earnest studies of Congress to ensure that no constitutional provision,
prescriptionorconceptisinfringed.Withal,beforealaw,inanappropriateproceeding,isnullified,anunequivocal
breachof,oraclearconflictwith,theConstitutionmustbedemonstratedinsuchawayastoleavenodoubtin
themindoftheCourt.1Inthesametoken,ifalawrunsdirectlyafouloftheConstitution,theCourtsdutyonthe
matter should be clear and simple: Pursuant to its judicial power and as final arbiter of all legal questions,2 it
should strike such law down, however laudable its purpose/s might be and regardless of the deleterious effect
suchactionmaycarryinitswake.
Challenged in these proceedings is the constitutionality of Republic Act (RA 9522) entitled "An Act to Amend
Certain Provisions of [RA] 3046, as Amended by [RA] 5446 to Define the Archipelagic Baselines Of The
PhilippinesandforOtherPurposes."Forperspective,RA3046,"AnActtoDefinetheBaselinesoftheTerritorial
SeaofthePhilippines,wasenactedin1961tocomplywiththeUnitedNationsConventionontheLawoftheSea
(UNCLOS)I.Eightyearslater,RA5446wasenactedtoamendtypographicalerrorsrelatingtocoordinatesinRA
3046.ThelatterlawalsoaddedaprovisionassertingPhilippinesovereigntyoverSabah.
As its title suggests, RA 9522 delineates archipelagic baselines of the country, amending in the process the old
baselineslaw,RA3046.EverybodyisagreedthatRA9522wasenactedinresponsetothecountryscommitment
toconformtosome1982LawoftheSeaConvention(LOSC)orUNCLOSIIIprovisionstodefinenewarchipelagic
11/18
9/16/2016
G.R.No.187167
baselines through legislation, the Philippines having signed3 and eventually ratified4 this multilateral treaty. The
CourtcantakejudicialnoticethatRA9522wasregisteredanddepositedwiththeUNonApril4,2009.
As indicated in its Preamble,5 1982 LOSC aims, among other things, to establish, with due regard for the
sovereigntyofallStates,"alegalorderfortheseasandoceanswhichwillfacilitateinternationalcommunication,
andwillpromotethepeacefulusesoftheseasandoceans."Oneofthemeasurestoattaintheorderadvertedto
istohavearuleonbaselines.OfparticularrelevancetothePhilippines,asanarchipelagicstate,isArticle47of
UNCLOSIIIwhichdealswithbaselines:
1. An archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost points of the
outermostislandsanddryingreefsofthearchipelagoprovidedthatwithinsuchbaselinesareincludedthe
mainislandsandanareainwhichtheratiooftheareaofthewatertotheareaoftheland,includingatolls,
isbetween1to1and9to1.
2.Thelengthofsuchbaselineshallnotexceed100nauticalmiles,exceptthatupto3percentofthetotal
number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length, up to a maximum length of 125
nauticalmiles.
3.Thedrawingofsuchbaselinesshallnotdeparttoanyappreciableextentfromthegeneralconfiguration
ofthearchipelago.
xxxx
9. The archipelagic State shall give due publicity to such charts or lists of geographical coordinates and
shalldepositacopyofeachsuchchartorlistwiththeSecretaryGeneraloftheUnitedNations.6(Emphasis
added.)
To obviate, however, the possibility that certain UNCLOS III baseline provisions would, in their implementation,
undermineitssovereignand/orjurisdictionalinterestsoverwhatitconsidersitsterritory,7thePhilippines,whenit
signedUNCLOSIIIonDecember10,1982,madethefollowing"Declaration"tosaidtreaty:
The Government of the Republic of the Philippines [GRP] hereby manifests that in signing the 1982 United
NationsConventionontheLawoftheSea,itdoessowiththeunderstandingsembodiedinthisdeclaration,made
undertheprovisionsofArticle310oftheConvention,towit:
ThesigningoftheConventionbythe[GRP]shallnotinanymannerimpairorprejudicethesovereignrightsofthe
[RP]underandarisingfromtheConstitutionofthePhilippines
Suchsigningshallnotinanymanneraffectthesovereignrightsofthe[RP]assuccessoroftheUnitedStatesof
America[USA],underandarisingoutoftheTreatyofParisbetweenSpainandtheUnitedStatesofAmericaof
December10,1898,andtheTreatyofWashingtonbetweenthe[USA]andGreatBritainofJanuary2,1930
xxxx
Suchsigningshallnotinanymannerimpairorprejudicethesovereigntyofthe[RP]overanyterritoryoverwhich
itexercisessovereignauthority,suchastheKalayaanIslands,andthewatersappurtenantthereto
TheConventionshallnotbeconstruedasamendinginanymanneranypertinentlawsandPresidentialDecrees
orProclamationsoftheRepublicofthePhilippines.The[GRP]maintainsandreservestherightandauthorityto
make any amendments to such laws, decrees or proclamations pursuant to the provisions of the Philippine
Constitution
The provisions of the Convention on archipelagic passage through sea lanes do not nullify or impair the
sovereignty of the Philippines as an archipelagic state over the sea lanes and do not deprive it of authority to
enactlegislationtoprotectitssovereigntyindependenceandsecurity
The concept of archipelagic waters is similar to the concept of internal waters under the Constitution of the
Philippines,andremovesstraitsconnectingthesewaterswiththeeconomiczoneorhighseafromtherightsof
foreignvesselstotransitpassageforinternationalnavigation.8(Emphasisadded.)
Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of RA 9522 on the principal ground that the law violates Section 1,
ArticleIofthe1987Constitutiononnationalterritorywhichstates:
Section 1. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced
therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its
terrestrial,fluvialandaerialdomains,includingitsterritorialsea,theseabed,thesubsoil,theinsularshelves,and
othersubmarineareas.Thewatersaround,between,andconnectingtheislandsofthearchipelago,regardlessof
theirbreadthanddimensions,formpartoftheinternalwatersofthePhilippines.(Emphasissupplied.)
AccordingtoFr.JoaquinBernas,S.J.,himselfamemberofthe1986ConstitutionalCommissionwhichdraftedthe
1987 Constitution, the aforequoted Section 1 on national territory was "in substance a copy of its 1973
counterpart."9Art.Iofthe1973Constitutionreads:
Section 1. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced
therein, and all other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title, including the territorial
sea, the air space, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago,
regardlessoftheirbreadthanddimensions,formpartoftheinternalwatersofthePhilippines.(Emphasisadded.)
As may be noted both constitutions speak of the "Philippine archipelago," and, via the last sentence of their
respectiveprovisions,assertthecountrysadherencetothe"archipelagicprinciple."Bothconstitutionsdividethe
national territory into two main groups: (1) the Philippine archipelago and (2) other territories belonging to the
Philippines. So what or where is Philippine archipelago contemplated in the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions then?
Fr.Bernasanswerstheposerinthefollowingwise:
ArticleIofthe1987ConstitutioncannotbefullyunderstoodwithoutreferencetoArticleIofthe1973Constitution.
xxx
12/18
9/16/2016
G.R.No.187167
xxxx
x x x To understand [the meaning of national territory as comprising the Philippine archipelago], one must look
intotheevolutionof[Art.Iofthe1973Constitution]fromitsfirstdrafttoitsfinalform.
Section1ofthefirstdraftsubmittedbytheCommitteeonNationalTerritoryalmostliterallyreproducedArticleIof
the1935Constitutionxxx.Unlikethe1935version,however,thedraftdesignatedthePhilippinesnotsimplyas
thePhilippinesbutas"thePhilippinearchipelago.10Inresponsetothecriticismthatthedefinitionwascolonialin
tone x x x, the second draft further designated the Philippine archipelago, as the historic home of the Filipino
peoplefromitsbeginning.11
Afterdebatesxxx,theCommitteereportedoutafinaldraft,whichbecametheinitiallyapprovedversion:"The
national territory consists of the Philippine archipelago which is the ancestral home of the Filipino people and
whichiscomposedofalltheislandsandwatersembracedtherein"
What was the intent behind the designation of the Philippines as an "archipelago"? x x x Asked by Delegate
RoselllerLim(Zamboanga)wherethisarchipelagowas,CommitteeChairmanQuinteroansweredthatitwasthe
areadelineatedintheTreatyofParis.HesaidthatobjectionstothecolonialimplicationofmentioningtheTreaty
ofPariswasresponsiblefortheomissionoftheexpressmentionoftheTreatyofParis.
ReportNo.01oftheCommitteeonNationalTerritoryhadinfactbeenexplicitinitsdelineationoftheexpanseof
thisarchipelago.Itsaid:
Now if we plot on a map the boundaries of this archipelago as set forth in the Treaty of Paris, a huge or giant
rectanglewillemerge,measuringabout600milesinwidthand1,200milesinlength.Insidethisgiantrectangle
arethe7,100islandscomprisingthePhilippineIslands.FromtheeastcoastofLuzontotheeasternboundaryof
thishugerectangleinthePacificOcean,thereisadistanceofover300miles.FromthewestcoastofLuzonto
thewesternboundaryofthisgiantrectangleintheChinasea,thereisadistanceofover150miles.
