G.R No.
187167 August 16, 2011
PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, et.al., Petitioners,
vs.
HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, et.al., Respondents.
CARPIO, J.:
FACTS: In 1961, Congress passed RA No. 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), codifying the sovereign right of States parties over their "territorial sea," the breadth of which,
however, was left undetermined.
In March 2009, Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522, the statute now under scrutiny. The change was
prompted by the need to make RA 3046 compliant with the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS III), which the Philippines ratified on 27 February 1984. Among others, UNCLOS III prescribes the water-
land ratio, length, and contour of baselines of archipelagic States like the Philippines and sets the deadline for the filing
of application for the extended continental shelf. Complying with these requirements, RA 9522 shortened one baseline,
optimized the location of some basepoints 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.
Magallona et.al. in their respective capacities as "citizens, taxpayers or legislators," assail the constitutionality of RA
9522, that: (1) 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, and (2) 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.
Exe.Sec. Ermita raise threshold issues questioning (1) Magallona’s compliance with the case or controversy
requirement for judicial review grounded on Magallona’s alleged lack of locus standi and (2) the propriety of the writs
of certiorari and prohibition to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522. On the merits, Ermita defended RA 9522 as the
country’s compliance with the terms of UNCLOS III, preserving Philippine territory over the KIG or Scarborough Shoal.
Ermita add that RA 9522 does not undermine the country’s security, environment and economic interests or relinquish
the Philippines’ claim over Sabah.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON Magallona et.al. has locus standi
2. WON RA 9522, the amendatory Philippine Baseline Law is unconstitutional.
RULING:
LOCUS STANDI:
Partially. 1 petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit as citizens. Nonetheless, we recognize petitioners’ locus
standi 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. Indeed, owing to the peculiar nature of RA 9522,
it is understandably difficult to find other litigants possessing "a more direct and specific interest" to bring the suit, thus
satisfying one of the requirements for granting citizenship standing.
RA 9522’s CONSTITUTIONALITY:
NO. We find no basis to declare RA 9522 unconstitutional. RA 9522 is Not Unconstitutional, it is a Statutory Tool to
Demarcate the Country’s Maritime Zones and Continental Shelf Under UNCLOS III, not to Delineate Philippine Territory
Baselines laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III States parties to delimit with precision the extent
of their maritime zones and continental shelves. In turn, this gives notice to the rest of the international community of
the scope of the maritime space and submarine areas within which States parties exercise treaty-based rights, namely,
the exercise of sovereignty over territorial waters (Article 2), the jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, and
sanitation laws in the contiguous zone (Article 33), and the right to exploit the living and non-living resources in the
exclusive economic zone (Article 56) and continental shelf (Article 77).
The laying down of baselines is not a mode of acquiring or asserting ownership a territory over which a state exercises
sovereignty. The laying down of baselines is not a mode of acquiring or asserting ownership a territory over which a
state exercises sovereignty. They are drawn for the purpose of defining or establishing the maritime areas over which
a state can exercise sovereign rights. Baselines are used for fixing starting point from which the territorial belt is
measured seawards or from which the adjacent maritime waters are measured
HAVING THE KALAYAAN ISLAND GROUP (KIG) AND THE SCARBOROUGH SHOAL OUTSIDE PHILIPPINE
BASELINES WILL NOT DIMINISH OUR SOVEREIGNTY OVER THESE AREAS.
Baselines are used to measure the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone
and the continental shelf. Having KIG and the Scarborough Shoal outside Philippine baselines will not diminish our
sovereignty over these areas.
The configuration of the baselines drawn under RA 3046 and RA 9522 shows that RA 9522 merely followed the
basepoints mapped by RA 3046, save for at least nine basepoints that RA 9522 skipped to optimize the location of
basepoints and adjust the length of one baseline (and thus comply with UNCLOS III’s limitation on the maximum length
of baselines). Under RA 3046, as under RA 9522, the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal lie outside of the baselines
drawn around the Philippine archipelago. This undeniable cartographic fact takes the wind out of petitioners’ argument
branding RA 9522 as a statutory renunciation of the Philippines’ claim over the KIG, assuming that baselines are
relevant for this purpose.
Had Congress in RA 9522 enclosed the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as part of the Philippine archipelago, adverse
legal effects would have ensued. The Philippines would have committed a breach of two provisions of UNCLOS III.
First, Article 47 (3) of UNCLOS III requires that "[t]he drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable
extent from the general configuration of the archipelago." Second, Article 47 (2) of UNCLOS III requires that "the length
of the baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles," save for three per cent (3%) of the total number of baselines
which can reach up to 125 nautical miles.
Although the Philippines has consistently claimed sovereignty over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal for several
decades, these outlying areas are located at an appreciable distance from the nearest shoreline of the Philippine
archipelago, such that any straight baseline loped around them from the nearest basepoint will inevitably "depart to an
appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago."
RA 9522 UNCONSTITUTIONALLY "CONVERTS" INTERNAL WATERS INTO ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS, HENCE
SUBJECTING THESE WATERS TO THE RIGHT OF INNOCENT AND SEA LANES PASSAGE UNDER UNCLOS
III.
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.
he fact that for archipelagic States, their archipelagic waters are subject to both the right of innocent passage and sea
lanes passage does not place them in lesser footing vis--vis continental coastal States which are subject, in their
territorial sea, to the right of innocent passage and the right of transit passage through international straits. The
imposition of these passage rights through archipelagic waters under UNCLOS III was a concession by archipelagic
States, in exchange for their right to claim all the waters landward of their baselines, regardless of their depth or distance
from the coast, as archipelagic waters subject to their territorial sovereignty. More importantly, the recognition of
archipelagic States archipelago and the waters enclosed by their baselines as one cohesive entity prevents the
treatment of their islands as separate islands under UNCLOS III.46 Separate islands generate their own maritime
zones, placing the waters between islands separated by more than 24 nautical miles beyond the States territorial
sovereignty, subjecting these waters to the rights of other States under UNCLOS III.
