Article I. National Territory Magalona vs. Ermita (Territory)

Article I.
National Territory
Magalona vs. Ermita (Territory)
Facts: In 1961, Congress passed Republic Act No. 3046 (RA 3046) demarcating the maritime
baselines of the Philippines as an archipelagic State. This law followed the framing of the
Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in 1958 (UNCLOS I), 4 codifying,
among others, the sovereign right of States parties over their territorial sea, the breadth of
which, however, was left undetermined. Attempts to fill this void during the second round of
negotiations in Geneva in 1960 (UNCLOS II) proved futile.
In March 2009, Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522. 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.
Issue: Whether or not RA 9522 is unconstitutional as it reduces Philippine maritime territory,

and logically, the reach of the Philippine states sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the
1987 Constitution.
Ruling: No. The Supreme Court rule that:
Territorial Diminution
On the petitioner’s submission that RA9522 violates the Article 1 of the Constitution as it
reduces Philippines maritime territory, the Court ruled that RA 9522 dismembers a large portion
of the national territory. UNCLOS III and its ancillary 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) plays no role in the
acquisition, enlargement or, as petitioners claim, diminution of territory. It is a multilateral
treaty regulating, among others, sea-use rights over maritime, contiguous zone, exclusive
economic zone, and continental shelves that UNCLOS III delimits.
Claim of the Philippines over the KIG and Scarborough Shoal
The petitioner also raised that RA 9522s use of UNCLOS IIIs 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 over that area. On this, the Supreme Court held that
the configuration of the baselines drawn under RA 3046 and RA 9522 shows that RA 9522
merely followed the basepoints mapped by RA 3046. The KIG and the Scarborough Shoal
which lies outside of the baselines drawn around the Philippine archipelago on RA 3046 was
even declared to be under the Philippines’s sovereignty and jurisdiction at the Sec. 2 of
RA9522, even though said areas are located at an appreciable distance from the nearest
shoreline of the Philippines. Aside from this by optimizing the location of basepoints through RA
9522 the Philippines increased its total maritime space compared to RA 3046.
RA 9522 unconstitutional conversion of internal waters into archipelagic waters
Whether referred to as Philippine internal waters under Article I of the Constitution or as

archipelagic waters under UNCLOS III (Article 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. UNCLOS III affirms this:
Article 49. Legal status of archipelagic waters, of the air space over

archipelagic waters and of their bed and subsoil.

1. The sovereignty of an archipelagic State extends to the
waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines drawn in
accordance with article 47, described as archipelagic waters,
regardless of their depth or distance from the coast.
2. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the
archipelagic waters, as well as to their bed and subsoil, and
the resources contained therein.
xxxx

4. The regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage established in this
Part shall not in other respects affect the status of the archipelagic
waters, including the sea lanes, or the exercise by the archipelagic State of
its sovereignty over such waters and their air space, bed and subsoil, and
the resources contained therein.
The fact of sovereignty, however, does not preclude the operation of municipal and
international law norms subjecting the territorial sea or archipelagic waters to necessary, if not
marginal, burdens in the interest of maintaining unimpeded, expeditious international navigation,
consistent with the international law principle of freedom of navigation.
In the absence of municipal legislation, international law norms, now codified in

UNCLOS III, operate to grant innocent passage rights over the territorial sea or archipelagic
waters, subject to the treatys limitations and conditions for their exercise. Significantly, the right
of innocent passage is a customary international law, thus automatically incorporated in
the corpus of Philippine law. 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.
The imposition of these passage rights through archipelagic waters under UNCLOS III
was a concession by archipelagic States, in exchange for their right to claim all the waters
landward of their baselines, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast, as archipelagic
waters subject to their territorial sovereignty.
Therefore, RA 9522 is constitutional.

Article I. National Territory Magalona vs. Ermita (Territory)

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article I. National Territory Magalona vs. Ermita (Territory)

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

Article I. National Territory Magalona vs. Ermita (Territory)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article I.

Magalona vs. Ermita (Territory)

Issue: Whether or not RA 9522 is unconstitutional as it reduces Philippine maritime territory,

Ruling: No. The Supreme Court rule that:

Claim of the Philippines over the KIG and Scarborough Shoal

RA 9522 unconstitutional conversion of internal waters into archipelagic waters

Whether referred to as Philippine internal waters under Article I of the Constitution or as

Article 49. Legal status of archipelagic waters, of the air space over

In the absence of municipal legislation, international law norms, now codified in

Therefore, RA 9522 is constitutional.

You might also like