Whenthe[US]GovernmentenactedtheJonesLaw,theHareHawesCuttingLawandtheTydingsMcDuffieLaw,
itinrealityannouncedtothewholeworldthatitwasturningovertotheGovernmentofthePhilippineIslandsan
archipelago(thatisabigbodyofwaterstuddedwithislands),theboundariesofwhicharchipelagoaresetforthin
Article III of the Treaty of Paris. It also announced to the whole world that the waters inside the giant rectangle
belongtothePhilippinesthattheyarenotpartofthehighseas.
When Spain signed the Treaty of Paris, in effect she announced to the whole world that she was ceding to the
[US]thePhilippinearchipelagoxxx,thatthisarchipelagowasboundedbylinesspecifiedinthetreaty,andthat
thearchipelagoconsistedofthehugebodyofwaterinsidetheboundariesandtheislandsinsidesaidboundaries.
ThedelineationoftheextentofthePhilippinearchipelagomustbeunderstoodinthecontextofthemodifications
made both by the Treaty of Washington of November 7, 1900, and of the Convention of January 12, 1930, in
ordertoincludetheIslandsofSibutuandofCagayandeSuluandtheTurtleandMangseeIslands.However,xx
x the definition of the archipelago did not include the Batanes group[, being] outside the boundaries of the
Philippine archipelago as set forth in the Treaty of Paris. In literal terms, therefore, the Batanes islands would
comenotunderthePhilippinearchipelagobutunderthephrase"allotherterritoriesbelongtothePhilippines."12
xxx(Emphasisadded.)
Fromtheforegoingdiscussionsonthedeliberationsoftheprovisionsonnationalterritory,thefollowingconclusion
is abundantly evident: the "Philippine archipelago" of the 1987 Constitution is the same "Philippine archipelago"
referredtoinArt.Iofthe1973ConstitutionwhichinturncorrespondstotheterritorydefinedanddescribedinArt.
1ofthe1935Constitution,13whichpertinentlyreads:
Section1.ThePhilippinescomprisesalltheterritorycededtothe[US]bytheTreatyofParisconcludedbetween
the [US] and Spain on the tenth day of December, [1898], the limits of which are set forth in Article III of said
treaty, together with all the islands in the treaty concluded at Washington, between the [US] and Spain on
November[7,1900]andthetreatyconcludedbetweenthe[US]andGreatBritainxxx.
While the Treaty of Paris is not mentioned in both the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, its mention, so the
nationalisticargumentswent,being"arepulsivereminderoftheindignityofourcolonialpast,"14itisatonceclear
thattheTreatyofParishadbeenutilizedaskeyreferencepointinthedefinitionofthenationalterritory.
On the other hand, the phrase "all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction,"
foundinthe1987Constitution,whichreplacedthedeletedphrase"allterritoriesbelongingtothePhilippinesby
historic right or legal title"15 found in the 1973 Constitution, covers areas linked to the Philippines with varying
degrees of certainty.16 Under this category would fall: (a) Batanes, which then 1971 Convention Delegate
EduardoQuintero,ChairpersonoftheCommitteeonNationalTerritory,describedasbelongingtothePhilippines
in all its history17 (b) Sabah, over which a formal claim had been filed, the socalled Freedomland (a group of
islands known as Spratleys) and (c) any other territory, over which the Philippines had filed a claim or might
acquireinthefuturethroughrecognizedmodesofacquiringterritory.18Asanauthorputsit,thedeletionofthe
words"byhistoricrightorlegaltitle"isnottobeinterpretedasprecludingfutureclaimstoareasoverwhichthe
Philippinesdoesnotactuallyexercisesovereignty.19
Upon the foregoing perspective and going into specifics, petitioners would have RA 9522 stricken down as
unconstitutional for the reasons that it deprives the Philippines of what has long been established as part and
parcelofitsnationalterritoryundertheTreatyofParis,assupplementedbytheaforementioned1900Treatyof
Washington or, to the same effect, revises the definition on or dismembers the national territory. Pushing their
case, petitioners argue that the constitutional definition of the national territory cannot be remade by a mere
statutory act.20 As another point, petitioners parlay the theory that the law in question virtually weakens the
countrys territorial claim over the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and Sabah, both of which come under the
categoryof"otherterritories"overthePhilippineshassovereigntyorjurisdiction.Petitionerswouldalsoassailthe
lawongroundsrelatedtoterritorialsealanesandinternalwaterstransitpassagebyforeignvessels.
It is remarkable that petitioners could seriously argue that RA 9522 revises the Philippine territory as defined in
theConstitution,orworse,constitutesanabdicationofterritory.
