Magallona V Ermita

TOPIC: Territory
Title of the Case: Magallona v. Ermita

G.R./Date: G.R No. 187167 August 16, 2011
Petitioner: Magallona et al.
Respondent: Hon. Eduardo Ermita (in his capacity as Executive Secretary) et al.
Ponente: Associate Judge Antonio T. Carpio
FACTS:
In 1961, Congress passed Republic Act No. 3046 (RA 3046) demarcating the maritime baselines
of the Philippines as an archipelagic State, conforming to UNCLOS I regulations 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 RA 9522, the statute under scrutiny.
The change was prompted by the need to make RA 3046 compliant with the terms of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which the Philippines ratified on 27
February 1984. Among others, UNCLOS III prescribes the water-land ratio, length, and contour
of baselines of archipelagic States like the Philippines. RA 9522 shortened one baseline,
optimized the location of some basepoints around the Philippine archipelago and classified
adjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal, as
"regimes of islands" whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.
Petitioners argue that:
(1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the reach of the Philippine
state’s sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution, embodying the terms
of the Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties; and
(2) RA 9522 opens the country’s waters 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, in violation of relevant
constitutional provisions.
(3) RA 9522’s treatment of the KIG as "regime of islands" not only results in the loss of a large
maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.
Respondents argue that:

1) the petition’s compliance with the case or controversy requirement for judicial review
grounded on petitioners’ alleged lack of locus standi; and
(2) the propriety of the writs of certiorari and prohibition to assail the constitutionality of RA
9522.
ISSUE: Whether or not:
1. RA 9522 is unconstitutional;
2. Petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit; and
3. The writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies to assail the
constitutionality of RA 9522.
RULING: Is RA 9522 unconstitutional? NO.
On the Threshold Issues Petitioners Possess Locus Standi as Citizens
We recognize 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.
YES.
The Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition Are Proper Remedies to Test the Constitutionality of Statutes
Writs cannot issue absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of judicial,
quasi- judicial or ministerial powers on the part of respondents and resulting prejudice on the
part of petitioners. This holds true in ordinary civil proceedings. When this Court exercises its
constitutional power of judicial review, however, we have, by tradition, viewed the writs of
certiorari and prohibition as proper remedial vehicles to test the constitutionality of statutes,
and indeed, of acts of other branches of government. YES.
RA 9522 is Not Unconstitutional
RA 9522 is a statutory tool to demarcate the country’s maritime zones and continental shelf
under UNCLOS III, not to delineate Philippine territory. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with
the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a multilateral treaty regulating sea-use rights over
maritime zones (i.e., the territorial waters [12 nautical miles from the baselines], contiguous zone
[24 nautical miles], exclusive economic zone [200 nautical miles]), and continental shelves that
UNCLOS III delimits. UNCLOS III recognizes coastal and archipelagic States’ graduated
authority over a limited span of waters and submarine lands along their coasts.
UNCLOS III and its ancillary baselines laws play no role in the acquisition, enlargement
or, as petitioners claim, diminution of territory. Under traditional international law typology,
States acquire (or conversely, lose) territory through occupation, accretion, cession and
prescription, not by executing multilateral treaties on the regulations of sea-use rights or enacting
statutes to comply with the treaty’s terms to delimit maritime zones and continental shelves.
Territorial claims to land features are outside UNCLOS III, and are instead governed by the rules
on general international law.
UNCLOS III and RA 9522 not Incompatible with the Constitution’s Delineation of Internal Waters
Petitioners contend that the law unconstitutionally "converts" internal waters into archipelagic
waters, hence subjecting these waters to the right of innocent and sea lanes passage under
UNCLOS III, including overflight and that these passage rights indubitably expose Philippine
internal waters to nuclear and maritime pollution hazards, in violation of the Constitution.
Whether referred to as Philippine "internal waters" under Article I of the Constitution or

as "archipelagic waters" under UNCLOS III (Article 49 [1]), 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.
The fact of sovereignty, however, does not preclude the operation of municipal and international
law norms subjecting the territorial sea or archipelagic waters to necessary, if not marginal,
burdens in the interest of maintaining unimpeded, expeditious international navigation,
consistent with the international law principle of freedom of navigation. Thus, domestically, the
political branches of the Philippine government, in the competent discharge of their
constitutional powers, may pass legislation designating routes within the archipelagic waters to
regulate innocent and sea lanes passage.
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.

Magallona V Ermita

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Magallona V Ermita

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Magallona V Ermita

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TOPIC: Territory

Title of the Case: Magallona v. Ermita

of the Philippines as an archipelagic State, conforming to UNCLOS I regulations in 1958,

of the Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties; and

Respondents argue that:

Whether referred to as Philippine "internal waters" under Article I of the Constitution or

You might also like