The baselines of the Philippines (Filipino: Mga batayang-guhit ng Pilipinas) are the set of geodesic

lines completely encircling the main Philippine archipelago from where the maritime entitlements of the country
are measured from.

A total of 101 basepoints providing for 100 baselines were identified under Republic Act 9522, which
identified Amianan Island as the northernmost, Frances Reef as the southernmost, Pusan Point as its
easternmost and the Balabac Great Reef as the westernmost points of the main Philippine archipelago.

PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA,

et.al

v
. HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HISCAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
et.al
G.R. No. 187167, 16 July 2011,
EN BANC
(Carpio, J.)

The conversion of internal waters into archipelagic waters will not risk thePhilippines
because an archipelagic State has sovereign power that extends tothe waters enclosed
by the archipelagic baselines, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast.
R.A. 9522 was enacted by the Congress in March 2009 to comply with theterms of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III),which the Philippines
ratified on February 27, 1984. Such compliance shortenedone baseline, optimized the
location of some basepoints around the
Philippinearchipelago and classified adjacent territories such as the Kalayaan IslandGro
und (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal as “regimes of islands” whose islandsgenerate
their own applicable maritime zones.Petitioners, in their capacities as “citizens,
taxpayers or legislators” assailthe constitutionality of R.A. 9522 with one of their
arguments contending thatthe law unconstitutionally “converts” internal waters into
archipelagic waters,thus subjecting these waters to the right of innocent and sea lanes
passageunder UNCLOS III, including overflight. Petitioners have contended that
thesepassage rights will violate the Constitution as it shall expose Philippine
internalwaters to nuclear and maritime pollution hazard.

ISSUE:

Whether or not R.A. 9522 is unconstitutional for converting internal watersinto

archipelagic waters

HELD:

Petition DISMISSED.

The Court finds R.A. 9522 constitutional and is consistent with thePhilippine’s national
interest. Aside from being a vital step in safeguarding
thecountry’s maritime zones, the law also allows an internationally-
recognizeddelimitation of the breadth of the Philippine’s maritime zones and
continentalshelf. The Court also finds that the conversion of internal waters intoarchipel
agic 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
thewaters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines, regardless of their depth ordistance
from the coast. It is further stated that the regime of archipelagic sealanes passage will
not affect the status of its archipelagic waters or the exerciseof sovereignty over waters
and air space, bed and subsoil and the resourcestherein.

Magallonavs Executive Secretary

GR No. 187167 July 16, 2011

Carpio, J.;

Facts:

In the instant case, petitioners question the constitutionality of Republic Act No.
9522, adjusting the baselines of the Philippines, on two grounds;

1. That RA9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the reach of the
Philippine states sovereignty power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution,
embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties.

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

Petitioners also contend that treatment of the Kalayaan Island Group (Spratlys)
as regime of islands results in the loss of a large maritime area and prejudices the
livelihood of subsistence fishermen. Petitioners also attack RA9522s failure to reference
either the Treaty of Paris or Sabah and its use of UNCLOSIIIs framework of regime of
islands to determine the maritime zones of the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal.

Respondents question;

1. the petitions compliance with the case or controversy requirement for judicial
review grounded on petitioners alleged lack of locus standi
2. the propriety of the writs of certiorari and prohibition to assail the
constitutionality of RA9522

On the merits, respondents defended RA9522 as the country compliance with

the terms of UNCLOSIII, preserving Philippine territory over the KIG or Scarborough
Shoal. Respondents add that RA9522 does not undermine the countrys security,
environment, and economic interests or relinquish the Philippines claim over Sabah

Issues:

1. Whether petitioner possess locus standi to bring the suit

2. Whether the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies to assail
the constitutionality of RA9522
3. On the merits, whether RA9522 is unconstitutional
Held:

1. Yes. Petitioners, 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 and not as legislators and taxpayers as petitioners
claim.

2. Yes. These are the proper remedies as courts traditionally decide upon cases which
test the constitutionality of statutes.

3. No. RA9522 is not unconstitutional.

RA9522 is a baseline law which marks-out specific basepoints along the

coast from which baselines are drawn to serve as geographic starting points measuring
the breadth of the maritime zones and continental shelf. Baseline laws are nothing but
statutory mechanisms for UNCLOSIII States parties to delimit with precision the extent
of their maritime zones and continental shelves. UNCLOSIII and its ancilliary baseline
laws play no role in the acquisition, enlargement, or diminution of territory. Though the
KIG and Scarborough Shoal fall outside the baselines drawn around the Philippine
archipelago, said baselines actually increased the Philippines total maritime space by
145,216 square nautical miles.

RA9522 itself continues the claim of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the KIG
and Scarborough Shoal in Sec. 2 of RA9522 as well as in retaining Sec. 2 of RA5446
pertaining to the baselines of Sabah. If the KIG and Scarborough Shoals were to be
enclosed in the baselines created by RA9522 there would be a breach of Sec. 2 & Sec. 3
of Art 47 of UNCLOSIII.

Lastly, whether referred to as Philippine internal waters under Art. 1 of the 1987
Constitution or as archipelagic waters under Art. 49 UNCLOSIII, the Philippines
exercises sovereignty over the body of water lying landward of the baselines, including
the airspace over it and the submarine areas underneath. Legislation may be passed
designating routes within the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and sea lanes
passage being that the right of innocent passage is a customary international law.

The petition is dismissed.

