View full case

PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA v. EDUARDO ERMITA

FACTS:

This case involves the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9522 (RA 9522), which adjusts the country's archipelagic baselines and classifies the baseline regime of nearby territories. Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of RA 9522 on two grounds: it reduces Philippine maritime territory in violation of the 1987 Constitution and it opens the country's waters to maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security. They also argue that RA 9522's treatment of the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) as a "regime of islands" results in the loss of a large maritime area and prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen. Respondents question the petitioners' locus standi and the propriety of the writs of certiorari and prohibition to challenge the constitutionality of RA 9522. The court held that the petitioners have locus standi as citizens and that the writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies. The court found no basis to declare RA 9522 unconstitutional.

In this case, the respondents argue that writs of certiorari and prohibition cannot be issued unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice. The case involves the constitutionality of RA 9522, which is a law that demarcates the country's maritime zones and continental shelf under UNCLOS III. Petitioners argue that RA 9522 "dismembers a large portion of the national territory" because it deviates from the pre-UNCLOS III demarcation under the Treaty of Paris. They claim that Philippine sovereignty extends hundreds of nautical miles around the Philippine archipelago based on the Treaty of Paris. The court explains that UNCLOS III is a multilateral treaty that regulates sea-use rights and does not involve the acquisition or loss of territory. Baselines laws, such as RA 9522, are enacted to delimit maritime zones and continental shelves in accordance with UNCLOS III. Even if the Philippine territory extends to the rectangular area in the Treaty of Paris, the baselines must still be drawn from the "outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago." UNCLOS III and baselines laws do not determine territorial claims to land features, which are governed by general international law. Petitioners argue that RA 9522 weakens the Philippines' territorial claim over the KIG, but the use of UNCLOS III's regime of islands framework is not inconsistent with sovereignty claims over these areas.

This case involves a challenge to Republic Act (RA) 9522, which modifies the baselines of the Philippine archipelago. The petitioners argue that the exclusion of certain features, particularly the Kalayaan Islands Group (KIG) and Scarborough Shoal, weakens the country's territorial claim over those areas. They assert that this exclusion results in the loss of approximately 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters, negatively affecting the livelihood of subsistence fishermen. The court finds that RA 9522 follows the basepoints mapped by RA 3046, with only a few adjustments to comply with UNCLOS III.

ISSUES:

  1. Preliminarily –

    1. Whether petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit.

    2. Whether the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522.

  2. On the merits –

    1. Whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional.

RULING:

  1. On the threshold issues:

    1. Petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit as citizens.

    2. The writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to test the constitutionality of RA 9522.

  2. On the merits:

    1. 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.

      • RA 9522's use of the framework of regime of islands to determine the maritime zones of the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal is not inconsistent with the Philippines' claim of sovereignty over these areas.

      • RA 9522 retains the statutory claim over Sabah under RA 5446.

      • UNCLOS III and RA 9522 are not incompatible with the Constitution's delineation of internal waters.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Locus Standi: Petitioners have the standing as citizens given the issues of national significance raised.

  • Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition: These are the proper remedies for testing the constitutionality of statutes.

  • UNCLOS III Compliance: Baselines laws enacted under UNCLOS III delimit maritime zones and continental shelves of archipelagic states and do not impact sovereignty over land territories.

  • Regime of Islands: Article 121 of UNCLOS III allows islands to generate their own maritime zones, consistent with the country’s sovereignty assertions.

  • Archipelagic Waters: The Philippines exercises full sovereignty over archipelagic waters, including the air space above and submarine areas below, notwithstanding the acceptance of passage rights under international law.

  • Non-Execitorial Constitutional Provisions: Article II provisions of the Constitution are generally non-self-executing and require enabling legislation to be judicially enforceable.

  • Pacta Sunt Servanda: The principle of compliance with treaty obligations as a reflection of the state's responsible observance of international law commitments.

The court concludes that RA 9522 aligns with international norms and practices, safeguarding the Philippines' maritime interests without compromising national sovereignty.