G.R No.

187167 August 16, 2011 The Case

PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, AKBAYAN PARTY-LIST REP. RISA This original action for the writs of certiorari and prohibition assails the
HONTIVEROS, PROF. HARRY C. ROQUE, JR., AND UNIVERSITY OF THE constitutionality of Republic Act No. 95221 (RA 9522) adjusting the country’s
PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW STUDENTS, ALITHEA BARBARA ACAS, archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline regime of nearby
VOLTAIRE ALFERES, CZARINA MAY ALTEZ, FRANCIS ALVIN ASILO, SHERYL territories.
BALOT, RUBY AMOR BARRACA, JOSE JAVIER BAUTISTA, ROMINA BERNARDO,
VALERIE PAGASA BUENAVENTURA, EDAN MARRI CAÑETE, VANN ALLEN
DELA CRUZ, RENE DELORINO, PAULYN MAY DUMAN, SHARON ESCOTO, The Antecedents
RODRIGO FAJARDO III, GIRLIE FERRER, RAOULLE OSEN FERRER, CARLA
REGINA GREPO, ANNA MARIE CECILIA GO, IRISH KAY KALAW, MARY ANN
JOY LEE, MARIA LUISA MANALAYSAY, MIGUEL RAFAEL MUSNGI, MICHAEL In 1961, Congress passed Republic Act No. 3046 (RA 3046)2 demarcating the
OCAMPO, JAKLYN HANNA PINEDA, WILLIAM RAGAMAT, MARICAR RAMOS, maritime baselines of the Philippines as an archipelagic State.3 This law
ENRIK FORT REVILLAS, JAMES MARK TERRY RIDON, JOHANN FRANTZ RIVERA followed the framing of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the
IV, CHRISTIAN RIVERO, DIANNE MARIE ROA, NICHOLAS SANTIZO, MELISSA Contiguous Zone in 1958 (UNCLOS I),4 codifying, among others, the
CHRISTINA SANTOS, CRISTINE MAE TABING, VANESSA ANNE TORNO, MARIA sovereign right of States parties over their "territorial sea," the breadth of
ESTER VANGUARDIA, and MARCELINO VELOSO III, Petitioners, which, however, was left undetermined. Attempts to fill this void during the
vs. second round of negotiations in Geneva in 1960 (UNCLOS II) proved futile.
Thus, domestically, RA 3046 remained unchanged for nearly five decades,
HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. save for legislation passed in 1968 (Republic Act No. 5446 [RA 5446])
ALBERTO ROMULO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT correcting typographical errors and reserving the drawing of baselines
OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HON. ROLANDO ANDAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS around Sabah in North Borneo.
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 In March 2009, Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522, the
DAVIDE, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PERMANENT statute now under scrutiny. The change was prompted by the need to make
MISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES TO THE UNITED NATIONS, RA 3046 compliant with the terms of the United Nations Convention on the
Respondents. Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III),5 which the Philippines ratified on 27 February
1984.6 Among others, UNCLOS III prescribes the water-land ratio, length,
and contour of baselines of archipelagic States like the Philippines7 and sets
DECISION the deadline for the filing of application for the extended continental shelf.8
Complying with these requirements, RA 9522 shortened one baseline,
optimized the location of some basepoints around the Philippine
CARPIO, J.: 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.
Respondents also question the normative force, under international law, of
petitioners’ assertion that what Spain ceded to the United States under the
Treaty of Paris were the islands and all the waters found within the
Petitioners, professors of law, law students and a legislator, in their
boundaries of the rectangular area drawn under the Treaty of Paris.
respective capacities as "citizens, taxpayers or x x x legislators,"9 as the case
may be, assail the constitutionality of RA 9522 on two principal grounds,
namely: (1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the
We left unacted petitioners’ prayer for an injunctive writ.
reach of the Philippine state’s sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of
the 1987 Constitution,10 embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris11 and
ancillary treaties,12 and (2) RA 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of
the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining The Issues
Philippine sovereignty and national security, contravening the country’s
nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant
constitutional provisions.13 The petition raises the following issues:

In addition, petitioners contend that RA 9522’s treatment of the KIG as 1. Preliminarily –

"regime of islands" not only results in the loss of a large maritime area but
also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.14 To buttress their
argument of territorial diminution, petitioners facially attack RA 9522 for 1. Whether petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit; and
what it excluded and included – its failure to 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. 2. Whether the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies
to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522.