13/18
9/16/2016
G.R.No.187167
It cannot be overemphasized enough that RA 9522 is a baseline law enacted to implement the 1982 LOSC,
whichinturnseekstoregulateandestablishanorderlyseauserightsovermaritimezones.Orastheponencia
aptlystates,RA9522aimstomarkoutspecificbasepointsalongthePhilippinecoastfromwhichbaselinesare
drawn to serve as starting points to measure the breadth of the territorial sea and maritime zones.21 The
baselinesaresettodefinethesealimitsofastate,beitcoastalorarchipelagic,undertheUNCLOSIIIregime.By
settingthebaselinestoconformtotheprescriptionsofUNCLOSIII,RA9522didnotsurrenderanyterritory,as
petitioners would insist at every turn, for UNCLOS III is concerned with setting order in the exercise of seause
rights,nottheacquisitionorcessionofterritory.AndletitbenotedthatunderUNCLOSIII,itisrecognizedthat
countriescanhaveterritoriesoutsidetheirbaselines.Farfromhavingadismemberingeffect,then,RA9522has
in a limited but real sense increased the countrys maritime boundaries. How this situation comes about was
extensively explained by then Minister of State and head of the Philippine delegation to UNCLOS III Arturo
Tolentinoinhissponsorshipspeech22ontheconcurrenceoftheBatasangPambansawiththeLOSC:
xxxx
Then, we should consider, Mr. Speaker, that under the archipelagic principle, the whole area inside the
archipelagicbaselinesbecomeaunifiedwholeandthewatersbetweentheislandswhichformerlywereregarded
by international law as open or international seas now become waters under the complete sovereignty of the
Filipino people. In this light there would be an additional area of 141,800 square nautical miles inside the base
linesthatwillberecognizedbyinternationallawasPhilippinewaters,equivalentto45,351,050hectares.These
gainsinthewatersofthesea,45,211,225hectaresoutsidethebaselinesand141,531,000hectaresinsidethe
baselines,total93,742,275hectaresasatotalgaininthewatersunderPhilippinejurisdiction.
Fromapragmaticstandpoint,therefore,theadvantagetoourcountryandpeoplenotonlyintermsofthelegal
unification of land and waters of the archipelago in the light of international law, but also in terms of the vast
resourcesthatwillcomeunderthedominionandjurisdictionoftheRepublicofthePhilippines,yourCommitteeon
ForeignAffairsdoesnothesitatetoaskthisaugustBodytoconcurintheConventionbyapprovingtheresolution
beforeustoday.
MayIsayitwastheunanimousviewofdelegationsattheConferenceontheLawoftheSeathatarchipelagos
areamongthebiggestgainersorbeneficiariesundertheConventionontheLawoftheSea.
Lestitbeoverlooked,theconstitutionalprovisiononnationalterritory,ascouched,isbroadenoughtoencompass
RA 9522s definition of the archipelagic baselines. To reiterate, the laying down of baselines is not a mode of
acquiring or asserting ownership a territory over which a state exercises sovereignty. They are drawn for the
purposeofdefiningorestablishingthemaritimeareasoverwhichastatecanexercisesovereignrights.Baselines
areusedforfixingstartingpointfromwhichtheterritorialbeltismeasuredseawardsorfromwhichtheadjacent
maritimewatersaremeasured.Thus,theterritorialsea,amarginalbeltofmaritimewaters,ismeasuredfromthe
baselines extending twelve (12) nautical miles outward.23 Similarly, Art. 57 of the 1982 LOSC provides that the
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) "shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the
breadthoftheterritorialseaismeasured."24MostimportanttonoteisthatthebaselinesindicatedunderRA9522
arederivedfromArt.47ofthe1982LOSCwhichwasearlierquoted.
Sincethe1987ConstitutionsdefinitionofnationalterritorydoesnotdelimitwherethePhilippinesbaselinesare
located, it is up to the political branches of the government to supply the deficiency. Through Congress, the
Philippines has taken an official position regarding its baselines to the international community through RA
3046,25asamendedbyRA544626andRA9522.WhenthePhilippinesdepositedacopyofRA9522withtheUN
SecretaryGeneral,weeffectivelycompliedingoodfaithwithourobligationunderthe1982LOSC.Adeclaration
bytheCourtoftheconstitutionalityofthelawwillcompletethebonafidesofthePhilippinesvisavisthelawofthe
seatreaty.
