Pilapil, Reginna Joie V.
LM5A International Trade Laws and Practices
G.R No. 187167
August 16, 2011
Magallona vs. Ermita
Facts:
Congress passed Republic Act No. 3046, which established the Philippines' maritime
baselines as an archipelagic state. The law was enacted following the adoption of the
Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in 1958. The attempts to fill
this void during the second round of Geneva negotiations in 1960 were futile.
However, for nearly five decades, RA 3046 remained unchanged. It was saved for the
Republic Act No. 5446, which corrected typographical errors and reserved the drawing of
baselines around Sabah. The Congress then amended RA 3046 by implementing RA
9522. The petitioners then challenged the constitutionality of RA 9522 on two grounds: it
reduces Philippine maritime territory, and thus the reach of the Philippine state's
sovereign power; and 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, violating the country's nuclear-free policy, and harming marine
resources, in violation of the relevant constitution. Furthermore, petitioners argue that RA
9522's classification of the KIG as a "regime of islands" not only results in the loss of a
large maritime area, but also affects the livelihood of fishermen. Then, respondent officials
brought up threshold issues.
Issue/s:
whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional.
Ruling:
The Court find no basis to declare RA 9522 unconstitutional. The Petitioners’ theory failed
to persuade the court. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with territory acquisition or loss. It is
a multilateral treaty that governs sea-use rights over maritime zones, contiguous zones,
exclusive economic zones, and continental shelves, among other things. UNCLOS III and
its ancillary baselines laws have no effect on territory acquisition, enlargement, or, as
petitioners claim, diminution.