MAGALLONA v. ERMITA, G.R.
187167, August 16, 2011 If any, the baselines law is a notice to the international community of the
Facts:
In 1961, Congress passed R.A. 3046 demarcating the maritime baselines of
the Philippines as an Archepelagic State pursuant to UNCLOS I of 9158,
codifying the sovereignty of State parties over their territorial sea. Then in
1968, it was amended by R.A. 5446, correcting some errors in R.A. 3046
reserving the drawing of baselines around Sabah.
In 2009, it was again amended by R.A. 9522, to be compliant with the
UNCLOS III of 1984. The requirements complied with are: to shorten one
baseline, to optimize the location of some basepoints and classify KIG and
Scarborough Shoal as regime of islands.
Petitioner now assails the constitutionality of the law for three main reasons:
1. it reduces the Philippine maritime territory under Article 1;
2. it opens the countrys waters to innocent and sea lanes passages hence
undermining our sovereignty and security; and
3. treating KIG and Scarborough as regime of islands would weaken our
claim over those territories.
Issue: Whether R.A. 9522 is constitutional?
Ruling:
1. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with acquisition or loss of territory. it is just a
codified norm that regulates conduct of States. On the other hand, RA 9522
is a baseline law to mark out basepoints along coasts, serving as geographic
starting points to measure. it merely notices the international community of
the scope of our maritime space.
2. If passages is the issue, domestically, the legislature can enact legislation
designating routes within the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and
sea lanes passages. but in the absence of such, international law norms
operate.
the fact that for archipelagic states, their waters are subject to both passages
does not place them in lesser footing vis a vis continental coastal states.
Moreover, RIOP is a customary international law, no modern state can
invoke its sovereignty to forbid such passage.
3. On the KIG issue, RA 9522 merely followed the basepoints mapped by RA
3046 and in fact, it increased the Phils. total maritime space. Moreover, the
itself commits the Phils. continues claim of sovereignty and jurisdiction over
KIG.
If not, it would be a breach to 2 provisions of the UNCLOS III:
Art. 47 (3): drawing of basepoints shall not depart to any appreciable extent
from the general configuration of the archipelago.
Art 47 (2): the length of baselines shall not exceed 100 mm.
KIG and SS are far from our baselines, if we draw to include them, well
breach the rules: that it should follow the natural configuration of the
archipelago.
FROM A DIFFERENT SOURCE
HELD: No. 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 has 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 treatys
terms to delimit maritime zones and continental shelves.
The law did not decrease the demarcation of our territory. In fact it increased
it. Under the old law amended by RA 9522 (RA 3046), we adhered with the
rectangular lines enclosing the Philippines. The area that it covered was
440,994 square nautical miles (sq. na. mi.). But under 9522, and with the
inclusion of the exclusive economic zone, the extent of our maritime was
increased to 586,210 sq. na. mi. (See image below for comparison)
scope of the maritime space and submarine areas within which States
parties exercise treaty-based rights.
Anent their particular contentions:
a. The law did not abandon the Sabah claim. This is evident on the provision
of Section 2 of RA 9522:
Section 2. The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the
Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Act is without prejudice to the
delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea around the territory of
Sabah, situated in North Borneo, over which the Republic of the
Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty.
b. UNCLOS may term our waters as archipelagic waters and that we may
term it as our internal waters, but the bottom line is that our country
exercises sovereignty over these waters and UNCLOS itself recognizes that.
However, due to our observance of international law, we allow the exercise
of others of their right of innocent passage. No modern State can validly
invoke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent passage that is exercised
in accordance with customary international law without risking retaliatory
measures from the international community.
c. The classification of the KIG (or the Spratlys), as well as the Scarborough
Shoal, as a regime of islands did not diminish our maritime area. Under
UNCLOS and under the baselines law, since they are regimes of islands,
they generate their own maritime zones in short, they are not to be
enclosed within the baselines of the main archipelago (which is the
Philippine Island group). This is because if we do that, then we will be
enclosing a larger area which would already depart from the provisions of
UNCLOS that the demarcation should follow the natural contour of the
archipelago.
Nevertheless, we still continue to lay claim over the KIG and the
Scarborough Shoal through effective occupation.
