G.R. No.

187167- Magallona v Ermita

August 16, 2011 | Carpio, J. | Constitution, Territory

PETITIONER: PROF MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, AKBAYAN PARTY LIST REP RISA HONTIVEROS, PROF. HARRY ROQUE JR.,
UP COLLEGE OF LAW STUDENTS

RESPONDENTS: HON EDUARDO ERMITA EXEC SEC, ALBERTO ROMULO DFA SECRETARY, ROLANDO ANDAYA DBM
SECRETARY, DIONY VENTURA ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL MAPPING & RESOURCE INFORMATION
AUTHORITY, HON. HILARIO DAVIDE JR REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PERMANENT MISSION OF THE PHILS TO U.N.

SUMMARY:
This original action for the writ of certiorari and prohibition assails constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9522
adjusting the country’s archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline regime of nearby territories.

DOCTRINE:
1987 Constitution Section 2 - The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality,
justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.

FACTS:
1. R.A. 3046 which was passed in 1961 provides among others the demarcation lines of the Philippine baselines
as an Archipelagic State in compliant with the UNCLOS I.
2. In 1968, R.A. 5446 amended R.A 3046 in terms of typographical errors and included Section 2 in which the
government reserved the drawing of baselines in Sabah in North Borneo.
3. In 2009, R.A 9522 took effect amending R.A. 5446 to be compliant with the 1984 UNCLOS III in which
Philippines is one of the signatories. 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

ISSUES:

1. WoN the petitioners have locus standi to bring the suit

2. WoN the writ of certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies to assail the constitutionality of RA 9552
3. WoN RA 9522 is unconstitutional

RULINGS:

1. Yes, the SC ruled that as a “citizen suit” and not a taxpayer or legislator suit, the citizens who will be directly
injured and benefitted in affording relief over the remedy sought.
2. Yes, the SC by tradition viewed the writs of certiorari and prohibition as proper remedial vehicles to test the
constitutionality of statutes and acts of other branches of government.
3. The SC upheld the constitutionality of R.A 9522.
RATIO:

1. SC emphasized that UNCLOS III is not a mode of acquiring or losing a territory as provided under the laws of
nations as it is just a codified norm that regulates conduct of States. The contention of the petitioner that RA
9522 resulted to the loss of 15,000 square nautical miles is devoid of merit. The truth is, RA 9522, by
optimizing the location of base points, increased the Philippines total maritime space of 145,216 square
nautical miles.

2. With the passages issue, the political branches of the government can enact legislation designating routes
within the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and sea lanes passages in the absence of international law
norms operate.

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.

4. Petitioner’s invocation of non-executory constitutional provisions in Article II (Declaration of Principles and

State Policies) also fail. Provisions in Article II are mere legislative guides, which, absent enabling legislation,
“do not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights. It also serve as guide in formulating and
interpreting implementing legislation.