Commenting on the petition, respondent officials raised threshold issues

questioning (1) the petition’s compliance with the case or controversy 2. On the merits, whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional.
requirement for judicial review grounded on petitioners’ 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, respondents defended The Ruling of the Court
RA 9522 as the country’s compliance with the terms of UNCLOS III,
preserving Philippine territory over the KIG or Scarborough Shoal.
Respondents add that RA 9522 does not undermine the country’s security,
environment and economic interests or relinquish the Philippines’ claim
over Sabah.
On the threshold issues, we hold that (1) petitioners possess locus standi to
bring this suit as citizens and (2) the writs of certiorari and prohibition are
Respondents’ submission holds true in ordinary civil proceedings. When this
proper remedies to test the constitutionality of RA 9522. On the merits, we
Court exercises its constitutional power of judicial review, however, we
find no basis to declare RA 9522 unconstitutional.
have, by tradition, viewed the writs of certiorari and prohibition as proper
remedial vehicles to test the constitutionality of statutes,19 and indeed, of
acts of other branches of government.20 Issues of constitutional import are
On the Threshold Issues
sometimes crafted out of statutes which, while having no bearing on the
Petitioners Possess Locus personal interests of the petitioners, carry such relevance in the life of this
nation that the Court inevitably finds itself constrained to take cognizance of
Standi as Citizens the case and pass upon the issues raised, non-compliance with the letter of
procedural rules notwithstanding. The statute sought to be reviewed here is
one such law.
Petitioners themselves undermine their assertion of locus standi as
legislators and taxpayers because the petition alleges neither infringement
of legislative prerogative15 nor misuse of public funds,16 occasioned by the RA 9522 is Not Unconstitutional
passage and implementation of RA 9522. Nonetheless, we recognize
petitioners’ locus standi as citizens with constitutionally sufficient interest in RA 9522 is a Statutory Tool
the resolution of the merits of the case which undoubtedly raises issues of
to Demarcate the Country’s
national significance necessitating urgent resolution. Indeed, owing to the
peculiar nature of RA 9522, it is understandably difficult to find other Maritime Zones and Continental
litigants possessing "a more direct and specific interest" to bring the suit,
Shelf Under UNCLOS III, not to
thus satisfying one of the requirements for granting citizenship standing.17
Delineate Philippine Territory

The Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition

Are Proper Remedies to Test

the Constitutionality of Statutes

In praying for the dismissal of the petition on preliminary grounds,

respondents seek a strict observance of the offices of the writs of certiorari
and prohibition, noting that the writs cannot issue absent any showing of
grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial or
ministerial powers on the part of respondents and resulting prejudice on the
part of petitioners.18
Petitioners submit that RA 9522 "dismembers a large portion of the national Article 48. Measurement of the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous
territory"21 because it discards the pre-UNCLOS III demarcation of zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. – The breadth
Philippine territory under the Treaty of Paris and related treaties, of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and
successively encoded in the definition of national territory under the 1935, the continental shelf shall be measured from archipelagic baselines drawn in
1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Petitioners theorize that this constitutional accordance with article 47. (Emphasis supplied)
definition trumps any treaty or statutory provision denying the Philippines
sovereign control over waters, beyond the territorial sea recognized at the
time of the Treaty of Paris, that Spain supposedly ceded to the United Thus, baselines laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III
States. Petitioners argue that from the Treaty of Paris’ technical description, States parties to delimit with precision the extent of their maritime zones
Philippine sovereignty over territorial waters extends hundreds of nautical and continental shelves. In turn, this gives notice to the rest of the
miles around the Philippine archipelago, embracing the rectangular area international community of the scope of the maritime space and submarine
delineated in the Treaty of Paris.22 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
Petitioners’ theory fails to persuade us. 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).

UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a
multilateral treaty regulating, among others, sea-use rights over maritime Even under petitioners’ theory that the Philippine territory embraces the
zones (i.e., the territorial waters [12 nautical miles from the baselines], islands and all the waters within the rectangular area delimited in the Treaty
contiguous zone [24 nautical miles from the baselines], exclusive economic of Paris, the baselines of the Philippines would still have to be drawn in
zone [200 nautical miles from the baselines]), and continental shelves that accordance with RA 9522 because this is the only way to draw the baselines
UNCLOS III delimits.23 UNCLOS III was the culmination of decades-long in conformity with UNCLOS III. The baselines cannot be drawn from the
negotiations among United Nations members to codify norms regulating the boundaries or other portions of the rectangular area delineated in the
conduct of States in the world’s oceans and submarine areas, recognizing Treaty of Paris, but from the "outermost islands and drying reefs of the
coastal and archipelagic States’ graduated authority over a limited span of archipelago."24
waters and submarine lands along their coasts.