NOTES:
Under UNCLOS and the baselines law, we have three levels of maritime
zones where we exercise treaty-based rights:
a. territorial waters 12 nautical miles from the baselines; where we exercise
sovereignty
b. contiguous zone 24 nautical miles from the baselines; jurisdiction where
we can enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitation laws (CFIS).
c. exclusive economic zone 200 nautical miles from the baselines; where
we have the right to exploit the living and non-living resources in the
exclusive economic zone
Note: a fourth zone may be added which is the continental shelf this is
covered by Article 77 of the UNCLOS.
WTO CASE (TAADA VS. ANGARA) Fernandez
Facts:
The Republic of the Philippines, through DTI Secretary Navarro signed in the
Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral
Negotiations.
The Philippine Senate, then, received a letter from the President of the
Philippines stating that the Uruguay Round Final Act (the Agreement
establishing the World Trade Organization) is submitted to them for their
concurrence. Another letter on the same subject was given to the Senate.
Senate adopted a resolution expressing its concurrence in the ratification of
the international agreement. Thereafter, the President signed the Instrument
of Ratification. However, the WTO Agreement ratified by the President did
not contain certain documents contained in the Final Act signed by the DTI
Secretary.
This action was filed by Tanada et al questioning the validity/constitutionality
of the WTO Agreement.
Issues: Is the WTO Agreement consistent with the Constitution? Does the
WTO Agreement unduly limit and restrict Philippine sovereignty? Does the
concurrence made by the Senate and the President, in essence, defective
since it did not include other documents contained in the Final Act signed by
the DTI Secretary?
Held: An initial question was posed regarding jurisdiction. The SC ruled that
it has jurisdiction over the matter since it has the power to determine whether
there was GADLEJ on the part of the Senate and President. However, the
SC will not review the wisdom of their decisions.
The WTO Agreement is not violative of the Constitution. The reliance on the
priniciple of economic nationalism espoused in Articles 2(sec 19) and
12(secs 10 and 12) of the Constitution is misplaced as these are not self-
executing provisions. They do not embody judicially enforceable
constitutional rights but are guidelines for legislation. These are broad
constitutional principles that need legislative enactments to implement them.
Moreover, while the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino
goods, services, labor and enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the
need for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of
equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only
against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. The
Constitution did not intend to promote an isolationist policy. In addition, the
GATT itself has provided built-in protection from such unfair foreign
competition and trade practices.
(the important part) Participating in the WTO Agreement did limit or restrict,
to some extent, the absoluteness of our sovereignty, but is not necessarily
reprehensible. While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed
absolute and all-encompassing on the domestic level, it is however
subject to restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the
Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family of
nations. Through the incorporation clause in the Constitution, the Philippines
is bound by generally accepted principles of law as they automatically form
part of the laws of the land. Of great importance is the principle of pacta
sunt servanda, which means that international agreements must be
performed in good faith. A state which has contracted valid international
obligations is bound to make in its legislation such modifications as may be
necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken. So by their
voluntary act, nations may surrender some aspects of their state power
in exchange for greater benefits granted by or derived from a
convention or pact. For instance, when the Philippines joined the UN and
other bilateral relations with other States, it effectively limits its sovereign
powers of taxation, eminent domain and police power. It can then be inferred
that a portion of sovereignty may be waived without violating the Constitution
by virtue of the Philippines being bound by generally accepted principles of
law.
A Final Act is not the treaty itself. It is just a summary of the proceedings
that took place during the negotiation stage. In fact, the Senate did what the
Final Act requiredthe concurrence tot the WTO Agreement. By the
ratification of the Agreement, the other documents in question (Ministerial
Declarations etc) were deemed adopted. Plus, the WTO Agreement itself
stipulated what multilateral agreements are deemed included.
In sum, there was no GADLEJ on the part of the Senate and the President.
When the WTO Agreement was ratified and made part of the law of the land,
the Senate and the President was exercising, legitimately, its sovereign duty
and power. Notwithstanding objections against possible limitations on
national sovereignty, the WTO remains as the only viable structure for
multilateral trading and development of international trade law.
Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio, Beron,
Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana, Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas