MAGALLONA v. ERMITA, G.R.

187167, August 16, 2011

Facts:

In 1961, Congress passed R.A. 3046 demarcating the maritime baselines of the Philippines as an
Archepelagic State pursuant to UNCLOS I of 9158, codifying the sovereignty of State parties over their
territorial sea. Then in 1968, it was amended by R.A. 5446, correcting some errors in R.A. 3046 reserving
the drawing of baselines around Sabah.

In 2009, it was again amended by R.A. 9522, to be compliant with the UNCLOS III of 1984. The
requirements complied with are: to shorten one baseline, to optimize the location of some basepoints and
classify KIG and Scarborough Shoal as regime of islands.

Petitioner now assails the constitutionality of the law for three main reasons:

1. it reduces the Philippine maritime territory under Article 1;

2. it opens the countrys waters to innocent and sea lanes passages hence undermining our
sovereignty and security; and

3. treating KIG and Scarborough as regime of islands would weaken our claim over those
territories.

Issue: Whether R.A. 9522 is constitutional?

Ruling:

1. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with acquisition or loss of territory. it is just a codified norm that
regulates conduct of States. On the other hand, RA 9522 is a baseline law to mark out basepoints along

coasts, serving as geographic starting points to measure. it merely notices the international community of
the scope of our maritime space.

2. If passages is the issue, domestically, the legislature can enact legislation designating routes
within the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and sea lanes passages. But in the absence of such,
international law norms operate. The fact that for archipelagic states, their waters are subject to both
passages does not place them in lesser footing vis a vis continental coastal states. Moreover, RIOP is a
customary international law, no modern state can invoke its sovereignty to forbid such passage.

3. On the KIG issue, RA 9522 merely followed the basepoints mapped by RA 3046 and in fact, it
increased the Phils. total maritime space. Moreover, the itself commits the Phils. continues claim of
sovereignty and jurisdiction over KIG.

If not, it would be a breach to 2 provisions of 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.

KIG and SS are far from our baselines, if we draw to include them, well breach the rules: that it
should follow the natural configuration of the archipelago.

U.S. v. Dorr

FACTS:

Herein respondents were alleged to have committed an offense of writing, publishing and
circulating scurrilous libel against the Government of the U.S. and the Insular Government of the
Philippine Islands in violation of Section 8, Act 292 of the Commission.

The alleged libel was published in Manila Freedom issue dated 06 April 1902 as an editorial
issue.

The editorial is about the appointment of rascal natives (Filipinos) to important Government
positions by the Civil Commission (CC for brevity).

The following are part of the article:

the Civil Commission has, in its distribution of offices, constituted a protectorate over a set of
men who should be in jail or deportedxxxthis kind of foolish work that the Commission is
doing all over the Island, reinstating insurgents and rogues and turning down the men who have
during struggle, at the risk of their lives, aided the Americans.

The commission has exalted to the highest position in the Islands Filipinos who are alleged to
be notoriously corrupt and rascally, and men of no personal character.

it is a notorious fact that many branches of the Government organized by the Civil Commission
are rotten and corruptxxx.

Article 292, section 8 has provided modes for committing an offense against it. However, albeit
the article has a virulent attack against the policy of the CC, the complaint in question cannot be regarded
as having a tendency to produce anything like what may be called disaffection or a state of feeling
incompatible with a disposition to remain loyal to the Government and obedient to the laws.

There is a question as how the term the Insular Government of the Phil. Islands, is used in
Section 8, Art. 292. Is it defined as the existing law and institutions of the Islands or the aggregate of
the individuals by whom the government of the Islands is administered?

ISSUE: Whether the Article published by the respondents is in violation of the Art. 292 for it directly
attacks the U.S. government and the Insular Government of the Phil. Island?

RULING:

In modern political science, the term government is defined as the institution or aggregate of institutions
by which an independent society makes and carries out those rulesxxxthe government is the
aggregation of authorities which rule a society (administration).[1]

On the other hand, the Sedition Act of 1798, the term government is used in an abstract sense
(e.q. President, Congress), meaning the existing political system, its laws and institutions. The
Court opines that it is in this sense that the term is used in the enactment (Art. 292) under
consideration.

Hence, in Art. 292, the meaning of Insular of the Government of the Phil. Islands is the
government as a system, however, the article in questions attacks the government as the
aggregate of public officials who run it.

The Court ruled that the article in question contains no attack upon the governmental system of
the U.S., by which the authority of the U.S. is enforced in these Islands per se. In this case, it is
the character of men who are entrusted with the administration of the government which the
writer wants to bring disrepute due to their motives, public integrity, and private morals and
wisdoms of their policy. The publication does not constitute any seditious tendency being
apparent to be in violation of Art. 292.

Respondents are acquitted.

[1] ADMINISTRATION the aggregate of persons in whose hands the reins of government are
for the time being.

BACANI V NACOCO G.R. No. L-6957, November 29, 1956

FACTS:
Herein petitioners are stenographers in Branch VI of the CIF Manila.
In a pending civil case where the public respondents are involved, they requested for the services of the
stenographers and thereby paid them for the said transcript at the rate of P1 per page, amounting to P714
in total.
However, upon inspecting the books of the corporation, the Auditor General disallowed the payment of
such fees and sought for the recovery of the amounts paid. Consequently, the AG required the petitioners
to reimburse the amounts invoking that the National Coconut Corporation is a government entity within
the purview of section 2 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 which states that: The Government
of the Philippine Islands is a term which refers to the corporate governmental entity through which the
functions of government are exercised throughout the Philippine Islands, including, save as the contrary

appears from the context, the various arms through which political authority is made effective in said
Islands, whether pertaining to the central Government or to the provincial or municipal branches or other
form of local government., hence, exempted from the payment of the fees in question.
ISSUE: Whether the NCC is a government entity and is exempted from the payments in question?
RULING: The Court held No. Discussing, there are two-fold functions of the government namely:
constituent and ministrant. The constituent function refers to the bonds of society and are compulsory in
nature, while ministrant is more on public welfare like public works, education, charity, health and safety.
From such, we may infer that there are functions which our government is required to exercise to promote
its objectives as expressed in our Constitution and which are exercised by it as an attribute of sovereignty,
and those which it may exercise to promote merely the welfare, progress and prosperity of the people.
The NCC has that function because the corporation promotes certain aspects of the economic life of the
people. In short, NCC belongs to what we call the government-owned and controlled corporation which is
governed by Corporation Law.
Albeit the NCC performs governmental functions for the peoples welfare, however, it was given a
corporate power separate and distinct from our government, for it was made subject to the provisions of
our Corporation Law in so far as its corporate existence and the powers that it may exercise are
concerned.
To recapitulate, we may mention that the term Government of the Republic of the Philippines used in
section 2 of the Revised Administrative Code refers only to that government entity through which the
functions of the government are exercised as an attribute of sovereignty, and in this are included those
arms through which political authority is made effective whether they be provincial, municipal or other
form of local government.
Therefore, NCC is not a government entity and is not exempted from the payment of fees in question;
petitioners are not subject to reimbursement.

Petition GRANTED.