Magallona v. Ermita
G.R. No. 187167 (August 16, 2011)
Facts:
The case revolves around the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9522 (RA 9522), which amended the country's archipelagic baselines and classified the baseline regime of nearby territories. The backdrop of this case dates back to 1961 when Congress enacted Republic Act No. 3046 (RA 3046), which defined the maritime baselines of the Philippines as an archipelagic state. This law was influenced by the United Nations Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (UNCLOS I) established in 1958, which recognized the sovereign rights of states over their territorial seas but did not specify the breadth of such seas.
For nearly five decades, RA 3046 remained unchanged, except for minor amendments. In March 2009, Congress enacted RA 9522 to align the Philippines' baseline law with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which the Philippines ratified in 1984. RA 9522 aimed to optimize the location of basepoints around the Philippine archipelago and classified adjacent territories, specifically the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and Scarborough Shoal, as "regimes of islands" that generate their own maritime zones.
Petitioners, including law professors, students, and a legislator, challenged the constitutionality of RA 9522 on two main grounds: (1) it allegedly reduced Philippine maritime territory and the reach of the state's sovereign power, violating Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution, and (2) it opened the country's waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and aircraft, undermining national sovereignty and security.
Respondents, including various government officials, contended that RA 9522 was a necessary compliance with UNCLOS III and did not diminish Philippine territory or sovereignty. They also raised preliminary issues regarding the petitioners' standing and the appropriateness of the writs of certiorari and prohibition.
Legal Issues:
- Whether the petitioners possess locus standi to bring the suit.
- Whether the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies to challenge the constitutionality of RA 9522.
- Whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional.
Arguments:
Petitioners' Arguments:
- RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory and the reach of sovereign power, violating the constitutional definition of national territory.
- The law opens the waters landward of the baselines to foreign vessels, undermining national security and contravening the nuclear-free policy.
- The classification of KIG as a "regime of islands" results in the loss of maritime area and prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.
Respondents' Arguments:
- Petitioners lack locus standi as they did not demonstrate infringement of legislative prerogative or misuse of public funds.
- The writs of certiorari and prohibition are appropriate for testing the constitutionality of statutes.
- RA 9522 is a necessary compliance with UNCLOS III and does not diminish Philippine territory or sovereignty over KIG and Scarborough Shoal.
Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:
The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners possessed locus standi as citizens and that the writs of certiorari and prohibition were proper remedies to challenge the constitutionality of RA 9522. On the merits, the Court found no basis to declare RA 9522 unconstitutional.
Locus Standi: The Court recognized the petitioners' standing as citizens with a constitutionally sufficient interest in the case, given its national significance.
Proper Remedies: The Court affirmed that the writs of certiorari and prohibition could be used to test the constitutionality of statutes, even if the petitioners did not demonstrate personal interest.
Constitutionality of RA 9522: The Court held that RA 9522 was a statutory tool to demarcate maritime zones under UNCLOS III and did not alter the definition of Philippine territory. It clarified that UNCLOS III regulates sea-use rights and does not affect territorial acquisition or loss. The classification of KIG and Scarborough Shoal as regimes of islands was consistent with international law and did not undermine Philippine sovereignty.
The Court emphasized that the baselines drawn under RA 9522 were necessary for the Philippines to assert its maritime rights and that the law did not diminish the country's territorial claims. The Court also noted that the law's provisions regarding innocent passage and archipelagic sea lanes did not violate the Constitution, as the Philippines retained sovereignty over its internal waters.
Significant Legal Principles Established:
- The enactment of baseline laws is a sovereign act of a state to delineate its maritime zones and does not equate to the loss of territory.
- Compliance with international treaties, such as UNCLOS III, is essential for states to assert their maritime rights and sovereignty.
- The classification of maritime areas under international law does not diminish a state's territorial claims if the state continues to assert sovereignty over those areas.