MAGALLONA VS.
ERMITA On the merits, Respondents defended that RA 9522 is our country’s compliance
G.R. No. 187167
16 August 2019
FACTS:
In 1961, Republic Act (RA) No. 3046 was passed by the Congress which
demarcates the maritime baselines of the Philippines as an archipelagic state. This
demarcation is pursuant to the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous
Zone (UNCLOS I), where the sovereign right of State parties over their “territorial
sea” was arranged. The breadth of which, however, was left undetermined.
In 1968, RA 3046 was amended by RA 5446 correcting some typographical
errors and reserving the drawing of baselines around Sabah in North Borneo.
In 2009, it was again amended by RA 9522, to be compliant with the terms of the
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III). The requirements complied
with are as follows:
1. To shorten one baseline;
2. To optimize the location of some basepoints around the Philippine
archipelago; and,
3. To classify adjacent territories, namely the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal
as “regimes of islands”.
Petitioners, in their respective capacity as “citizens, taxpayers, and legislators”,
assailed the constitutionality of RA 9522 on the grounds that:
1. It reduces the Philippine maritime territory which is in violation of Article 1
in the 1987 Constitution.
2. It opens the country’s waters to maritime passage by all vessels and
aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and security.
Petitioners further added that the treatment of the KIG as “regime of islands” not
only results in the loss of a large maritime area, but also affects the livelihood of the
fishermen.
Commenting on the Petitioner’s Petition, Respondents raised the following:
1. The Petitioners lack locus standi, which is a requirement for judicial review;
and,
2. The propriety of the writs of certiorari and prohibition to assail RA 9522’s
constitutionality.
with the terms of UNCLOS III, and it does not undermine the country’s
sovereignty and security.
ISSUES:
PRELIMINARY:
 WON petitioners possess locus standi to bring this case; and,
 WON the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies to
assail the constitutionality of RA 9522
ON THE MERITS:
 WON RA 9522 is unconstitutional.
RULING:
 Petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit as citizens;
 The writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to test the
constitutionality of RA 9522; and,
 The Supreme Court finds no basis to declare RA 9522 as unconstitutional.
FIRST ISSUE: Petitioners possess locus standi to bring the suit as citizens.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Petitioners undermined themselves when they
asserted their locus standi as legislators and taxpayers for their Petition alleges
neither infringement or legislative prerogative nor misuse of public funds. Be that as
it may, the Supreme Court still recognized the Petitioners’ locus standi as citizens
with sufficient interest in the resolution which raises issues of national significance
requiring urgent resolution.
SECOND ISSUE: The writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to
test the constitutionality of RA 9522.
The Supreme Court held that the writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper
remedies to test RA 9522’s constitutionality for when it exercises its constitutional
power of judicial review, they, by tradition, view it as proper remedial vehicles to test
the constitutionality of statutes, and indeed, of acts of other branches of government.
THIRD ISSUE: The Supreme Court finds no basis to declare RA 9522 as
unconstitutional.
 The Supreme Court held that RA 9522 is not unconstitutional.
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. According to the Supreme Court, UNCLOS III has nothing to do with
the acquisition (or loss) of a territory – it is just a multi-lateral treaty which establishes
a uniform sea-use rights over maritime zones. SC further emphasized that baseline
laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III parties to mark-out specific
basepoints along their coasts to serve as geographic starting points to measure the
breadth of the maritime zones and continental shelf.
Second, the classification of KGI and Scarborough Shoal as Regime of Islands
is consistent with the Philippines’ sovereignty. According to the Supreme Court, The
Philippines, over decades, have been claiming sovereignty over KIG and
Scarborough Shoal, but are too far from our baselines. If RA 9522 enclosed the said
islands as part of the archipelago, our country will be violating two provisions of the
UNCLOS III, which are:
 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.
Hence, far from surrendering the Philippines’ claim over these islands, Congress’
decision to classify the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as “Regimes of Islands” is
in accordance with the Philippines sovereignty and State’s responsible observance
of its pacta sunt servanda obligation under UNCLOS III. Under Article 121 of
UNCLOS III, any "naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above
water at high tide," such as portions of the KIG, qualifies under the category of
"regime of islands," whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.
Further, the contention of the Petitioners 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.
Third, the Supreme Court held that the Petitioners’ argument for RA 9522’s
invalidity for its failure to textualize the Philippines’ claim over Sabah in North Borneo
is untenable. According to the SC, Section 2 of RA 5446, which RA 9522 did not
repeal, keeps the door open for drawing the baselines of Sabah, over which the
Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty.
Lastly, the Supreme Court held that the UNCLOS III and RA 9522 are not
incompatible with the Constitution’s delineation of internal waters. Petitioners
contend that RA 9522 unconstitutionally 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. UNCLOS III
affirms this through Article 49.
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 either be passed by a legislator as a municipal law, or in the
absence thereof, international law norms may operate to grant innocent passage
rights over the territorial sea or archipelagic waters, subject to the treaty’s limitations
and conditions of their exercise.
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.