It may be that baseline provisions of UNCLOS III, if strictly implemented, may have an imposing impact on the
signatory states jurisdiction and even their sovereignty. But this actuality, without more, can hardly provide a
justifyingdimensiontonullifythecomplyingRA9522.AsheldbytheCourtinBayanMunav.Romulo,27treaties
and international agreements have a limiting effect on the otherwise encompassing and absolute nature of
sovereignty.Bytheirvoluntaryacts,statesmaydecidetosurrenderorwaivesomeaspectsoftheirsovereignty.
The usual underlying consideration in this partial surrender may be the greater benefits derived from a pact or
reciprocal undertaking. On the premise that the Philippines has adopted the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land, a portion of sovereignty may be waived without violating the
Constitution.
As a signatory of the 1982 LOSC, it behooves the Philippines to honor its obligations thereunder. Pacta sunt
servanda,abasicinternationallawpostulatethat"everytreatyinforceisbindinguponthepartiestoitandmust
be performed by them in good faith."28 The exacting imperative of this principle is such that a state may not
invokeprovisionsinitsconstitutionoritslawsasanexcuseforfailuretoperformthisduty."29
TheallegationthatSabahhasbeensurrenderedbyvirtueofRA9522,whichsupposedlyrepealedthehereunder
provisionofRA5446,islikewiseunfounded.
Section2.ThedefinitionofthebaselinesoftheterritorialseaofthePhilippineArchipelagoasprovidedinthisAct
iswithoutprejudicetothedelineationofthebaselinesoftheterritorialseaaroundtheterritoryofSabah,situated
inNorthBorneo,overwhichtheRepublicofthePhilippineshasacquireddominionandsovereignty.
There is nothing in RA 9522 indicating a clear intention to supersede Sec. 2 of RA 5446. Petitioners obviously
have read too much into RA 9522s amendment on the baselines found in an older law. Aside from setting the
countrys baselines, RA 9522 is, in its Sec. 3, quite explicit in its reiteration of the Philippines exercise of
sovereignty,thus:
Section3.ThisActaffirmsthattheRepublicofthePhilippineshasdominion,sovereigntyandjurisdictionoverall
portions of the national territory as defined in the Constitution and by provisions of applicable laws including,
withoutlimitation,RepublicActNo.7160,otherwiseknownastheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991,asamended.
To emphasize, baselines are used to measure the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the
exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. Having KIG and the Scarborough Shoal outside Philippine
baselines will not diminish our sovereignty over these areas. Art. 46 of UNCLOS III in fact recognizes that an
14/18
9/16/2016
G.R.No.187167
archipelagic state, such as the Philippines, is a state "constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and may
include other islands." (emphasis supplied) The "other islands" referred to in Art. 46 are doubtless islands not
formingpartofthearchipelagobutareneverthelesspartofthestatesterritory.
The Philippines sovereignty over KIG and Scarborough Shoal are, thus, in no way diminished. Consider: Other
countriessuchasMalaysiaandtheUnitedStateshaveterritoriesthatarelocatedoutsideitsbaselines,yetthere
isnoterritorialquestionarisingfromthisarrangement.30
It may well be apropos to point out that the Senate version of the baseline bill that would become RA 9522
containedthefollowingexplanatorynote:Thelaw"reiteratesoursovereigntyovertheKalayaanGroupofIslands
declaredaspartofthePhilippineterritoryunderPresidentialDecreeNo.1596.AspartofthePhilippineterritory,
theyshallbeconsideredasaregimeofislandsunderArticle121oftheConvention."31Thus,insteadofbeingin
the nature of a "treasonous surrender" that petitioners have described it to be, RA 9522 even harmonizes our
baselinelawswithourinternationalagreements,withoutlimitingourterritorytothoseconfinedwithinthecountrys
baselines.
Contrary to petitioners contention, the classification of KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as falling under the
Philippinesregimeofislandsisnotconstitutionallyobjectionable.Suchaclassificationservesascompliancewith
LOSC and the Philippines assertion of sovereignty over KIG and Scarborough Shoal. In setting the baseline in
KIGandScarboroughShoal,RA9522statesthattheseareareas"overwhichthePhilippineslikewiseexercises
sovereignty and jurisdiction." It is, thus, not correct for petitioners to claim that the Philippines has lost 15,000
squarenauticalmilesofterritorialwatersuponmakingthisclassification.Having15,000squarenauticalmilesof
Philippine waters outside of our baselines, to reiterate, does not translate to a surrender of these waters. The
Philippines maintains its assertion of ownership over territories outside of its baselines. Even China views RA
9522asanassertionofownership,asseeninitsProtest32filedwiththeUNSecretaryGeneraluponthedeposit
ofRA9522.
