MAGALONA VS ERMITA

G.R. No. 187167 16Aug2011

Prof. Merlin Magalona, et al., Petitioners,
vs
Hon. Eduardo Ermita in his capacity as Executive Secretary, et al., Respondents.

Facts:
In March 2009, R.A. 9522 was enacted by the Congress to comply with the terms of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which the Philippines ratified on February
27, 1984.

Professor Merlin Magallona et al questioned the validity of RA 9522 as they contend, among others,
that the law decreased the national territory of the Philippines. Some of their particular arguments are
as follows:

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, embodying the terms of the Treaty
of Paris and ancillary treaties.

RA 9522 opens the countrys waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and
aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security, contravening the countrys
nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions.
RA 9522s 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.

Hence, petitioners files action for the writs of certiorari and prohibition assails the constitutionality of
Republic Act No. 95221 (RA 9522) adjusting the countrys archipelagic baselines and classifying the
baseline regime of nearby territories.

Issues:
Whether or not RA 9522, the amendatory Philippine Baseline Law is unconstitutional.

Discussions:
The provision of Art I 1987 Constitution clearly affirms the archipelagic doctrine, which we connect
the outermost points of our archipelago with straight baselines and consider all the waters enclosed
thereby as internal waters. RA 9522, as a Statutory Tool to Demarcate the Countrys Maritime Zones
and Continental Shelf Under UNCLOS III, gave nothing less than an explicit definition in congruent
with the archipelagic doctrine.

Rulings:
No. The Court finds R.A. 9522 constitutional. It is a Statutory Tool to Demarcate the Countrys
Maritime Zones and Continental Shelf under UNCLOS III, not to Delineate Philippine Territory. It is
a vital step in safeguarding the countrys maritime zones. It also allows an internationally-recognized
delimitation of the breadth of the Philippines maritime zones and continental shelf.

Additionally, The Court finds that the conversion of internal waters into archipelagic waters will not
risk the Philippines as affirmed in the Article 49 of the UNCLOS III, an archipelagic State has
sovereign power that extends to the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines, regardless of their
depth or distance from the coast. It is further stated that the regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage
will not affect the status of its archipelagic waters or the exercise of sovereignty over waters and air
space, bed and subsoil and the resources therein.

The Court further stressed that the baseline laws are mere mechanisms for the UNCLOS III to
precisely describe the delimitations. It serves as a notice to the international family of states and it is
in no way affecting or producing any effect like enlargement or diminution of territories.

Page 1 of 2
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
Archipelagic 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 base points
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 base points
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 base points mapped by RA 3046 and in fact, it
increased the Phils. total maritime space. Moreover, it 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 base points 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.

Page 2 of 2