Topics to be discussed:

A. Magallona vs Executive Secretary

G.R. No. 187167
B. R.A. 9522 “Philippine Baseline
Law”
C. UNCLOS III
D. 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of
Parties in the South China Sea
 FACTS:

In 1961, Congress passed RA 3046 demarcating the maritime

baselines of the Philippines as an archipelagic state which
followed the framing of the UNCLOS I of 1958.
In March 2009, Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA
9522 in compliance with the terms of United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III).
RA 9522 shortened one baseline, optimized the location of
some basepoints and classified the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG)
and the Scarborough Shoal as “regimes of islands”.
 FACTS:

Petitioners Prof. Merlin M. Magallona, AKBAYAN Party-List Rep.

Risa Hontiveros, Prof. Harry C. Roque,Jr. and UP College of Law
Students assail the constitutionality of RA 9522 on the following
grounds;
1. RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and
logically, the reach of the state’s sovereign power, in
violation of Art. I of the 1987 Constitution embodying the
terms of the Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties.
 FACTS:

2. RA 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of the

baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts of
other states detrimental to our sovereignty, national security,
and damaging to our marine resources, in violation of relevant
constitutional provisions.
3. RA 9522’s treatment of Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) as
“regime of islands” results in the loss of a large maritime area
and prejudicial to the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.
 FACTS:

4. RA 9522 failed to include as reference either the Treaty of

Paris or Sabah and its use of UNCLOS III’s framework of regime
of islands to determine the maritime zones of the KIG and the
Scarborough Shoal.
 ISSUES:

 Whether petitions possess locus standi to bring this suit,

 Whether the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper

remedies to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522,

 Whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional.

 RULINGS:

I. Petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit as

citizens, and not as taxpayers or legislators, with
constitutionally sufficient interest in the resolution
of the merits of the case which undoubtedly raises
issues of national significance necessitating urgent
resolution.
 RULINGS:

II. The Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition are proper

remedies to test the constitutionality of statutes.
Issues of constitutional import are crafted out of
statutes and here, the statute sought to be reviewed
is one such law.
 RULINGS:

III. RA 9522 is NOT Unconstitutional.

A. It is a Statutory Tool to Demarcate Maritime Zones and
Continental Shelf.
1. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with acquisition or loss of
territory.
2. RA 9522 is enacted by UNCLOS III States parties to mark-
out specific basepoints to measure extent of maritime
zones and continental shelf.
3. RA 9522 is the only way to draw the baselines in
conformity with UNCLOS III.
UNCLOS III

oUNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE

SEA
oIt is a multilateral treaty regulating among others, sea-use
rights over maritime zones.
oIt is the culmination of decades-long negotiations among
United Nations members to codify norms regulating the
conduct of States in the world’s oceans and submarine
areas.
UNCLOS III

oCountries can assert ownership of water within 12

nautical miles of the coastline.
oThey can also claim an additional 200 nautical miles
as an exclusive economic zone.
Exclusive Economic Zone

oextends 200 nautical miles from the baselines

oarchipelagic state has sole exploration rights over all
natural resources
ointroduced to halt clashes in fishing rights
Continental Shelf

o200 to 350 nautical miles from the baselines

onatural prolongation of the land territory until the
prolongation ends not exceeding 350 nautical miles
ostates have rights to harvest mineral and non-living
material in the subsoil
 Extent of maritime area
Extent of maritime area
using RA 3046, as
using RA 9522, taking
amended, taking into
into account UNCLOS III
account the Treaty of
(in square nautical
Paris’ delimitation (in
miles)
square nautical miles)

Internal or
archipelagic
waters 166,858 171,435
Territorial Sea 274,136 32,106

Exclusive
Economic Zone
382,669
TOTAL 440,994 586,210
 RULINGS:

III. RA 9522 is NOT Unconstitutional.

B. RA 9522 classification of KIG and Scarborough
Shoal is consistent with the claim of sovereignty
over these areas.
1. Sec. 2 of the law commits to the continued claim
of sovereignty and jurisdiction on these regimes of
islands consistent with Art. 121 of UNCLOS.
Q: What if RA9522 enclosed KIG and the Scarborough
Shoal?
A: It would result to Breach of Two Provisions of
UNCLOS III.
1. Article 47 (3) requires that the drawing of such
baselines shall not depart any appreciable extent
from the general configuration of the
archipelago.
2. Article 47 (2) requires that the length of baselines
shall not exceed 100 nautical miles.
Q: Why was RA 3046 amended?

