Magallona v.

Ermita
CARPIO, J.

FACTS:

 RA 3046 (1961): demarcating the maritime baselines of the Philippines

 UNCLOS I (1958): codified the sovereign right of States parties over their territorial
sea
- Breadth was left undetermined
 UNCLOS II (1960): futile attempt to fill the void (of UNCLOS I)
- For 50 years, RA 3046 remained unchanged except when RA 5446 (1968)
corrected typographical errors and reserved the drawing of baselines around
Sabah in North Borneo
 RA 9522: to make RA 3046 compliant with UNCLOS III
- Shortened one baseline
- Optimized location of some basepoints
- Classified Kalayaan Group of Islands (or Kalayaan Island Group/ KIG) and
Scarborough Shoal as “Regimes of Islands” whose islands generate their own
maritime zones.
 Petitioners assail RA 9522:
1. Reduces Philippine maritime territory and the reach of the Philippine state’s
sovereign power (embodying Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties), in
violation of Art. I of the Constitution
2. Opens the country’s 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
3. Treatment of the KIG as “Regime of Islands” results in the loss of large
maritime area and prejudices the livelihood of fishermen
 Respondents argue:
1. Lack of locus standi of petitioners
2. Propriety of writs of certiorari and prohibition to assail constitutionality of RA
9522
3. RA 9522 is country’s compliance with UNCLOS III, hence preserving
Philippine territory over KIG or Scarborough Shoal
4. RA 9522 does not undermine security, environment and economic interests, or
relinquish claim over Sabah
5. What Spain ceded to the US under Treaty of Paris were the islands and all the
waters found within the boundaries of rectangular area (see original for map)

ISSUE/S + RULING:
W/N petitioners possess locus standi. YES. Citizen’s standing.
 Even petitioner’s undermine their standing as legislators and taxpayers because
petition alleges neither infringement of legislative prerogative nor misuse of public
funds
 But Supreme Court recognizes their standing nonetheless, as petition is of national
significance necessitating urgent resolution
 Difficult to find other litigants possessing more direct interests, hence satisfying
requirements for citizenship standing

Prepared by Erson Villangca (1E)

W/N certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies. YES, because statute carries such
relevance to constrain SC to take cognizance.
 Respondent: cannot issue such absent showing grave abuse of discretion
 Respondent is correct insofar as ordinary civil proceedings
 But by tradition, SC has viewed certiorari and prohibition as proper remedies on
constitutionality of statutes

W/N RA 9522 is constitutional. YES, because it is a tool to demarcate maritime zones and
continental shelf, not to delineate Philippine territory.
 RA 9522 is ancillary baseline law under UNCLOS III
 UNCLOS III: nothing to do with acquisition or loss of territory
 UNCLOS III: multi-lateral treaty regulating sea-rights over
1. Maritime zones
2. Contiguous zone
3. Exclusive economic zone (EEZ)
4. Continental shelves
 RA 9522: one of the baseline laws enacted by UNCLOS III state parties to mark-out
specific basepoints along their coasts from which baselines are drawn, to serve as
starting points to measure breadth of the maritime zones and continental shelf
 Baseline laws are just statutory mechanisms, which give notice to the international
community of scope of maritime space and submarine areas within which state parties
exercise treaty-based rights, namely
1. Sovereignty over territorial waters
2. Jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitation laws in
contiguous zone
3. Right to exploit living/non-living resources in EEZ and continental shelf
 Even under the theory that all the waters within the rectangular area delimited in the
Treaty of Paris are embraced within Philippine territory, baselines of Philippines still
have to be drawn through RA 9522, which is the only way to draw baselines in
conformity with UNCLOS III
 UNCLOS III and baseline laws have no role in territorial claims, which are governed
instead by rules on general international law

W/N RA 9522’s use of the framework of Regime of Islands to determine maritime zones of
KIG and Scarborough is inconsistent with Philippines’ claim of sovereignty. NO. RA 9522
merely followed the basepoints mapped by RA 3046.
 Petitioner: loss of about 15,000 square nautical miles (n.m.) of territorial waters,
prejudicing the livelihood of subsistence fishermen
 In both RA 3046 and RA 9522, KIG and Scarborough lie outside baselines drawn
around Philippine archipelago.
 RA 9522 increased Philippine total marine space, rather than cause the loss of 15,000
n.m.
 Increase is 145,216 square n.m. (way beyond those covered by Treaty of Paris)
 Sec. 2 of RA 9522: “Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction…on
(1) KIG under PD 1596, and (2) Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough)”
 Had RA 9522 enclosed KIG and Scarborough, adverse legal effects would have
ensued

Prepared by Erson Villangca (1E)

 - Art. 47(3) UNCLOS III: drawing of baselines shall not depart to any
appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago
- Art. 47(2) UNCLOS III: length of baselines shall not exceed 100 n.m., save
for 3% of the total number of baselines which can reach up to 125 n.m.
 KIG and Scarborough are outlying areas.
 RA 3046: baseline across Moro Gulf is 140.06 n.m. (exceeds 100 n.m.)
 Philippines observed the principle of pacta sunt servanda in classifying, rather than
surrendering, them as Regime of Islands

W/N UNCLOS III and RA 9522 are incompatible with the Constitution (in its delineation of
internal waters). NO.
 Petitioner: RA 9522 converts internal waters into archipelagic waters, subjecting them
to the right of innocent passage under UNCLOS III. Such passage rights expose
internal waters to nuclear and maritime pollution hazards.
 Whether “internal” (Art. I, Consti) or “archipelagic” (Art. 49(1), UNCLOS III),
Philippines exercises sovereignty over the body of water lying landward of the
baselines
 But sovereignty does not preclude operation of municipal and international law. Thus,
Philippines can pass legislation designating routes within archipelagic waters
 In the absence of municipal legislation, international law norms operate
 UNCLOS III is customary international law, meaning it is automatically incorporated
in the corpus of Philippine law
 Petitioners invoke Art. III of Constitution, but they are merely legislative guides

DISPOSITION:
Petition DISMISSED.

Prepared by Erson Villangca (1E)