UNCLOS III and its ancillary baselines laws play no role in the acquisition,
On the other hand, baselines laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS enlargement or, as petitioners claim, diminution of territory. Under
III States parties to mark-out specific basepoints along their coasts from traditional international law typology, States acquire (or conversely, lose)
which baselines are drawn, either straight or contoured, to serve as territory through occupation, accretion, cession and prescription,25 not by
geographic starting points to measure the breadth of the maritime zones executing multilateral treaties on the regulations of sea-use rights or
and continental shelf. Article 48 of UNCLOS III on archipelagic States like enacting statutes to comply with the treaty’s terms to delimit maritime
ours could not be any clearer: zones and continental shelves. Territorial claims to land features are outside
UNCLOS III, and are instead governed by the rules on general international
law.26
 Petitioners’ assertion of loss of "about 15,000 square nautical miles of
territorial waters" under RA 9522 is similarly unfounded both in fact and
RA 9522’s Use of the Framework
law. On the contrary, RA 9522, by optimizing the location of basepoints,
of Regime of Islands to Determine the increased the Philippines’ total maritime space (covering its internal waters,
territorial sea and exclusive economic zone) by 145,216 square nautical
Maritime Zones of the KIG and the miles, as shown in the table below:29
Scarborough Shoal, not Inconsistent

with the Philippines’ Claim of Sovereignty

Over these Areas Extent of maritime area using RA 3046, as amended, taking into account the
Treaty of Paris’ delimitation (in square nautical miles)

Petitioners next submit that RA 9522’s use of UNCLOS III’s regime of islands
framework to draw the baselines, and to measure the breadth of the Extent of maritime area using RA 9522, taking into account UNCLOS III (in
applicable maritime zones of the KIG, "weakens our territorial claim" over square nautical miles)
that area.27 Petitioners add that the KIG’s (and Scarborough Shoal’s)
exclusion from the Philippine archipelagic baselines results in the loss of
"about 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters," prejudicing the
Internal or archipelagic waters 166,858 171,435
livelihood of subsistence fishermen.28 A comparison of the configuration of
the baselines drawn under RA 3046 and RA 9522 and the extent of maritime Territorial Sea 274,136 32,106
space encompassed by each law, coupled with a reading of the text of RA
Exclusive Economic Zone 382,669
9522 and its congressional deliberations, vis-à-vis the Philippines’
obligations under UNCLOS III, belie this view.1avvphi1 TOTAL 440,994 586,210

Thus, as the map below shows, the reach of the exclusive economic zone
drawn under RA 9522 even extends way beyond the waters covered by the
The configuration of the baselines drawn under RA 3046 and RA 9522 shows
rectangular demarcation under the Treaty of Paris. Of course, where there
that RA 9522 merely followed the basepoints mapped by RA 3046, save for
are overlapping exclusive economic zones of opposite or adjacent States,
at least nine basepoints that RA 9522 skipped to optimize the location of
there will have to be a delineation of maritime boundaries in accordance
basepoints and adjust the length of one baseline (and thus comply with
with UNCLOS III.30
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.
Further, petitioners’ argument that the KIG now lies outside Philippine
territory because the baselines that RA 9522 draws do not enclose the KIG is
negated by RA 9522 itself. Section 2 of the law commits to text the
Philippines’ continued claim of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the KIG and
The principal sponsor of RA 9522 in the Senate, Senator Miriam Defensor-
the Scarborough Shoal:
Santiago, took pains to emphasize the foregoing during the Senate
deliberations:

SEC. 2. The baselines in the following areas over which the Philippines
likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction shall be determined as
What we call the Kalayaan Island Group or what the rest of the world call[]
"Regime of Islands" under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with
the Spratlys and the Scarborough Shoal are outside our archipelagic baseline
Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
because if we put them inside our baselines we might be accused of
(UNCLOS):
violating the provision of international law which states: "The drawing of
such baseline shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general
configuration of the archipelago." So sa loob ng ating baseline, dapat
a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No.
magkalapit ang mga islands. Dahil malayo ang Scarborough Shoal, hindi
1596 and
natin masasabing malapit sila sa atin although we are still allowed by
international law to claim them as our own.

b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal. (Emphasis supplied)

