ARTICLE I - NATIONAL TERRITORY

Question 1

What happened in the case of Magallona vs Ermita?

Answer 1

This case is about RA 9522, amending RA 3046 of 1961, to make it compliant with UNCLOS III. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 9522. The issues were:

1. Whether petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit.

(Yes, petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit, because as citizens, they have constitutionally sufficient interest in the resolution of the merits of the case which undoubtedly raises issues of national significance necessitating urgent resolution.
Because of the peculiar nature of RA 9522, the SC says that “it is understandably difficult to find other litigants possessing “a more direct and specific interest” to bring the suit, thus satisfying one of the requirements for granting citizenship standing.”)

2. Whether the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522.

(YES, the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522. The writs of certiorari and prohibition as proper remedial vehicles to test the constitutionality of statutes, and indeed, of acts of other branches of government. Issues of constitutional import are sometimes crafted out of statutes which, while having no bearing on the personal interests of the petitioners, carry such relevance in the life of this nation that the Court inevitably finds itself constrained to take cognizance of the case and pass upon the issues raised, non-compliance with the letter of procedural rules notwithstanding. The statute sought to be reviewed here is one such law.)

3. Whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional.
   No, RA 9522 is not unconstitutional, BECAUSE RA 9522 is a Statutory Tool to Demarcate the Country’s Maritime
   Zones and Continental Shelf Under UNCLOS III, not to
   Delineate Philippine Territory. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory

Question 2

What were the logical reasons given by the Supreme Court as to why RA 9522 is not unconstitutional?

Answer 2

Moreover, the luxury of choosing this option comes at a very steep price. Absent an UNCLOS III compliant baselines law, an archipelagic State like the Philippines will find itself devoid of internationally acceptable baselines from where the breadth of its maritime zones and continental shelf is measured. This is recipe for a two-fronted disaster:

First, it sends an open invitation to the seafaring powers to freely enter and exploit the resources in the waters and submarine areas around our archipelago; and

Second, it weakens the country’s case in any international dispute over Philippine maritime space.

These are consequences Congress wisely avoided.
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.

Question 3

What were the arguments and counter-arguments in the case of Magallona vs Ermita?

Answer 3

A1. Petitioners submit that RA 9522 “dismembers a large portion of the national territory”
B1. 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

A2. Petitioners submit that RA 9522’s use of UNCLOS III’s regime of islands framework to draw the baselines, and to measure the breadth of the applicable maritime zones of the KIG, “weakens our territorial claim” and the loss of 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters.
B2. The configuration of the baselines drawn under RA 3046 and RA 9522 shows that RA 9522 merely followed the basepoints mapped by RA 3046, save for at least nine basepoints that RA 9522 skipped to optimize the location of basepoints and adjust the length of one baseline (and thus comply with UNCLOS III’s limitation on the maximum length of baselines). Under RA 3046, as under RA 9522, the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal lie outside of the baselines drawn around the Philippine archipelago. This undeniable cartographic fact takes the wind out of petitioners’ argument branding RA 9522 as a statutory renunciation of the Philippines’ claim over the KIG, assuming that baselines are relevant for this purpose.
Petitioners’ assertion of loss of “about 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters” under RA 9522 is similarly unfounded both in fact and law. Further, petitioners’ argument that the KIG now lies outside Philippine territory because the baselines that RA 9522 draws do not enclose the KIG is negated by RA 9522 itself

A3. RA 9522 affects the Sabah claims
B3. Petitioners’ argument for the invalidity of RA 9522 for its failure to textualize the Philippines’ claim over Sabah in North Borneo is also untenable. Section 2 of RA 5446, which RA 9522 did not repeal, keeps open the door for drawing the baselines of Sabah

Question 4

What are baseline laws?

Answer 4

baselines laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III States parties to delimit with precision the extent of their maritime zones and continental shelves. In turn, this 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

1. over territorial waters (Article 2),
2. the jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitation laws in the contiguous zone (Article 33),
3. the right to exploit the living and non-living resources in the exclusive economic zone (Article 56) and continental shelf (Article 77).