A: It was necessary to enable the Philippines to draw the

outer limits of its maritime zones including extended
continental shelf because the baselines as defined by RA
3046, amended by RA 5446, suffered from technical
difficulties as follows;
1. The length of the baseline along Moro Gulf is
140.06 nautical miles which exceeds the
maximum length prescribed in Arch 47(2) of the
UNCLOS III (which is 100-125 max nautical miles)
2.The selection of base points is not optimal. At least 9
basepoints can be skipped or deleted from the baseline
system as it would enclose an additional of 2,195 nautical
miles of water.

3. Thebasepoints were drawn from maps existing in 1968,

and not established by geodetic survey methods. Some
basepoints were later found to be located either inland or
on water, not on low-water line and drying reefs as
prescribed by Article 47.
 RULINGS:

III. RA 9522 is NOT Unconstitutional.

C. Statutory Claim Over Sabah under RA 5446 Retained.
1. Section 2 of RA 5446, which RA 9522 did not repeal, that
in drawing of new baselines does not prejudice the
delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea around
the territory of Sabah in North Borneo over which the
Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty.
 RULINGS:

III. RA 9522 is NOT Unconstitutional.

D. UNCLOS III and RA 9522 not incompatible with the
Constitution’s Delineation of Internal Waters.
1. The Philippines exercise sovereignty over the body of
water lying landward of the baselines, including air space
over it and the submarine areas underneath as affirmed
by Article 49 (1) of UNCLOS III.
 RULINGS:

2. The Demarcation of baselines enables the Philippines to

delimit its exclusive economic zone, reserving solely to the
Philippines the exploitation of all living and non-living
resource within such zone.
Q: What will happen in the absence of an UNCLOS III
compliant baseline law?

A: 1. It sends an open invitation to the seafaring

powers to freely enter and exploit the resources in the
waters and submarine areas around our archipelago.
2. It will weaken the country’s case in any
international dispute over Philippine maritime space.
2002 Declaration on the Code of Conduct of
Parties in the South China Sea
oIssued Ten (10) declarations to enhance peace,
stability, economic growth and prosperity of the
member states
oMember states that signified;
 Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia,
Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand,
Vietnam and China
2002 Declaration on the Code of Conduct of
Parties in the South China Sea
Declarations:
1) Adherence to International Laws
2) Equality and Mutual Respect
3) Respect Freedom of Navigation in and
Overflight
4) Peaceful Resolution of Territorial and
Jurisdictional Disputes
5) Refrain from Inhabiting Presently Uninhabited
Islands and Seek Ways to Build Trust and
Confidence Among Members including;
1. Holding dialogues between defense and
military officials
2. Ensuring just treatment to persons in distress
3. Notifying of any military exercises
4. Exchanging relevant information
6) Joint Exploration or Other Cooperative Activities;
1. Marine environmental protection
2. Marine scientific research
3. Safety of navigation and communication at
sea
4. Search and rescue operations
5. Combating transnational crimes (i.e.
trafficking in illicit drugs, piracy and armed
robbery at sea and illegal traffic in arms)
7) Regular consultations on the observance of this
Declaration
Purpose:
1. good neighbourliness
2. establishing harmony
3. mutual understanding and cooperation
4. facilitating of peaceful resolution of disputes
8) Respect the provisions of this Declaration and
take actions consistent herewith
9) Encourage other countries to respect the
principles
10) Reaffirm the adoption of a code of conduct in
the South China Sea
THANK YOU

Prepared by:
DANNY GLEAN P.
LABORDO