We take judicial notice of the effective occupation of KIG by the Philippines. Petitioners even point out that
nationalandlocalelectionsareregularlyheldthere.TheclassificationofKIGasundera"regimeofislands"does
notinanymanneraffectthePhilippinesconsistentpositionwithregardtosovereigntyoverKIG.Itdoesnotaffect
the Philippines other acts of ownership such as occupation or amend Presidential Decree No. 1596, which
declaredKIGasamunicipalityofPalawan.
The fact that the baselines of KIG and Scarborough Shoal have yet to be defined would not detract to the
constitutionality of the law in question. The resolution of the problem lies with the political departments of the
government.
Alltold,theconcernsraisedbythepetitionersaboutthediminutionorthevirtualdismembermentofthePhilippine
territorybytheenactmentofRA9522are,tome,notwellgrounded.Torepeat,UNCLOSIIIpertainstoalawon
the seas, not territory. As part of its Preamble,33 LOSC recognizes "the desirability of establishing through this
Convention,withdueregardforthesovereigntyofallStates,alegalorderfortheseasandoceansxxx."
ThisbringsmetothematteroftransitpassageofforeignvesselsthroughPhilippinewaters.
Aproposthereto,petitionersallegethatRA9522violatesthenuclearweaponsfreepolicyunderSec.8,inrelation
to Sec. 16, Art. II of the Constitution, and exposes the Philippines to marine pollution hazards, since under the
LOSC the Philippines supposedly must give to ships of all states the right of innocent passage and the right of
archipelagicsealanepassage.
The adverted Sec. 8, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution declares the adoption and pursuit by the Philippines of "a
policyoffreedomfromnuclearweaponsinitsterritory."Ontheotherhand,thesucceedingSec.l6underscores
theStatesfirmcommitment"toprotectandadvancetherightofthepeopletoabalancedandhealthfulecologyin
accordwiththerhythmandharmonyofnature."Followingtheallegationsofpetitioners,thesetwinprovisionswill
supposedly be violated inasmuch as RA 9522 accedes to the right of innocent passage and the right of
archipelagic sealane passage provided under the LOSC. Therefore, ships of all nationsbe they nuclear
carryingwarshipsorneutralcommercialvesselstransportinggoodscanasserttherighttotraversethewaters
withinourislands.
AcursoryreadingofRA9522wouldbeliepetitionersposture.Incontext,RA9522simplyseekstoconformtoour
international agreement on the setting of baselines and provides nothing about the designation of archipelagic
sealanepassageortheregulationofinnocentpassagewithinourwaters.Again,petitionershavereadintothe
amendatoryRA9522somethingnotintended.
Indeed, the 1982 LOSC enumerates the rights and obligations of archipelagic partystates in terms of transit
underArts.51to53,whichareexplainedbelow:
Tosafeguard,inexplicitterms,thegeneralbalancestruckby[Articles51and52]betweentheneedforpassage
through the area (other than straits used for international navigation) and the archipelagic states need for
security,Article53gavethearchipelagicstatetherighttoregulatewhereandhowshipsandaircraftpassthrough
its territory by designating specific sea lanes. Rights of passage through these archipelagic sea lanes are
regardedasthoseoftransitpassage:
(1)AnarchipelagicStatemaydesignatesealanesandairroutesthereabove,suitableforsafe,continuous
and expeditious passage of foreign ships and aircraft through or over its archipelagic waters and the
adjacentterritorialsea.
(2)Allshipsandaircraftenjoytherightofarchipelagicsealanespassageinsuchsealanesandairroutes.
(3)ArchipelagicsealanespassageistheexerciseinaccordancewiththepresentConventionoftherights
of navigation and overflight in the normal mode solely for the purpose of continuous, expeditious and
unobstructedtransitbetweenonepartofthehighseasoranexclusiveeconomiczoneandanotherpartof
thehighseasoranexclusiveeconomiczone.34
Butowingtothegeographicstructureandphysicalfeaturesofthecountry,i.e.,whereitis"essentiallyabodyof
water studded with islands, rather than islands with water around them,"35 the Philippines has consistently
maintained the conceptual unity of land and water as a necessary element for territorial integrity,36 national
15/18
9/16/2016
G.R.No.187167
security(whichmaybecompromisedbythepresenceofwarshipsandsurveillanceshipsonwatersbetweenthe
islands),37 and the preservation of its maritime resources. As succinctly explained by Minister Arturo Tolentino,
the essence of the archipelagic concept is "the dominion and sovereignty of the archipelagic State within its
baselines,whichweresodrawnastopreservetheterritorialintegrityofthearchipelagobytheinseparableunity
of the land and water domain."38 Indonesia, like the Philippines, in terms of geographic reality, has expressed
agreementwiththisinterpretationofthearchipelagicconcept.Soitwasthatin1957,theIndonesianGovernment
issuedtheDjuandaDeclaration,thereinstating:
[H]istorically, the Indonesian archipelago has been an entity since time immemorial. In view of the territorial
entirety and of preserving the wealth of the Indonesian state, it is deemed necessary to consider all waters
betweentheislandsandentireentity.
