Magallona v.
Ermita | G.R. No. 187167 | July 16, 2011 | Carpio, J. | Re: Article 1
(National Territory) of Section I of the 1987 Constitution |
Parties of
the Case
Historical
Facts
o
Codified
the sovereign right of States parties over their territorial sea, the breadth
of which, however, was left undetermined.
o
Attempts
to fill this void during the second round of negotiations in Geneva in 1960
United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS II) proved futile.
o
Remained
unchanged for 5 decades not including RA 5446 passed on 1968 which corrected
typos and reserved the drawing of baselines around Sabah (North Borneo,
Malaysia)
Substantive
Facts of the Case
Case at bar are writs of certiorari
and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of RA 9522 adjusting the country’s
archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline regime of nearby
territories.
In 2009, Congress amended
RA 3046 by enacting RA 5446 as a means to make RA 3046 compliant with the
terms of UNCLOS III which the Phils ratified on Feb 24, 1984
o
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
RA 5546 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.
Petitioners contended that
RA 5546 will result to loss of livelihood for the fishermen in the area
and to loss of a large maritime area. They also contend that RA 5546
missed out on the historical implications of the Treaty of Paris or claims
to Sabah and assails the use of RA 5546 of the UNCLOS III.
Respondents argue and
question the locus standi of the petitioners, propriety of the
writs of certiorari and prohibition to assail the constitutionality of RA
9522.
o
They defend the RA by pointing
out that they are merely following UNCLOS III. Respondents also claim that the
formative force, under international law, of petitioners assertion that what
Spain ceded to the United States under the Treaty of Paris were the islands and
all the waters found within the boundaries of the rectangular area drawn under
the Treaty of Paris.
Issues
and Holding
1)
WoN petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit [YES]
Petitioners undermine their locus
standi as taxpayers and legislators because the case at bar does not
involve misuse of public funds, neither any infringement on legislative
prerogative.
Nevertheless, Petitioners possess locus
standi to bring this suit as citizens undoubtedly raises issues of national
significance necessitating urgent resolution
Nature of the RA 5546
makes it hard for a direct interest for the suit, so mere citizenship is
enough to establish locus standi.
2)
WoN the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper
remedies to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522. [YES]
On ordinary civil
proceedings, respondents’ argument of absence of any grounds for grave
abuse of discretion will hold water.
However, when the Court
has to use its Judicial Review, in determining the constitutionality of
the statute, then said Writs are deemed to be proper as they undoubtedly
raise issues of national significance necessitating urgent resolution
3)
On the merits, WoN RA 9522 is unconstitutional. [NO, it is
ACTUALLY constitutional]
Petitioners question
the legality of RA 9522 because it discards the pre-UNCLOS III demarcation of
Philippine territory under the Treaty of Paris and other treaties as encoded in
the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions and according to the retangular area
lineated in the Treaty of Paris, the Philippines should hold hundreds of
nautical miles more.
o
It is a multilateral treaty regulating
sea-use rights over maritime zones: (a) the territorial waters [12 nautical
miles from the baselines]; (b) contiguous zone [24 nautical miles from
the baselines], (c) exclusive economic zone [200 nautical miles
from the baselines]), and (d) continental shelves that UNCLOS III delimits
UNCLOS III was the culmination
of decades-long negotiations among UN members to codify norms
regulating the conduct of States in the oceans.
Baselines laws such as RA 9522 are
enacted by UNCLOS III members to mark out basepoints along their
coasts to serve as geographic starting points to measure the breadth of
the maritime zones & continental shelf.
Article 48 of UNCLOS III states:
o
“Measurement of the breadth of the
territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the
continental shelf. The breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the
exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf shall be measured from
archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47.”
Thus, baseline laws are nothing but
statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS States to delimit their extent in the
maritime zone and continental shelves
UNCLOS III and its ancillary baselines
laws play no role in the acquisition, enlargement or, as petitioners
claim, diminution of territory.
o
Under traditional international law
typology, States acquire (or conversely, lose) territory through occupation,
accretion, cession and prescription,not by executing multilateral treaties on
the regulations of sea-use rights or enacting status.
o
Section 2 of RA 5446, which RA 9522 did not
repeal, keeps open the door for drawing the baselines of Sabahtes to comply
with the treatys terms to delimit maritime zones and continental shelves.
Petitioners claim
that RA 9522’s 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
the Phils’s territorial claim over that area and results in the loss of about
15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters
o
Under RA 3046, as under RA 9522, the KIG
and the Scarborough Shoal lie outside of the baselines drawn around the
Philippine archipelago.
o
This undeniable cartographic fact takes the
wind out of petitioners argument
Also, the Court points out that on
the contrary, RA 9522, by optimizing the location of
basepoints, increased the Philippines total maritime space
(covering its internal waters, territorial sea and exclusive economic
zone) by 145,216 square nautical miles
Court points out that even the reach of the exclusive economic zone
(EEZ) drawn under RA 9522 extends
way beyond the waters covered by the rectangular demarcation under the
Treaty of Paris, with exceptions to opposite or adjacent States’ that are
overlapping the EEZ
Further claims of Petitioners of RA
9522 removing the KGI are debunked by Section 2 of RA 9522 which commits
to the Philippines continued claim of sovereignty and jurisdiction over
the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as stated:
o
SEC. 2. The baselines in the following
areas over which the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and
jurisdiction shall be determined as Regime of Islands under the Republic of the
Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under
Presidential Decree No. 1596 and; b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as
Scarborough Shoal.
o
Had the law decided to remove KIG and the
Scarborough Shoal then it would be a violation of 2 provisions of UNCLOS III
▪ Article 47 (3) of UNCLOS III requires that
[t]he drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from
the general configuration of the archipelago.
▪ Article 47 (2) of UNCLOS III requires that
the length of the baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, save for three
per cent (3%) of the total number of baselines which can reach up to 125
nautical miles.
o
What the late Mirriam Defensor-Santiago
(principal sponsor of RA 9522) had to say:
▪ What we call the Kalayaan Island Group or
what the rest of the world call the Spratlys and the Scarborough Shoal are
outside our archipelagic baseline because if we put them inside our baselines
we might be accused of violating the provision of international law which
states: The drawing of such baseline shall not depart to any appreciable
extent from the general configuration of the archipelago. So sa loob ng
ating baseline, dapat magkalapit ang mga islands. Dahil malayo ang Scarborough
Shoal, hindi natin masasabing malapit sila sa atin although we are still
allowed by international law to claim them as our own. This is called
contested islands outside our configuration. We see that our archipelago is
defined by the orange line which [we] call archipelagic baseline. Ngayon,
tingnan ninyo ang maliit na circle doon sa itaas, that is Scarborough Shoal,
itong malaking circle sa ibaba, that is Kalayaan Group or the Spratlys. Malayo
na sila sa ating archipelago kaya kung ilihis pa natin ang dating archipelagic
baselines para lamang masama itong dalawang circles, hindi na sila magkalapit
at baka hindi na tatanggapin ng United Nations because of the rule that it
should follow the natural configuration of the archipelago
o
Under Article 121 of UNCLOS III, any
naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at
high tide, such as portions of the KIG, qualifies under the category of regime
of islands, whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones
Statutory
claim over Sabah under RA 5446 retained as opposed to Petitioners’ claim that
said RA does not mention about the Phils’ claims of Sabah.
Petitioners
contend that the law unconstitutionally converts internal waters into
archipelagic waters, hence subjecting these waters to the right of innocent and
sea lanes passage under UNCLOS III,
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.
Conclusion
- 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 countrys 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.
Petition dismissed
Comments
Post a Comment