Magallona v. Exec. Sec.

Ermita
G.R. No. 187167 16 August 2011 En Banc Ponente: Carpio, J.
Doctrines/Nature or Keywords: Doctrine of Incorporation; Adoption of International Law
Petitioners: Respondents:
Prof Merlin M. Magallona, Akbayan Party-List Rep. Risa Exec. Sec. Eduardo Ermita, DFA Sec. Alberto Romulo,
Hontiveros, Prof. Harry C. Roque, Jr., And University of The DBM Sec. Rolando Andaya, NAMRIA Admin. Diony Ventura,
Philippines College of Law Students, Alithea Barbara Acas, and Rep. Hilario Davide, Jr., of the Permanent Mission Of The
Voltaire Alferes, Czarina May Altez, Francis Alvin Asilo, Sheryl Republic Of The Philippines To The United Nations
Balot, Ruby Amor Barraca, Jose Javier Bautista, Romina
Bernardo, Valerie Pagasa Buenaventura, Edan Marri Ca?Ete,
Vann Allen Dela Cruz, Rene Delorino, Paulyn May Duman,
Sharon Escoto, Rodrigo Fajardo III, Girlie Ferrer, Raoulle Osen
Ferrer, Carla Regina Grepo, Anna Marie 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 Fort Revillas, James
Mark Terry Ridon, Johann Frantz Rivera Iv, Christian Rivero,
Dianne Marie Roa, Nicholas Santizo, Melissa Christina Santos,
Cristine Mae Tabing, Vanessa Anne Torno, Maria Ester
Vanguardia, And Marcelino Veloso III
Recit-ready summary:
In March 2009, Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522 or the New Baselines Law of 2009. The amendment
was made in compliance with the terms on UNCLOS III which prescribes the water-land ratio, length, and contour of
baselines of archipelagic States like the Philippines. Pursuant to UNCLOS III, RA 9522 shortened some of the
endpoints and water baselines around the Philippine archipelago and classified the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and
the Scarborough Shoal, as "regimes of islands”. This brought the petitioners to file writs of certiorari and prohibition
to assail the constitutionality of the law. According to the petitioners, RA 9522 is unconstitutional as it violates the
Article I of the 1987 Constitution, reducing the Philippine maritime territory and the reach of the state’s sovereign
power and, it t opens the country's waters to maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine
sovereignty and national security, contravening the country's nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources,
in violation of relevant constitutional provisions. Respondents defended RA 9522 as the country's compliance with
the terms of UNCLOS III and does not undermine the country's security, environment and economic interests or
relinquish the Philippines' claim over Sabah. Respondents also question the petitioners' assertion that what Spain
ceded to the United States under the Treaty of Paris, were the islands and “all the waters” found within the
boundaries of the rectangular area drawn under the Treaty. The court ruled that RA 9522 is constitutional. RA 9522
nor UNCLOS III does not dismember a large portion of the national territory. UNCLOS III, as an international
multilateral treaty, only regulates the sea-use rights of the states over maritime zones. Hence, the precise
measurements and end points that the Treaty prescribes (in Article 47 and 48) are needed for the orderliness of the
conduct of the states, and for them to recognize the extent in which they can exercise their rights and jurisdiction
over the world’s oceans and submarine areas. In line this, baseline laws such as RA 9522 are enacted to serve as the
statutory instrument to enforce the provisions of the multilateral treaty. Its purpose is to mark-out specific
basepoints along their coasts from which baselines are drawn. The court also ruled out the petitioner’s contention
that RA 9522 opens the country’s internal waters to nuclear and maritime pollution hazards, in violation of the
Constitution. This is due to the fact that the Philippines, exercising its sovereignty, can come up with regulatory
measures through legislation designating routes within the internal and archipelagic waters to regulate innocent
and sea lanes passage (Article 8(2) of UNCLOS III). The theory of the petitioners that the Philippine territory
embraces the islands and all the waters within the rectangular area delimited in the Treaty of Paris was also ruled
out by the court, as it would still have to be drawn in accordance with RA 9522 because this is the only way to draw
the baselines in conformity with UNCLOS III.
Facts of the Case
1. The RA 3046, previously amended as RA 5446 correcting typographical errors and reserving the drawing of
baselines around Sabah in North Borneo, demarcates the maritime baselines of the Philippines as an
archipelagic State followed the framing of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in
1958 (UNCLOS I) codifying, among others, the sovereign right of States parties over their "territorial sea," the
breadth of which, however, was left undetermined. UNCLOS II in Geneva was also proved futile.
2. After decades of enforcement since the passing of RA 3046, the Congress amended the law by enacting RA 9522
in compliant with the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which the
Philippines ratified on 27 February 1984. UNCLOS III prescribes the water-land ratio, length, and contour of
baselines of archipelagic States like the Philippines, and sets the deadline for the filing of application for the
extended continental shelf.
3. In relation to the UNCLOS III’s provision of “regime of islands”, petitioners contended that the treatment of the
KIG as "regime of islands" not only results in the loss of a large maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of
subsistence fishermen.
4. Respondent officials raised threshold issues questioning (1) the petition's compliance with the case or
controversy requirement for judicial review grounded on petitioners' alleged lack of locus standi (legal standing)
and (2) the correctness of the writs of certiorari and prohibition to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522.
Issue: Ruling
Preliminary:
 WON petitioners possess legal standing to bring this suit to the Supreme Court YES
 WON The writs of certiorari and prohibition YES
are the proper remedies to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522.
On the Merits:
 WON RA 9522 is unconstitutional YES
Rationale
1. The petitioners of the case have no legal standing as “taxpayers or legislators” the petition alleges neither
infringement of legislative prerogative nor misuse of public fund occasioned by the passage and
implementation of RA 9522. However, the SC recognized the petitioners' legal standing as citizens with
constitutionally sufficient interest in the resolution of the issues of the case which undoubtedly raises issues
of national significance necessitating urgent resolution.
- The court also argued that the rarity of the RA 9522 it is understandably difficult to find other litigants or
parties possessing "a more direct and specific interest" to bring the suit.

2. The respondents argued that the writs of certiorari or prohibition could not be applied as these writs could
not be issued with the absence of any evidence or showing that there is indeed a grave abuse of discretion in
the exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial powers on the part of respondents and resulting
prejudice on the part of petitioners. However, the court ruled the these can only be applied in ordinary civil
proceedings. The Supreme Court, by its tradition when exercising its constitutional power of judicial review,
viewed the writs of certiorari and prohibition as proper remedial vehicles to test the constitutionality of
statutes, and acts of other branches of government.
3.
A) RA 9522 is a Statutory Tool to Demarcate the Country's Maritime Zones and Continental Shelf Under
UNCLOS III, not to Delineate Philippine Territory
RA 9522 nor UNCLOS III does not dismember a large portion of the national territory. UNCLOS III, as an
international multilateral treaty, only regulates the sea-use rights of the states over maritime zones ([24
nautical miles from the baselines], exclusive economic zone [200 nautical miles from the baselines]), and
continental shelves that UNCLOS III delimits. UNCLOS III was the culmination of decades-long negotiations
among United Nations members to codify norms regulating the conduct of States in the world's oceans and
submarine areas, recognizing coastal and archipelagic States' graduated authority over a limited span of
waters and submarine lands along their coasts. Baseline laws such as RA 9522 are enacted to serve as the
statutory instrument to enforce the provisions of the multilateral treaty. Its purpose is to mark-out specific
basepoints along their coasts from which baselines are drawn. As stated in Article 48 of UNCLOS III;
 Article 48. Measurement of the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone
and the
continental shelf. - The breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone
and the continental shelf shall be measured from archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance
with article 47.
Hence, this gives notice to the rest of the international community of the scope of the maritime space
and submarine areas within which States exercise treaty-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 living and non-living resources in the
exclusive economic zone (Article 56) and continental shelf (Article 77)

B) RA 9522's Use of the Framework of Regime of Islands to Determine the Maritime Zones of the KIG and the
Scarborough Shoal, not Inconsistent with the Philippines' Claim of Sovereignty Over these Areas

On this issue, etitioners' contended 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. The court ruled that the
RA 9522 merely followed the basepoints mapped by the previous RA 3046. Truth to be told, it increased the
Philipines.’ total maritime space. Moreover, RA continues claim of sovereignty and jurisdiction over KIG. The
court also pointed that if the Congress enacted 9522 enclosing KIG and Scarborough Shoal as part of the
Philippine Archipelago, it would breach the following provisions under the UNCLOS III;
Art. 47 (3): ‘drawing of basepoints shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of
the archipelago’.
Art 47 (2): the length of baselines shall not exceed 100 mm.

C) Statutory Claim Over Sabah under RA 5446 Retained

The argument of the Petitioners for the invalidity of RA 9522 as it did not consider the Philippines’ claim
over Sabah in North Borneo is also ruled out by Court as the Section 2 of RA 3046, which the RA 9522 did not
repeal, keeps the possibilities of drawing baselines of Sabah.
Section 2. The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Act is
without prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea around the territory of Sabah, situated in
North Borneo, over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty.

D) UNCLOS III and RA 9522 not Incompatible with the Constitution's Delineation of Internal Waters
As their final argument against the validity of RA 9522, petitioners contend that the law
unconstitutionally "converts" internal waters into archipelagic waters, hence subjecting these waters
to the right of innocent and sea 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.
Whether referred to as Philippine "internal waters" under Article I of the Constitution or as
"archipelagic waters" under UNCLOS III (Article 49 [1]), the Philippines exercises sovereignty over the body
of water lying landward of the baselines, including the air space over it and the submarine areas underneath.
However, the exercise of the Philippines’ sovereignty herein does not stop any other states to exercise their
right of innocent passage. Significantly, the right of innocent passage is a customary international law, thus
automatically incorporated as part of Philippine law. No modern State can validly invoke its sovereignty to
absolutely forbid innocent passage that is exercised in accordance with customary international law without
risking retaliatory measures from the international community.
The court also ruled out the petitioner’s contention that RA 9522 opens the country’s internal waters to
nuclear and maritime pollution hazards, in violation of the Constitution. This is due to the fact that the
Philippines, exercising its sovereignty, can come up with regulatory measures through legislation
designating routes within the internal and archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and sea lanes passage
(Article 8(2) of UNCLOS III)