1 a v v p h i1
xxxOnthegroundoftheaboveconsiderations,theGovernmentstatesthatallwatersaround,between
andconnecting,theislandsorpartsofislandsbelongingtotheIndonesianarchipelagoirrespectiveoftheir
width or dimension are natural appurtenances of its land territory and therefore an integral part of the
inlandornationalwaterssubjecttotheabsolutesovereigntyofIndonesia.39(Emphasissupplied.)
Hence,thePhilippinesmaintainsthesuigenerischaracterofourarchipelagicwatersasequivalenttothe
internal waters of continental coastal states. In other words, the landward waters embraced within the
baselines determined by RA 9522, i.e., all waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the
Philippines.40 Accordingly, such waters are not covered by the jurisdiction of the LOSC and cannot be
subjected to the rights granted to foreign states in archipelagic waters, e.g., the right of innocent
passage,41whichisallowedonlyintheterritorialseas,orthatareaoftheoceancomprising12milesfrom
the baselines of our archipelago archipelagic sealane passage42 over flight43 and traditional fishing
rights.44
Ourpositionthatallwaterswithinourbaselinesareinternalwaters,whichareoutsidethejurisdictionofthe
1982LOSC,45 was abundantly made clear by the Philippine Declaration at the time of the signing of the
LOSConDecember10,1982.Toreiterate,paragraphs5,6and7oftheDeclarationstate:
5.TheConventionshallnotbeconstruedasamendinginanymanneranypertinentlawsandPresidential
decreesofProclamationoftherepublicofthePhilippinestheGovernmentxxxmaintainsandreservesthe
right and authority to make any amendments to such laws, decrees or proclamations pursuant to the
provisionsofthePhilippineConstitution
6.TheprovisionsoftheConventiononarchipelagicpassagethroughsealanesdonotnullifyorimpairthe
sovereigntyofthePhilippinesasanarchipelagicStateoverthesealanesanddonotdepriveitofauthority
toenactlegislationtoprotectitssovereignty,independenceandsecurity
7.TheconceptofarchipelagicwatersissimilartotheconceptofinternalwatersundertheConstitutionof
the Philippines and removes straits connecting this water with the economic zone or high seas from the
rightsofforeignvesselstotransitpassageforinternationalnavigation.(Emphasissupplied.)46
More importantly, by the ratification of the 1987 Constitution on February 2, 1987, the integrity of the Philippine
state as comprising both water and land was strengthened by the proviso in its first article, viz: "The waters
around, between, and connecting the islands of the [Philippine] archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
dimensions,formpartoftheinternalwatersofthePhilippines.(emphasissupplied)
Ineffect,contrarytopetitionersallegations,thePhilippinesratificationofthe1982LOSCdidnotmatteroffactly
open our internal waters to passage by foreign ships, either in the concept of innocent passage or archipelagic
sealanepassage,inexchangefortheinternationalcommunitysrecognitionofthePhilippinesasanarchipelagic
state.TheFilipinopeople,byratifyingthe1987Constitution,veritablyrejectedthequidproquopetitionerstakeas
beingsubsumedinthattreaty.
Harmonized with the Declaration and the Constitution, the designation of baselines made in RA 9522 likewise
designatesourinternalwaters,throughwhichpassagebyforeignshipsisnotaright,butmaybegrantedbythe
Philippinestoforeignstatesbutonlyasadissolvableprivilege.
Inviewoftheforegoing,IvotetoDISMISSthePetition.
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
Footnotes
1LeagueofCitiesofthePhil.v.COMELEC,G.R.No.176951,December21,2009,608SCRA636.
2 Under Art. VIII, Sec. 5 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is empowered to review, revise, reverse,
modify,oraffirmonappealorcertiorariasthelawortheRulesofCourtmayprovide,finaljudgmentsand
orders of lower courts in: all cases in which the Constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or
executiveagreement,law,presidentialdecree,proclamation,order,instruction,ordinance,orregulationis
inquestion.(Emphasissupplied.)
3December10,1982.
4May8,1984.
5Availableon<http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm>(visitedJuly
28,2011).
6UNCLOS,Art.47,December10,1982.
