Title: MAGALLONA v.

ERMITA
Date: August 16, 2011
Petitioners: Prof. Merlin Magallona, et al.
Respondents: Hon. Eduardo Ermita, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, et al.
Ponente: Carpio, J.
Facts:
In 1961, Congress passed RA 3046 demarcating the maritime baselines as an archipelagic
state, following the framing of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS
I) in 1958, 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 Republic Act 9522, also known as the
Baselines Law, an act defining the Philippines archipelagic baselines and classifying the
baseline regime of nearby territories. This amendment (RA 9522) was meant to make RA 3046
compliant with the terms of UNCLOS III, which was ratified by the Philippines in February 1984.
Professor Merlin Magallona et al. questioned the validity of RA 9522 as they contend, among
others, that the law decreased the national territory of the Philippines hence the law is
unconstitutional. Some of their particular arguments are as follows:
a. the law abandoned the demarcation set by the Treaty of Paris and other ancillary treaties
this also resulted to the exclusion of our claim over Sabah;
b. the law, as well as UNCLOS, describes the Philippine waters as archipelagic waters which,
in international law, opens our waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all
vessels (innocent passage) and aircrafts (overflight), undermining Philippine sovereignty and
national security, contravening the countrys nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine
resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions;
c. the classification of the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG), aka Spratlys, and the Scarborough
Shoal, as a regime of islands pursuant to UNCLOS results in the loss of a large maritime area
but also prejudices the livelihood of fishermen.
Issues:
1. Preliminarily
a. Whether or not petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit;
and
b. Whether or not the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper
remedies to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522.
2. On the merits, whether or not RA 9522 is unconstitutional. (MAIN ISSUE)
Ruling:
1. Whether or not petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit
YES. Petitioners possess locus standi as citizens. The SC recognizes 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.
2. Whether or not the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper
remedies to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522

YES. 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 without any showing of grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of judicial, quasijudicial or ministerial powers on the part of respondents and resulting prejudice on the part of
petitioners.
Respondent's submission holds true in ordinary civil proceedings. When this Court exercises its
constitutional power of judicial review, however, this Court has, by tradition, viewed the writs of
certiorari and prohibition as proper remedies to test the constitutionality of statutes.
3. Whether or not RA 9522 is unconstitutional (MAIN ISSUE)
NO. RA 9522 is not unconstitutional. RA 9522 is a statutory tool to demarcate the countrys
maritime zones and continental shelf under UNCLOS III, not to delineate and decrease
Philippine
territory.
Petitioners submit that RA 9522 "dismembers a large portion of the national territory" because it
discards the pre-UNCLOS III demarcation of Philippine territory under the Treaty of Paris and
related treaties, successively encoded in the definition of National Territory (Art. 1) under the
1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.
The Supreme Court emphasized that RA 9522, or UNCLOS itself, is not a means to acquire or
lose territory. The treaty and the baseline law has nothing to do with the acquisition,
enlargement, or reduction of the Philippine territory. What controls when it comes to acquisition
or loss of territory is the international law principle on occupation, accretion, cession and
prescription.
The law did not decrease the demarcation of the Philippine territory. In fact, it increased it.
Under the old law amended by RA 9522 (RA 3046), this Court adhered with the rectangular
lines enclosing the Philippines. If any, the Baselines law is a notice to the international
community of the scope of the maritime space within which State parties exercise treaty-based
rights.
Conclusion:
Petition is DISMISSED. RA 9522 is NOT unconstitutional.
Notes
concerning
the
Petitioners
other
contentions:
a. The law did not abandon the Sabah claim. This is evident on the provision of Section 2 of RA
9522:
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 has acquired
dominion
and
sovereignty.

b. UNCLOS may term the countrys waters as archipelagic waters and we may term it as our
internal waters, but the bottom line is that our country exercises sovereignty over these waters
and UNCLOS itself recognizes that. However, due to our observance of international law, we
allow the exercise of others of their right of innocent passage. No modern State can validly
invoke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent passage that is exercised in accordance with
customary international law without risking retaliatory measures from the international
community.

c. The classification of the KIG (or the Spratlys), as well as the Scarborough Shoal, as a regime
of islands did not diminish our maritime area. Under UNCLOS and the baselines law, since they
are regimes of islands, they generate their own maritime zones. They are not to be enclosed
within the baselines of the main archipelago. This is because if we do that, then we will be
enclosing a larger area which would already depart from the provisions of UNCLOS that the
demarcation should follow the natural contour of the archipelago. Nevertheless, we still continue
to lay claim over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal through effective occupation.