MAGALLONA v ERMITA

G.R No. 187167/ August 16, 2011

Petitioners: PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, AKBAYAN PARTY-LIST REP. RISA HONTIVEROS, PROF. HARRY C.
ROQUE, JR., AND UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW STUDENTS, et. al;

Respondents: HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. ALBERTO
ROMULO, IN HIS 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.

Ponente: CARPIO

Doctrine:

 Art 1: National Territory

"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, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves,
and other submarine areas. The 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."

 Article 2: State Policies

Section 7. “The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states, the
paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity and the right to self-
determination.”
Section 8. “The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of
freedom from nuclear weapons within its territory.”
Section 16. “The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.”

Facts:

 In 1961, Congress passed RA 3046 demarcating the maritime baselines of the Philippines as an
archipelagic State. This law followed the framing of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the
Contiguous Zone in 1958. UNCLOS I, codified the sovereign right of States parties over their
"territorial sea," the breadth of which, however, was left undetermined even after the negotiations for
UNCLOS II in 1960. In 2009, Congress, prompted by the need to update RA 3046 in compliance with
UNCLOS III which it ratified in 1984, enacted RA 9522 ("An Act to Amend Certain Provisions of
Republic Act No. 3046, as Amended by Republic Act No. 5446, to Define the Archipelagic Baselines of
the Philippines, and for Other Purposes.”)
 RA 9522 shortened one baseline, optimized the location of some base-points around the Philippine
archipelago and classified adjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the
Scarborough Shoal, as "regimes of islands" whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.
 Petitioners, in their respective capacities as citizens, taxpayers and legislators, filed for writs of certiorari
and prohibition, assailing the constitutionality of RA 9522 on the following grounds:
 1. Reduction of the Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the reach of the Philippine state’s
sovereign power, violating Art 1 of the 1987 Constitution, the Treaty of Paris and the ancillary
treaties; embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties;

2. Opening of 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;

3. 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.

Issue/Ruling:

Procedural
1. Whether petitioners have locus standi;

Yes, petitioners possess locus standi as citizens. The issue undoubtedly raises issues of national
significance and urgency. Owing to the subject of RA 9522, it is understandably difficult to find
litigants of a more direct and specific interest to file a suit.

2. Whether the writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies;

Yes, remedies are proper to test constitutionality of the RA 9522. Even though the issue has no
bearing on the personal interests of the petitioners, the Court will relax procedural rules because the
issue crafted out of statute is of constitutional importance.

Substantive

Whether the RA 9522 is unconstitutional;

No. The Act is not unconstitutional.

a. RA 9522 is not a means to acquire or lose territory. States can only do so through occupation,
accretion, cession or prescription. UNCLOS III, and thus RA 9522 as a multilateral treaty, is just a
statutory tool to demarcate/mark basepoints from which baselines are drawn (either straight or
contoured) based on UNCLOS to serve as starting points in measuring the breadth of maritime
zones (contiguous zones, economic zones, continental shelves). These are needed because baselines
cannot be drawn from the boundaries or other portions of the rectangular area delineated in the
Treaty of Paris, but from the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago. The reach of the
exclusive economic zone drawn under RA 9522 now even extends way beyond the waters covered
by the rectangular demarcation under the Treaty of Paris.

Save for at least nine basepoints that RA 9522 skipped, RA 9522 merely followed the basepoints
mapped by RA 3046. Also, by optimizing the location of basepoints, the RA increased the
Philippines’ total maritime space by 145,216 square nautical miles.

b. UNCLOS III and RA 9522 are not incompatible with the Constitution’s delineation of internal
waters. Whether as “Internal waters” in the Constitution or “archipelagic waters” in the UNCLOS,
the Philippines still exercises sovereignty over all bodies of water lying landward to the baselines.
The fact of sovereignty, however, does not preclude the traditional freedom of navigation of other
States. No modern State can validly invoke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent passage
without risking retaliatory measures from the international community.
 The other provisions petitioners cite, relating to the protection of marine wealth and subsistence
fishermen are not violated by RA 9522. UNCLOS III creates a sui generis maritime space – the
exclusive economic zone – in waters previously part of the high seas. This grants new rights to the
Philippines to exclusively exploit the resources found within this zone up to 200 nautical miles.

c. The KIG and the Scarborough Shoal lie outside of the baselines drawn around the Philippine
archipelago even prior. The RA in question is not as a statutory renunciation of the Philippines’
claim over the KIG. In fact, Section 2 of the Law commits to text the Philippines’ continued claim
of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the KIG (Spratlys) and the Scarborough Shoal as its “Regime
of Islands”. The drawing of the baseline did not depart to any appreciable extent from the general
configuration of the archipelago.

d. Statutory claim over Sabah unrelinquished;

e. RA 9522’s adoption of the UNCLOS III prevents seafaring powers to freely enter and explot the
resources in the waters around our archipelago and strengthens the country’s case in any
international dispute over Philippine maritime airspace. RA 9522 is therefore a most vital step on
the part of the Philippines in safeguarding its maritime zones, consistent with the Constitution and
the national interest.

Separate Opinions:

VELASCO- Concurring; “The designation of baselines made in RA 9522 likewise designates our internal waters,
through which passage by foreign ships is not a right, but may be granted by the Philippines to foreign states but only
as a dissolvable privilege.”