16/18
9/16/2016
G.R.No.187167
7J.Bernas,S.J.,The1987ConstitutionoftheRepublicofthePhilippinesACommentary57(2003).
8SeeJ.Batongbacal,TheMetesandBoundsofthePhilippineNationalTerritory,AnInternationalLawand
Policy Perspective, Supreme Court of the Philippines, Philippine Judicial Academy Third Distinguished
Lecture,FarEasternUniversity,June27,2008.
9J.Bernas,supranote7,at10.
10CitingReportNo.01oftheCommitteeonNationalTerritory.
11CitingReportNo.02oftheCommitteeonNationalTerritory.
13Id.at14.
14Id.at9citingSpeech,SessionFebruary15,1972,ofDelegatesAmanioSorongon,etal.
15ThehistoryofthisdeletedphrasegoesbacktothelastclauseofArt.Iofthe1935Constitutionwhich
included "all territory over which the present Government of the Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction.
SeeJ.Bernas,supranote7,at14.
17Id.citingdeliberationsoftheFebruary17,1972Session.
18Id.
19DeLeon,PhilippineConstitution62(2011).
20Petition,pp.45.
21Art.48ofUNCLOSIIIprovidesthatthebreadthoftheterritorialsea,thecontiguouszone,theexclusive
economic zone and the continental shelf shall be measured from the archipelagic baseline drawn in
accordancewithArt.47.
22R.P.Lotilla,ThePhilippineNationalTerritory:ACollectionofRelatedDocuments513517(1995)citing
BatasangPambansa,ActsandResolution,6thRegularSession.
24UNCLOSIII,Art.57.
25June17,1961.
26September18,1968.
27G.R.No.159618,February1,2011citingTaadav.Angara,G.R.No.118295,May2,1997,272SCRA
18.
28Art.26,ViennaConventionontheLawofTreaties,1969.
29Art.13,DeclarationofRightsandDutiesofStatesAdoptedbytheInternationalLawCommission,1949.
30SeeJ.Batongbacal,supranote8.
31Id.
32 The Protest reads in part: "The abovementioned Philippine Act illegally claims Huangyan Island
(referredas"BajodeMasinloc"intheAct)ofChinaas"areasoverwhichthePhilippineslikewiseexercises
sovereignty and jurisdiction." The Chinese Government hereby reiterates that Huangyan Island and
NanshaIslandshavebeenpartoftheterritoryofChinasinceancienttime.ThePeoplesRepublicofChina
hasindisputablesovereigntyoverHuangyanIslandandNanshaIslandsandtheirsurroundingareas.Any
claimtoterritorialsovereigntyoverHuangyanIslandandNanshaIslandsbyanyotherStateis,therefore,
nullandvoid."Availableon
<http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/DEPOSIT/
communicationsredeposit/mzn69_2009_chn.pdf>(visitedAugust9,2011).
33Supranote5.
34C.Ku,TheArchipelagicStatesConceptandRegionalStabilityinSoutheastAsia,CaseW.Res.J.IntlL.,
Vol.23:463,469citing1958U.N.ConferenceontheLawoftheSea,SummaryRecords44,Doc.A/Conf.
13/42.
35Id.
36 Hiran W. Jayewardene, The Regime of Islands in International Law, AD Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff
Publishers,p.103(1990).
37Id.at112.
17/18
9/16/2016
G.R.No.187167
38UNCLOSIIIOff.Rec.,Vol.II,264,par.65,andalsopars.6162and66citedinB.Kwiatkowska,"The
ArchipelagicRegimeinPracticeinthePhilippinesandIndonesiaMakingorBreakingInternationalLaw?",
InternationalJournalofEstuarineandCoastalLaw,Vol.6,No.1,pp.67.
394WhitemanD.G.,InternationalLaw284(1965)quotedinC.Ku,supranote34,at470.
401987Constitution,Art.I.
41LOSC,Arts.52and54.
42LOSC,Art.53,par.2.
43LOSC,Art.53,par.2.
44LOSC,Art.51.
45LOSC,Art.8,par.2.
46Cf.B.Kwiatkowska,supranote38citingJ.D.Ingles,"TheUnitedNationsConventionontheLawofthe
Sea: Implications of Philippine Ratification," 9 Philippine Yil (1983) 489 and 612 and Congress of the
Philippines, First Regular Session, Senate, S. No. 232, Explanatory Note and An Act to Repeal Section 2
(concerningTSbaselinesaroundSabahdisputedwithMalaysia)ofthe1968ActNo.5446.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation
18/18

G.R No. 187167 Magallona Vs Ermita

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

G.R No. 187167 Magallona Vs Ermita

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

9/16/2016

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi