8/22/2019 B01 Magallona v. Ermita 1B-DG

1/2

Case under The State

MAGALLONA v. ERMITA [August 16, 2011]

655 SCRA 476

Carpio J.

FACTS

BACKGROUND. Congress passed Republic Act No. 3046 demarcating the

maritime baselines of the Philippines as an archipelagic state pursuant to theframing of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone

(UNCLOS 1) in 1958.

o On its desire to improve the earlier law and in order to address the

demands of UNCLOS 2, Republic Act No. 5446 was enacted [when?].

However, typographical errors and reserving the drawing of baselinesaround Sabah in North Borneo were the only salient points of the

amendatory statute.

o In March 2009, Congress amended Republic Act 3046 by enactingRepublic Act No. 9522 in compliance with the terms of UNCLOS1 3.The third improvement on the law, inter alia, shortened the baseline,

optimize the location of some base points around the Philippine

archipelago and classified adjacent territories namely, the Kalayaan Group

of Islands and Scarborough Shoalas regime of islands whose islandsgenerate their own applicable maritime zones. [please define what a

regime island mean and why that definition led to the filing of this case]

THE CASE. Petitioners beset [is this the best verb to use?] RA 9522 on two

principal grounds: (1) it reduces the Philippine maritime territory and logically,

the reach of the Philippine states sovereign power and (2) it opens the countrys

waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all levels and aircrafts.o Petitioners filed writs of certiorari and prohibition assailing the

constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9522 adjusting the countrys

archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline regime of nearby

territories.

ISSUE

Whether or not Republic Act No. 9522 is unconstitutional.

RULING]

The Supreme Court found no basis to declare RA 9522 as unconstitutional.

1. RA 9522 is a statutory tool to demarcate the countrys maritime zones andcontinental shelf under UNCLOS 3, not to delineate Philippine territory.

2. The Philippines still exercises sovereignty over and jurisdiction over the

Kalayaan Group of Islands and Scarborough Shoal as explicitly stated in

Section 2 of RA 9522.3. More importantly, RA 9522 recognizes the archipelagic States archipelago

1United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

8/22/2019 B01 Magallona v. Ermita 1B-DG

2/2

and the waters enclosed by their baselines as one cohesive entity prevents the

treatment of their islands as separate islands under UNCLOS 3.

4. Absent an UNCLOS 3 compliant baselines law, an archipelagic State like thePhilippines will find itself devoid of internationally acceptable baselines from

where the breath of its maritime zones and continental shelf is measured.

*ASM 6/21/2013