2 - Magallano Vs Ermita (Sovereignty)

Magallano vs.
Ermita, 655 SCRA 476

Topic: Sovereignty
DOCTRINE:
Having Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and Scarborough Shoal outside Philippine baselines will not diminish
our sovereignty over these areas.
FACTS:
In 1961, Congress passed Republic Act No. 3046 (RA 3046) demarcating the maritime baselines of the
Philippines as an archipelagic State.[3] This law followed the framing of the Convention on the Territorial
Sea and the Contiguous Zone in 1958 (UNCLOS I), codifying, among others, the sovereign right of States
parties over their "territorial sea," the breadth of which, however, was left undetermined.
In March 2009, Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522, the statute now under scrutiny. The
change was prompted by the need to make RA 3046 compliant with the terms of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which the Philippines ratified on 27 February 1984.
Among others, 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. Complying with these requirements, RA 9522 shortened one baseline, optimized the
location of some basepoints around the Philippine archipelago and classified adjacent territories,
namely, the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal, as "regimes of islands" whose
islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 9522 on two principal grounds, namely: (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, and (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.
In addition, petitioners contend that 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.
Respondent officials raised threshold issues questioning (1) the petition's compliance with the case or
controversy requirement for judicial review grounded on petitioners' alleged lack of locus standi and (2)
the propriety of the writs of certiorari and prohibition to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522.
Respondents defended RA 9522 as the country's compliance with the terms of UNCLOS III, preserving
Philippine territory over the KIG or Scarborough Shoal.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not RA 9522 is unconstitutional as it reduces the reach of the Philippine state's sovereign
power.
RULING:
No. Aside from setting the country's baselines, RA 9522 is, in its Sec. 3, quite explicit in its reiteration of
the Philippines' exercise of sovereignty, thus:
Section 3. This Act affirms that the Republic of the Philippines has dominion, sovereignty and jurisdiction
over all portions of the national territory as defined in the Constitution and by provisions of applicable
laws including, without limitation, Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government
Code of 1991, as amended.
To emphasize, baselines are used to measure the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the
exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. Having KIG and the Scarborough Shoal outside
Philippine baselines will not diminish our sovereignty over these areas. Art. 46 of UNCLOS III in fact
recognizes that an archipelagic state, such as the Philippines, is a state "constituted wholly by one or
more archipelagos and may include other islands." The "other islands" referred to in Art. 46 are
doubtless islands not forming part of the archipelago but are nevertheless part of the state's territory.
The Philippines' sovereignty over KIG and Scarborough Shoal are, thus, in no way diminished. Consider:
Other countries such as Malaysia and the United States have territories that are located outside its
baselines, yet there is no territorial question arising from this arrangement.
Contrary to petitioners' contention, the classification of KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as falling under
the Philippine's regime of islands is not constitutionally objectionable. Such a classification serves as
compliance with LOSC and the Philippines' assertion of sovereignty over KIG and Scarborough Shoal. In
setting the baseline in KIG and Scarborough Shoal, RA 9522 states that these are areas "over which the
Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction." It is, thus, not correct for petitioners to claim
that the Philippines has lost 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters upon making this
classification. Having 15,000 square nautical miles of Philippine waters outside of our baselines, to
reiterate, does not translate to a surrender of these waters. The Philippines maintains its assertion of
ownership over territories outside of its baselines.
Petition, DISMISSED.

2 - Magallano Vs Ermita (Sovereignty)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 - Magallano Vs Ermita (Sovereignty)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 - Magallano Vs Ermita (Sovereignty)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Magallano vs.

Ermita, 655 SCRA 476

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.