Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, July 16, 2011

 

• Doctrine: RA 9522 did not decrease the demarcation of Ph territory and is merely a statutory tool to establish the country’s maritime zone and continental shelves to comply with UNCLOS.

  
  

• Facts: In March 2009, Republic Act 9522 (Baseline Law), an act defining the archipelagic baselines of the Philippines was enacted to comply with the terms of the third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), ratified by the Philippines in February 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 hence the law is unconstitutional.

  RA 9522 used the baseline method marking specific basepoints along the coasts from where the baselines are drawn. Instead of the Treaty of Paris where a rectangular area delineated Ph embracing hundreds of nautical miles around Ph. Acc to petitioner, baseline law dismembers a large portion of nat’l territory including the Kalayaan Group of Islands and the Scarborough Shoal.

  
  

  The Supreme Court emphasized that RA 9522, or UNCLOS, itself is not a means to acquire, or lose, territory. The treaty and the baseline law have nothing to do with the acquisition, enlargement, or diminution of the Philippine territory. What controls when it comes to acquisition or loss of territory is the international law principle on occupation, accretion, cession and prescription and NOT the execution of 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. 

  
  

  The law did not decrease the demarcation of our territory. In fact it increased it. 

• "Lastly, the UNCLOS III and RA 9522 are not incompatible with the Constitution’s delineation of internal waters. Petitioners contend that RA 9522 transformed the internal waters of the Philippines to archipelagic waters hence subjecting these waters to the right of innocent and sea lanes passages, exposing the Philippine internal waters to nuclear and maritime pollution hazards. The Court emphasized that 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, regardless whether internal or archipelagic waters. However, sovereignty will not bar the Philippines to comply with its obligation in maintaining freedom of navigation and the generally accepted principles of international law. It can be either passed by legislator as a municipal law or in the absence thereof, it is deemed incorporated in the Philippines law since the right of innocent passage is a customary international law, thus automatically incorporated thereto." (https://attymorena.weebly.com/)