MAGALLONA VS ERMITA

G.R. NO. 187167 ; AUGUST 16, 2011

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III); UNCLOS III has
nothing to do with the acquisition or loss of territory.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 zones (i.e., the territorial waters [12 nautical miles
from the baselines], contiguous zone [24 nautical miles from the baselines], exclusive
economic zone [200 nautical miles from the baselines]), and continental shelves that
UNCLOS III delimits. UNCLOS III was the culmination of decades-long negotiations
among United Nations members to codify norms regulating the conduct of States in the
worlds oceans and submarine areas, recognizing coastal and archipelagic States graduated
authority over a limited span of waters and submarine lands along their coasts.

Archipelagic Baselines of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 9522); Baselines laws
such as R.A. 9522 are enacted by United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS III) States parties to mark-out specific basepoints along their
coasts from which baselines are drawn, either straight or contoured, to serve as
geographic starting points to measure the breadth of the maritime zones and
continental shelf.Baselines laws such as R.A. 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III States
parties to mark-out specific basepoints along their coasts from which baselines are drawn,
either straight or contoured, to serve as geographic starting points to measure the breadth
of the maritime zones and continental shelf. Article 48 of UNCLOS III on archipelagic
States like ours could not be any clearer: Article 48. Measurement of the breadth of the
territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf.
The breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the
continental shelf shall be measured from archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with
Article 47.

Same; Baselines laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) States parties to delimit with
precision the extent of their maritime zones and continental shelves.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).

Same; R.A. 9522 increased the Philippines total maritime space by 145,216 square
nautical miles.Petitioners assertion of loss of about 15,000 square nautical miles of
territorial waters under R.A. 9522 is similarly unfounded both in fact and law. On the
contrary, R.A. 9522, by optimizing the location of basepoints, increased the Philippines
total maritime space (covering its internal waters, territorial sea and exclusive economic
zone) by 145,216 square nautical miles.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III); Congress
decision to classify the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal
as Regime[s] of Islands manifests the Philippine States responsible observance
of its pacta sunt servanda obligation under UNCLOS III.Far from surrendering the
Philippines claim over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal, Congress decision to classify
the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as Regime[s] of Islands under the Republic of the
Philippines consistent with Article 121 of UNCLOS III manifests the Philippine States
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 tide, such as portions of the KIG, qualifies under the category of
regime of islands, whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.

Same; 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.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. 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.
Same; United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) creates a
sui generis (unique) maritime spacethe exclusive economic zonein waters
previously part of the high seas.UNCLOS III favors States with a long coastline like
the Philippines. UNCLOS III creates a sui generis maritime spacethe exclusive economic
zonein 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 to 200 nautical miles.
UNCLOS III, however, preserves the traditional freedom of navigation of other States that
attached to this zone beyond the territorial sea before UNCLOS III.

Same; Absent an United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (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 continental shelf is measured.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
continental shelf is measured. This is recipe for a two-fronted disaster: first, 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; and second, it weakens the countrys
case in any international dispute over Philippine maritime space. These are consequences
Congress wisely avoided.

Same; Archipelagic Baselines of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 9522); The
enactment of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III)
compliant baselines law for the Philippine archipelago and adjacent areas, as
embodied in R.A. 9522, allows an internationally-recognized delimitation of the
breadth of the Philippines maritime zones and continental shelf.The enactment
of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for the Philippine archipelago and adjacent areas,
as embodied in R.A. 9522, allows an internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth
of the Philippines maritime zones and continental shelf. R.A. 9522 is therefore a most vital
step on the part of the Philippines in safeguarding its maritime zones, consistent with the
Constitution and our national interest.
FACTS:

In March 2009, Republic Act 9522, an act defining the archipelagic baselines of the
Philippines was enacted the law is also known as the Baselines Law. This law was meant
to comply with the terms of the third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS III), ratified by the Philippines in February 1984.

Professor Merlin Magallona et. al. questioned the validity of R.A. 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 itself, 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), as well as the Scarborough Shoal
(bajo de masinloc), as a regime of islands pursuant to UNCLOS results in the loss of a
large maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the contentions of Magallona et. a.l are tenable.

HELD:

No. The Supreme Court emphasized that R.A. 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 diminution 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 and not the execution
of multilateral treaties on the regulations of sea-use rights or enacting statutes to comply
with the treatys terms to delimit maritime zones and continental shelves.

The law did not decrease the demarcation of our territory. In fact it increased it.
Under the old law amended by R.A. 9522 (R.A. 3046), we adhered with the rectangular lines
enclosing the Philippines. The area that it covered was 440,994 square nautical miles . But
under R.A. 9522, and with the inclusion of the exclusive economic zone, the extent of our
maritime was increased to 586,210 sq. na. mi.

If any, the baseline law is a notice to the international community of the scope of the
maritime space and submarine areas within which States parties exercise treaty-based
rights.