Magalona v.
Ermita
Facts:
RA 3046 was passed in 1961 which provides among others the
demarcation lines of the baselines of the Philippines as an
archipelago. This is in consonance with UNCLOS I.
RA 5446 amended RA 3046 in terms of typographical errors and
included Section 2 in which the government reserved the drawing of
baselines in Sabah in North Borneo.
RA 9522 took effect on March 2009 amending RA 5446. The
amendments, which are in compliance with UNCLOS III in which the
Philippines is one of the signatory, shortening one baseline while
optimizing the other and classifying Kalayaan Group of Island and
Scarborough Shoal as Regimes of Island.
Petitioners in their capacity as taxpayer, citizen and legislator
assailed the constitutionality of RA 9522:- it reduces the territory of
the Philippines in violation to the Constitution and it opens the
country to maritime passage of vessels and aircrafts of other states
to the detriment of the economy, sovereignty, national security and
of the Constitution as well. They added that the classification of
Regime of Islands would be prejudicial to the lives of the fishermen.
Issues:
1. WON the petitioners have locus standi to bring the suit; and
2. WON RA 9522 is unconstitutional
Ruling:
Petition is dismissed.
1st Issue:
The SC ruled the suit is not a taxpayer or legislator, but as a citizen
suit, since it is the citizens who will be directly injured and
benefitted in affording relief over the remedy sought.
2nd Issue:
The SC upheld the constitutionality of RA 9522.
First, RA 9522 did not delineate the territory the Philippines but is
merely a statutory tool to demarcate the country’s maritime zone
and continental shelf under UNCLOS III. SC emphasized that
UNCLOS III is not a mode of acquiring or losing a territory as
provided under the laws of nations. UNCLOS III is a multi-lateral
treaty that is a result of a long-time negotiation to establish a
uniform 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. In order
to measure said distances, it is a must for the state parties to have
their archipelagic doctrines measured in accordance to the treaty—
the role played by RA 9522. The contention of the petitioner that RA
9522 resulted to the loss of 15,000 square nautical miles is devoid of
merit. The truth is, RA 9522, by optimizing the location of base
points, increased the Philippines total maritime space of 145,216
square nautical miles.

Second, the classification of KGI and Scarborough Shoal as Regime
of Islands is consistent with the Philippines’ sovereignty. Had RA
9522 enclosed the islands as part of the archipelago, the country
will be violating UNCLOS III since it categorically stated that the
length of the baseline shall not exceed 125 nautical miles. So what
the legislators did is to carefully analyze the situation: the country,
for decades, had been claiming sovereignty over KGI and
Scarborough Shoal on one hand and on the other hand they had to
consider that these are located at non-appreciable distance from
the nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipelago. So, the
classification is in accordance with the Philippines sovereignty and
State’s responsible observance of its pacta sunt servanda obligation
under UNCLOS III.
Third, the new base line introduced by RA 9522 is without prejudice
with 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.
And lastly, the UNCLOS III and RA 9522 are not incompatible with
the Constitution’s delineation of internal waters. Petitioners
contend that RA 9522 transformed the internal waters of the
Philippines to archipelagic waters hence subjecting these waters to
the right of innocent and sea lanes passages, exposing the
Philippine internal waters to nuclear and maritime pollution
hazards. The Court emphasized that 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,
regardless whether internal or archipelagic waters. However,
sovereignty will not bar the Philippines to comply with its obligation
in maintaining freedom of navigation and the generally accepted
principles of international law. It can be either passed by legislator
as a municipal law or in the absence thereof, it is deemed
incorporated in the Philippines law since the right of innocent
passage is a customary international law, thus automatically
incorporated thereto.
This does not mean that the states are placed in a lesser footing; it
just signifies concession of archipelagic states in exchange for their
right to claim all waters inside the baseline. In fact, the demarcation
of the baselines enables the Philippines to delimit its exclusive
economic zone, reserving solely to the Philippines the exploitation
of all living and non-living resources within such zone. Such a
maritime delineation binds the international community since the
delineation is in strict observance of UNCLOS III. If the maritime
delineation is contrary to UNCLOS III, the international community
will of course reject it and will refuse to be bound by it.
The Court expressed that it is within the Congress who has the
prerogative to determine the passing of a law and not the Court.
Moreover, such enactment was necessary in order to comply with
the UNCLOS III; otherwise, it shall backfire on the Philippines for its
territory shall be open to seafaring powers to freely enter and
exploit the resources in the waters and submarine areas around our
archipelago and it will weaken the country’s case in any
international dispute over Philippine maritime space.
The enactment of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for the
Philippine archipelago and adjacent areas, as embodied in RA 9522,
allows an internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth of
the Philippines’ maritime zones and continental shelf. RA 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.
Tanada v. Angara
Facts:
On April 15, 1994, respondent Navarro, Secretary of Department of
Trade and Industry and a representative of the Philippine
government, signed in the Final Act Embodying the Results of the
Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations. Bys signing the Final
Act, the Philippines agreed to submit the agreement establishing
the World Trade Organization that require the Philippines, among
others, “to place nationals and products of member-countries on
the same footing as Filipinos and local products”. To that effect, the
President ratified and submitted the same to the Senate for its
concurrence pursuant to Section21, Article VII of the Constitution.
Hence the petitioner assailed the WTO Agreement for violating the
mandate of the 1987 Constitution to “develop a self-reliant and
independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos . . .
(to) give preference to qualified Filipinos (and to) promote the
preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally
produced goods”.
Issue: Whether the provisions of the Agreement Establishing the
World Trade Organization contravene the provisions of Sec. 19, Art.
II, and Secs. 10 and 12, Art. XII, all of the 1987 Philippines
Constitution.
Held:
The court ruled the petition in favor of the respondents.
Article II of the Constitution is a "declaration of principles and state
policies." These principles in Article II are not intended to be self-
executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. They
are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its
power of judicial review, and by the legislature in its enactment of
laws.
The provisions of Sec. 10 and 12, Article XII of the Constitution,
general principles relating to the national economy and patrimony,
is enforceable only in regard to “the grants or rights, privileges and
concessions covering national economy and patrimony” and not to
every aspect of trade and commerce. While the Constitution
mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and
enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need for business
exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and
reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only against
foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. In other
words, the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist
policy.
On the other hand, there is no basis on the contention that under
WTO, local industries will all be wiped out and that Filipino will be
deprived of control of the economy, in fact, WTO recognizes need
to protect weak economies like the Philippines