MAGALONA VS ERMITA

G.R. No. 187167 16Aug2011

Prof. Merlin Magalona, et al., Petitioners,

vs

Hon. Eduardo Ermita in his capacity as Executive Secretary, et al., Respondents.

Facts:

In March 2009, R.A. 9522 was enacted by the Congress to comply with the terms of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which the Philippines
ratified on February 27, 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. Some of
their particular arguments are as follows:

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.
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.

Hence, petitioners files action for the writs of certiorari and prohibition assails the
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9522 1 (RA 9522) adjusting the country’s
archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline regime of nearby territories.

Issues:

Whether or not RA 9522, the amendatory Philippine Baseline Law is unconstitutional.

Discussions:

The provision of Art I 198 Constitution clearly affirms the archipelagic doctrine, which we
connect the outermost points of our archipelago with straight baselines and consider all
the waters enclosed thereby as internal waters. RA 9522, as a Statutory Tool to
Demarcate the Country’s Maritime Zones and Continental Shelf Under UNCLOS III, gave
nothing less than an explicit definition in congruent with the archipelagic doctrine.

Rulings:

No. The Court finds R.A. 9522 constitutional. It is a Statutory Tool to Demarcate the
Country’s Maritime Zones and Continental Shelf Under UNCLOS III, not to Delineate
Philippine Territory. It is a vital step in safeguarding the country’s maritime zones. It also
allows an internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippine’s
maritime zones and continental shelf.

Additionally, The Court finds that the conversion of internal waters into archipelagic
waters will not risk the Philippines as affirmed in the Article 49 of the UNCLOS III, an
archipelagic State has sovereign power that extends to the waters enclosed by the
archipelagic baselines, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast. It is further
stated that the regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage will not affect the status of its
archipelagic waters or the exercise of sovereignty over waters and air space, bed and
subsoil and the resources therein.

The Court further stressed that the baseline laws are mere mechanisms for the UNCLOS
III to precisely describe the delimitations. It serves as a notice to the international family
of states and it is in no way affecting or producing any effect like enlargement or
diminution of territories.
Cruz vs Secretary of DENR GR 135388 Dec. 6, 200

Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine

GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

FACTS:

Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as
citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic
Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and
its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of
the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the
State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural
resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII
of the Constitution.

ISSUE:

Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?

HELD:

No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there
is nothing in the law that grants to the ICCs/IPs ownership over the natural resources
within their ancestral domain. Ownership over the natural resources in the ancestral
domains remains with the State and the rights granted by the IPRA to the ICCs/IPs over
the natural resources in their ancestral domains merely gives them, as owners and
occupants of the land on which the resources are found, the right to the small scale
utilization of these resources, and at the same time, a priority in their large scale
development and exploitation.

Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the public
domain. They are private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title, which is a
concept of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State.
However, the right of ownership and possession by the ICCs/IPs of their ancestral
domains is a limited form of ownership and does not include the right to alienate the
same.
BOY SCOUT OF THE PHILIPPINES VS COMMISSION ON AUDIT 651
SCRA 146 2011

Facts:

COA issued a Resolution No. 99-011 on August 19, 1999, with the subject “Defining the
Commission’s Policy with respect to the audit of the Boy Scout of the Philippines.” The
BSP which was created as a public corporation, and that in BSP vs. NLRC, the Supreme
Court ruled that the BSP, as constituted under its charter, was a Government Owned and
Controlled Corporation within the meaning of Art. IX (B) (2) (1) of the Constitution, and
that the BSP is regarded as a government instrumentality under the Administrative
Code. For the purposes of audit supervision, the BSP shall be classified among the
government corporations to be audited by employing the team audit approach. The BSP
sought reconsideration of the COA Resolution in a letter signed by then BSP National
President Jejomar C. Binay, saying that it is not subject to the COA’s jurisdiction.

Issues:

Whether or not the Boy Scout of the Philippines is a government owned and controlled
corporation?
Whether or not it is under the jurisdiction of the COA?

The Ruling of the court:

After looking at the legislative history of its amended charter and carefully studying the
applicable laws and the arguments of both parties, The SC finds that the BSP is a public
corporation and its funds are subject to the COA’s audit jurisdiction.

The BSP is a public corporation or a government agency or instrumentality with juridical

personality, which does not fall within the constitutional prohibition in Article XII,
Section 16, notwithstanding the amendments to its charter. Not all corporations, which
are not government owned or controlled, are ipso facto to be considered private
corporations as there exists another distinct class of corporations or chartered
institutions which are otherwise known as "public corporations." These corporations are
treated by law as agencies or instrumentalities of the government which are not subject
to the tests of ownership or control and economic viability but to different criteria
relating to their public purposes/interests or constitutional policies and objectives and
their administrative relationship to the government or any of its Departments or Offices.

Since the BSP, under its amended charter, continues to be a public corporation or a
government instrumentality, we come to the inevitable conclusion that it is subject to
the exercise by the COA of its audit jurisdiction in the manner consistent with the
provisions of the BSP Charter.