Magalona vs Ermita

Gr 187167 Aug 16, 2011

Facts:
-1961, congress passed RA 3046:
o adjusting the country’s archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline regime of
nearby territories. How? Separating the maritime baselines of the Philippines as an
archipelagic state
-March 2009, amended RA 3056 to RA 9522—> still under study.
o purpose: compliant with UNCLOS III (ratified by Phils in 1984)
-UNCLOS III set deadline for filing of application for extended continental shelf
-RA 9522 generate their own applicable maritime zones:
o shortened one baseline
o rearranged location of some base points
o classified adjacent territories: KIG (Spratlys) and Scarborough Shoal as “regime of
islands”
-What is Regime of Islands?
o an island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above
water at high tide
o except as provided for in par. 3: the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive
economic zone, and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance
with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory
o Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall
have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf
-Petitioners question the constitutionality of RA 9522 because:
1. It reduces Philippine maritime territory violating Art. 1 1987 Consti
2. It opens the Philippine’s waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all
vessels and aircrafts —> undermining Philippine sovereignty
-Petitioners: it failed to reference the Treaty of Paris or Sabah and its use of UNCLOS III’s
regime of islands
-Respondents questioned the petitioners:
1. Petitioner’s compliance with the case requirement, lack of locus standi
2. The propriety of the writs of certiorari and prohibition to attack the constitutionality of
RA 9522
-Respondents defend:
o RA 9522 is compliant with UNCLOS III, preserves Phil. territory over the Spratlys
or Scarborough Shoal
o it doesn’t undermine country’s security, environment, economic interests, or
relinquish claim over Sabah
Issue:
1. Whether petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit
Ruling: Yes because the petition alleges neither infringement of legislative prerogative nor
misuse of public funds. They had sufficient interest to resolve the case because it raises issues of
national significance.
2. Whether or not the writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to question the
constitutionality of RA 9522
 Ruling: Yes. These are proper remedies to to test the constitutionality of statutes and
branches of government.
3. Whether or not RA 9522 is unconstitutional
Ruling: It is not unconstitutional, it is a statutory tool to demarcate the country’s maritime
zone and continental shelf under UNCLOSIII, it does not delineate Philippine territory.
-UNCLOS III has nothing to do with loss of territory. It regulates the rights in maritime
zones.
-the breadth of territorial sea, EZZ, contiguous zone, and continental shelf be measured
from archipelagic baselines
4. Whether or not RA 9522’s Use of the framework of Regime of Islands to determine the
Maritime Zones of the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal is inconsistent with the Philippines’
claim of sovereignty over these areas
Ruling: Baseline laws are mechanisms for the UNCLOS III to describe the delimitations. It
serves as a notice to the international states and will not affect enlargement of diminution of
territories.