This is called contested islands outside our configuration. We see that our
archipelago is defined by the orange line which [we] call[] archipelagic
Had Congress in RA 9522 enclosed the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as baseline. Ngayon, tingnan ninyo ang maliit na circle doon sa itaas, that is
part of the Philippine archipelago, adverse legal effects would have ensued. Scarborough Shoal, itong malaking circle sa ibaba, that is Kalayaan Group or
The Philippines would have committed a breach of two provisions of the Spratlys. Malayo na sila sa ating archipelago kaya kung ilihis pa natin ang
UNCLOS III. First, Article 47 (3) of UNCLOS III requires that "[t]he drawing of dating archipelagic baselines para lamang masama itong dalawang circles,
such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general hindi na sila magkalapit at baka hindi na tatanggapin ng United Nations
configuration of the archipelago." Second, Article 47 (2) of UNCLOS III because of the rule that it should follow the natural configuration of the
requires that "the length of the baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical archipelago.34 (Emphasis supplied)
miles," save for three per cent (3%) of the total number of baselines which
can reach up to 125 nautical miles.31
Similarly, the length of one baseline that RA 3046 drew exceeded UNCLOS
III’s limits.1avvphi1 The need to shorten this baseline, and in addition, to
Although the Philippines has consistently claimed sovereignty over the optimize the location of basepoints using current maps, became imperative
KIG32 and the Scarborough Shoal for several decades, these outlying areas as discussed by respondents:
are located at an appreciable distance from the nearest shoreline of the
Philippine archipelago,33 such that any straight baseline loped around them
from the nearest basepoint will inevitably "depart to an appreciable extent
[T]he amendment of the baselines law was necessary to enable the
from the general configuration of the archipelago."
Philippines to draw the outer limits of its maritime zones including the
extended continental shelf in the manner provided by Article 47 of [UNCLOS Statutory Claim Over Sabah under
III]. As defined by R.A. 3046, as amended by R.A. 5446, the baselines suffer
RA 5446 Retained
from some technical deficiencies, to wit:

Petitioners’ argument for the invalidity of RA 9522 for its failure to

1. The length of the baseline across Moro Gulf (from Middle of 3 Rock
textualize the Philippines’ claim over Sabah in North Borneo is also
Awash to Tongquil Point) is 140.06 nautical miles x x x. This exceeds the
untenable. Section 2 of RA 5446, which RA 9522 did not repeal, keeps open
maximum length allowed under Article 47(2) of the [UNCLOS III], which
the door for drawing the baselines of Sabah:
states that "The length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles,
except that up to 3 per cent of the total number of baselines enclosing any
archipelago may exceed that length, up to a maximum length of 125
nautical miles." Section 2. The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the
Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Act is without prejudice to the
delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea around the territory of
Sabah, situated in North Borneo, over which the Republic of the Philippines
2. The selection of basepoints is not optimal. At least 9 basepoints can be
has acquired dominion and sovereignty. (Emphasis supplied)
skipped or deleted from the baselines system. This will enclose an additional
2,195 nautical miles of water.

UNCLOS III and RA 9522 not

3. Finally, the basepoints were drawn from maps existing in 1968, and not Incompatible with the Constitution’s
established by geodetic survey methods. Accordingly, some of the points,
particularly along the west coasts of Luzon down to Palawan were later Delineation of Internal Waters
found to be located either inland or on water, not on low-water line and
drying reefs as prescribed by Article 47.35
As their final argument against the validity of RA 9522, petitioners contend
that the law unconstitutionally "converts" internal waters into archipelagic
Hence, far from surrendering the Philippines’ claim over the KIG and the waters, hence subjecting these waters to the right of innocent and sea lanes
Scarborough Shoal, Congress’ decision to classify the KIG and the passage under UNCLOS III, including overflight. Petitioners extrapolate that
Scarborough Shoal as "‘Regime[s] of Islands’ under the Republic of the these passage rights indubitably expose Philippine internal waters to
Philippines consistent with Article 121"36 of UNCLOS III manifests the nuclear and maritime pollution hazards, in violation of the Constitution.38
Philippine 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 Whether referred to as Philippine "internal waters" under Article I of the
tide," such as portions of the KIG, qualifies under the category of "regime of Constitution39 or as "archipelagic waters" under UNCLOS III (Article 49 [1]),
islands," whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.37 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:
 In the absence of municipal legislation, international law norms, now
codified in UNCLOS III, operate to grant innocent passage rights over the
Article 49. Legal status of archipelagic waters, of the air space over
territorial sea or archipelagic waters, subject to the treaty’s limitations and
archipelagic waters and of their bed and subsoil. –
conditions for their exercise.42 Significantly, the right of innocent passage is
a customary international law,43 thus automatically incorporated in the
corpus of Philippine law.44 No modern State can validly invoke its
1. The sovereignty of an archipelagic State extends to the waters enclosed sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent passage that is exercised in
by the archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47, described accordance with customary international law without risking retaliatory
as archipelagic waters, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast. measures from the international community.

2. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the archipelagic waters, as The fact that for archipelagic States, their archipelagic waters are subject to
well as to their bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein. both the right of innocent passage and sea lanes passage45 does not place
them in lesser footing vis-à-vis continental coastal States which are subject,
in their territorial sea, to the right of innocent passage and the right of
xxxx 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
4. The regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage established in this Part shall waters landward of their baselines, regardless of their depth or distance
not in other respects affect the status of the archipelagic waters, including from the coast, as archipelagic waters subject to their territorial sovereignty.
the sea lanes, or the exercise by the archipelagic State of its sovereignty More importantly, the recognition of archipelagic States’ archipelago and
over such waters and their air space, bed and subsoil, and the resources the waters enclosed by their baselines as one cohesive entity prevents the
contained therein. (Emphasis supplied) 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’
The fact of sovereignty, however, does not preclude the operation of territorial sovereignty, subjecting these waters to the rights of other States
municipal and international law norms subjecting the territorial sea or under UNCLOS III.47
archipelagic waters to necessary, if not marginal, burdens in the interest of
maintaining unimpeded, expeditious international navigation, consistent
with the international law principle of freedom of navigation. Thus, Petitioners’ invocation of non-executory constitutional provisions in Article
domestically, the political branches of the Philippine government, in the II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies)48 must also fail. Our present
competent discharge of their constitutional powers, may pass legislation state of jurisprudence considers the provisions in Article II as mere
designating routes within the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and legislative guides, which, absent enabling legislation, "do not embody
sea lanes passage.40 Indeed, bills drawing nautical highways for sea lanes judicially enforceable constitutional rights x x x."49 Article II provisions serve
passage are now pending in Congress.41 as guides in formulating and interpreting implementing legislation, as well
as in interpreting executory provisions of the Constitution. Although Oposa
v. Factoran50 treated the right to a healthful and balanced ecology under
Section 16 of Article II as an exception, the present petition lacks factual continental shelf is measured. This is recipe for a two-fronted disaster: first,
basis to substantiate the claimed constitutional violation. The other it sends an open invitation to the seafaring powers to freely enter and
provisions petitioners cite, relating to the protection of marine wealth exploit the resources in the waters and submarine areas around our
(Article XII, Section 2, paragraph 251 ) and subsistence fishermen (Article archipelago; and second, it weakens the country’s case in any international
XIII, Section 752 ), are not violated by RA 9522. dispute over Philippine maritime space. These are consequences Congress
wisely avoided.

In fact, the demarcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to delimit

its exclusive economic zone, reserving solely to the Philippines the The enactment of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for the Philippine
exploitation of all living and non-living resources within such zone. Such a archipelago and adjacent areas, as embodied in RA 9522, allows an
maritime delineation binds the international community since the internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippines’
delineation is in strict observance of UNCLOS III. If the maritime delineation maritime zones and continental shelf. RA 9522 is therefore a most vital step
is contrary to UNCLOS III, the international community will of course reject it on the part of the Philippines in safeguarding its maritime zones, consistent
and will refuse to be bound by it. with the Constitution and our national interest.

UNCLOS III favors States with a long coastline like the Philippines. UNCLOS III WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition.
creates a sui generis maritime space – the exclusive economic zone – in
waters previously part of the high seas. UNCLOS III grants new rights to
coastal States to exclusively exploit the resources found within this zone up SO ORDERED
to 200 nautical miles.53 UNCLOS III, however, preserves the traditional
freedom of navigation of other States that attached to this zone beyond the
territorial sea before UNCLOS III.

RA 9522 and the Philippines’ Maritime Zones

Petitioners hold the view that, based on the permissive text of UNCLOS III,
Congress was not bound to pass RA 9522.54 We have looked at the relevant
provision of UNCLOS III55 and we find petitioners’ reading plausible.
Nevertheless, the prerogative of choosing this option belongs to Congress,
not to this Court. Moreover, the luxury of choosing this option comes at a
very steep price. Absent an UNCLOS III compliant baselines law, an
archipelagic State like the Philippines will find itself devoid of internationally
acceptable baselines from where the breadth of its maritime zones and