Magallona v Ermita Constitutional Law I National Territory | Summaries Constitutional Law

Prof. Merline M. Magallona et al., v Hon. Eduardo Ermita et al.,

G.R. No. 187167, July 16, 2011

En Banc, Carpio, J.,

Facts

RA 3046 was passed and followed the framing of UNCLOS I, demarcating the

maritime baselines of the Philippines as an archipelagic State. It remained

unchanged for nearly 5 decades.

Codifying the sovereign right of States parties over their territorial sea.

In 2009, Congress amended the law by enacting RA no. 9522, prompted by the need

to make RA 3046 compliant with the terms of UNCLOS III.

UNCLOS III prescribes the water-land ratio, length, and contour of baselines of

archipelagic States like the Philippines and sets the deadline for the filing of

application for the extended continental shelf.

R.A. No. 9522 shortened one baseline, optimized the location of some basepoints

around the Philippine Archipelago and classified adjacent territories, namely, the

Kalayaan Island (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal, as "regimes of islands"

whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.

Naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at

high tide.

Petitioners, professors of law, law students and a legislator file a petition for

certiorari and prohibition, assailing the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9522 on

several grounds:

1. It reduces Ph maritime territory and logically, the reach of the Philippine

state's sovereign power –Violating Art. 1

2. RA 9522 opens the country's wavers landward of the baselines to maritime

passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and

national security;

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; and

4. The law fails to reference either the Treaty of Paris or Sabah and its use of

UNCLOS III's framework of regime of islands to determine the maritime zones

of the KIG and Scarborough Shoal.

The respondent officials herein, contended the petitioners has no locus standi and

propriety of the certiorari and prohibition in assailing the constitutionality of the law.

According to them, RA 9522 is valid as it is in compliance with the terms of

UNCLOSS III, in preserving both KIG and Scarborough and that the law does

not undermine the country’s security, environment and economic interests or

relinquish the Philippine’s claim over Sabah.

Issues

1. WON RA 9522 is constitutional.

2. WON by entering UNCLOS, and enacting the baseline law Philippines lose its

territory.

Ruling

Yes, RA 9522 is constitutional.

Partial preview of the text

Download Magallona v Ermita Constitutional Law I National Territory and more Summaries Constitutional Law in PDF only on Docsity!

Prof. Merline M. Magallona et al., v Hon. Eduardo Ermita et al., G.R. No. 187167, July 16, 2011 En Banc, Carpio, J., Facts RA 3046 was passed and followed the framing of UNCLOS I, demarcating the maritime baselines of the Philippines as an archipelagic State. It remained unchanged for nearly 5 decades. Codifying the sovereign right of States parties over their territorial sea. In 2009, Congress amended the law by enacting RA no. 9522, prompted by the need to make RA 3046 compliant with the terms of UNCLOS III. UNCLOS III prescribes the water-land ratio, length, and contour of baselines of archipelagic States like the Philippines and sets the deadline for the filing of application for the extended continental shelf. R.A. No. 9522 shortened one baseline , optimized the location of some basepoints around the Philippine Archipelago and classified adjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan Island (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal , as "regimes of islands" whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones. Naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide. Petitioners, professors of law, law students and a legislator file a petition for certiorari and prohibition, assailing the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9522 on several grounds:

It reduces Ph maritime territory and logically, the reach of the Philippine state's sovereign power – Violating Art. 1
RA 9522 opens the country's wavers landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security;
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; and
The law fails to reference either the Treaty of Paris or Sabah and its use of UNCLOS III's framework of regime of islands to determine the maritime zones of the KIG and Scarborough Shoal. The respondent officials herein, contended the petitioners has no locus standi and propriety of the certiorari and prohibition in assailing the constitutionality of the law. According to them, RA 9522 is valid as it is in compliance with the terms of UNCLOSS III, in preserving both KIG and Scarborough and that the law does not undermine the country’s security, environment and economic interests or relinquish the Philippine’s claim over Sabah. Issues
WON RA 9522 is constitutional.
WON by entering UNCLOS, and enacting the baseline law Philippines lose its territory. Ruling Yes, RA 9522 is constitutional.

UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a multilateral treaty regulating, among others, sea-use rights over maritime zones (i.e., the territorial waters [12 nautical miles from the baselines], contiguous zone [24 nautical miles from the baselines], exclusive economic zone [200 nautical miles from the baselines]), and continental shelves that UNCLOS III delimits. On the other hand, baselines laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III States parties to mark-out specific basepoints along their coasts from which baselines are drawn, either straight or contoured , to serve as geographic starting points to measure the breadth of the maritime zones and continental shelf. UNCLOS III and its ancillary baselines laws play no role in the acquisition, enlargement or, as petitioners claim, diminution of territory. Baselines laws gives notice to the rest of the international community of the scope of the maritime space and submarine areas within which States parties exercise treaty-based rights, namely, the exercise of sovereignty over territorial waters (Article 2), the jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitation laws in the contiguous zone (Article 33), and the right to exploit the living and non-living resources in the exclusive economic zone (Article 56) and continental shelf (Article 77). WEAKENS OUR TERRITORIAL CLAIM Petitioners' assertion of loss of "about 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters" under RA 9522 is similarly unfounded both in fact and in law. On the contrary, RA 9522, by optimizing the location of basepoints, increased the Philippines' total maritime space (covering its internal waters, territorial sea and exclusive economic zone) by 145,216 square nautical miles. What we call the Kalayaan Island Group or what the rest of the world call the Spratlys and the Scarborough Shoal are outside our archipelagic baseline because if we put them inside our baselines we might be accused of violating the provision of international law which states: "The drawing of such baseline shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago." So sa loob ng ating baseline, dapat magkalapit ang mga islands. Dahil malayo ang Scarborough Shoal, hindi natin masasabing malapit sila sa atin although we are still allowed by international law to claim them as our own. Far from surrendering the Philippines' claim over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal, Congress' decision to classify the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as "Regime of Islands under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article 121" of UNCLOS III manifests the Philippine State's responsible observance of is pacta sunt servanda obligation under UNCLOS III.

The KGI as constituted under PD 1596
Bajo de Masinloc, aka Scarborough Shoal Because if the Congress included the two islands as part of Philippine archipelago, adverse legal effects will arise. Philippines would have committed a breach of two provisions of UNCLOS III. First , Article 47 (3) of UNCLOS III requires that "the drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago." Second , Article 47 (2) of UNCLOS III requires that "the length of the baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles," save for three per cent (3%) of the total number of baselines which can reach up to 125 nautical miles. Although the Philippines has consistently claimed sovereignty over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal for several decades, these outlying areas are located at an appreciable distance from the nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipelago, such that any straight baseline loped around them from the nearest basepoint will inevitably "depart to an appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago."

DELINEATION OF INTERNAL WATERS

Moreover, whether referred to as Philippine "internal waters" under Art. 1 of the Constitution or as " archipelagic waters " under UNCLOS III (Art. 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, as affirmed by UNCLOS III. UNCLOS III grants new rights to coastal States to exclusively exploit the resources found within this zone up to 200 nautical miles. UNCLOS III, however, preserves the traditional freedom of navigation of other States that attached to this zone beyond the territorial sea before UNCLOS III. The enactment of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for the Philippine Archipelago and adjacent areas, as embodied in RA 9522, allows an internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippines’ maritime zones and continental shelf. 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. Facts  Spratlys Group of Islands - not part of Ph Archipelago because it is too far to be included within the archipelagic line encircling the internal waters of Ph Archipelago  SGI however, part of Philippine territory because it was discovered by a Filipino seaman in the name of Tomas Cloma.  SGI and Scarborough Shoal fall under "and all other all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction." It is part of our national territory because the Philippine exercise sovereignty (through election of public officials) over the Spratly Group of Islands. Moreover, under Ph Baseline Law of 2009, (RA 9522) they both classified as islands under the regime of Ph.

Magallona v Ermita Constitutional Law I National Territory, Summaries of Constitutional Law

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Magallona v Ermita Constitutional Law I National Territory and more Summaries Constitutional Law in PDF only on Docsity!

DELINEATION OF INTERNAL WATERS