Archipelagic Doctrine

G.R. No. 187167 16Aug2011

Prof. Merlin Magalona, et al., Petitioners,

vs
Hon. Eduardo Ermita in his capacityas 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
state’s 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 country’s waters landward of the baselines 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.
RA 9522’s treatmentof 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 country’s
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 198 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 Country’s 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
Country’s Maritime Zones and Continental Shelf Under UNCLOS III, not to Delineate
Philippine Territory. It is a vital step in safeguarding the country’s maritime zones. It
also allows an internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippine’s
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.
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 country’s 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, we’ll breach the rules:
that it should follow the natural configuration of the archipelago.

Prof. Magallona, Hontiveros, Prof. Roque and 38 UP College of Law Students

-vs-

Ermita Exec.Sec., Romulo Sec DFA, Andaya Sec DBM, Ventura Administrator National Mapping & Resource
Information Authority and Davide Jr.

-writ of certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of RA 9522

FACTS:

RA 3046 was passed in 1961 which provides among others the demarcation lines of the baselines of the Philippines as an
archipelago. This is in consonance with UNCLOS I.

RA 5446 amended RA 3046 in terms of typographical errors and included Section 2 in which the government reserved the
drawing of baselines in Sabah in North Borneo.

RA 9522 took effect on March 2009 amending RA 5446. The amendments, which are in compliance with UNCLOS III in
which the Philippines is one of the signatory, shortening one baseline while optimizing the other and classifying Kalayaan
Group of Island and Scarborough Shoal as Regimes of Island.

Petitioners in their capacity as taxpayer, citizen and legislator assailed the constitutionality of RA 9522:- it reduces the
territory of the Philippines in violation to the Constitution and it opens the country to maritime passage of vessels and
aircrafts of other states to the detriment of the economy, sovereignty, national security and of the Constitution as well. They
added that the classification of Regime of Islands would be prejudicial to the lives of the fishermen.

ISSUES:

1. WON the petitioners have locus standi to bring the suit; and
2. WON RA 9522 is unconstitutional

RULING:

Petition is dismissed.

1st Issue:
The SC ruled the suit is not a taxpayer or legislator, but as a citizen suit, since it is the citizens who will be directly injured
and benefitted in affording relief over the remedy sought.

2nd Issue:
The SC upheld the constitutionality of RA 9522.

First, RA 9522 did not delineate the territory the Philippines but is merely a statutory tool to demarcate the country’s
maritime zone and continental shelf under UNCLOS III. SC emphasized that UNCLOS III is not a mode of acquiring or losing a
territory as provided under the laws of nations. UNCLOS III is a multi-lateral treaty that is a result of a long-time negotiation
to establish a uniform sea-use 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]),
and continental shelves. In order to measure said distances, it is a must for the state parties to have their archipelagic
doctrines measured in accordance to the treaty—the role played by RA 9522. The contention of the petitioner that RA 9522
resulted to the loss of 15,000 square nautical miles is devoid of merit. The truth is, RA 9522, by optimizing the location of
base points, increased the Philippines total maritime space of 145,216 square nautical miles.

Second, the classification of KGI and Scarborough Shoal as Regime of Islands is consistent with the Philippines’ sovereignty.
Had RA 9522 enclosed the islands as part of the archipelago, the country will be violating UNCLOS III since it categorically
stated that the length of the baseline shall not exceed 125 nautical miles. So what the legislators did is to carefully analyze
the situation: the country, for decades, had been claiming sovereignty over KGI and Scarborough Shoal on one hand and on
the other hand they had to consider that these are located at non-appreciable distance from the nearest shoreline of the
Philippine archipelago. So, the classification is in accordance with the Philippines sovereignty and State’s responsible
observance of its pacta sunt servanda obligation under UNCLOS III.

Third, the new base line introduced by RA 9522 is without prejudice with 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.
And lastly, the UNCLOS III and RA 9522 are not incompatible with the Constitution’s delineation of internal waters.
Petitioners contend that RA 9522 transformed the internal waters of the Philippines to archipelagic waters hence subjecting
these waters to the right of innocent and sea lanes passages, exposing the Philippine internal waters to nuclear and
maritime pollution hazards. The Court emphasized that 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, regardless whether internal
or archipelagic waters. However, sovereignty will not bar the Philippines to comply with its obligation in maintaining
freedom of navigation and the generally accepted principles of international law. It can be either passed by legislator as a
municipal law or in the absence thereof, it is deemed incorporated in the Philippines law since the right of innocent passage
is a customary international law, thus automatically incorporated thereto.

This does not mean that the states are placed in a lesser footing; it just signifies concession of archipelagic states in exchange
for their right to claim all waters inside the baseline. In fact, the demarcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to
delimit its exclusive economic zone, reserving solely to the Philippines the exploitation of all living and non-living resources
within such zone. Such a maritime delineation binds the international community since the delineation is in strict
observance of UNCLOS III. If the maritime delineation is contrary to UNCLOS III, the international community will of course
reject it and will refuse to be bound by it.

The Court expressed that it is within the Congress who has the prerogative to determine the passing of a law and not the
Court. Moreover, such enactment was necessary in order to comply with the UNCLOS III; otherwise, it shall backfire on the
Philippines for its territory shall be open to seafaring powers to freely enter and exploit the resources in the waters and
submarine areas around our archipelago and it will weaken the country’s case in any international dispute over Philippine
maritime space.

The enactment of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for the Philippine archipelago and adjacent areas, as embodied in RA
9522, allows an internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippines’ maritime zones and continental
shelf. RA 9522 is therefore a most vital step on the part of the Philippines in safeguarding its maritime zones, consistent with
the Constitution and our national interest.