Magallona vs. Ermita

G.R. No. 187167
The Philippines amended its maritime baselines law (RA 9522) to comply with UNCLOS III, prompting a constitutional challenge alleging territorial diminution and sovereignty concerns. The Supreme Court upheld the law, ruling it preserved maritime rights without undermining sovereignty or security.
constitutionality archipelagic baselines territorial loss

Case Digest (G.R. No. 187167)

Facts:

Prof. Merlin M. Magallona, Akbayan Party-List Rep. Risa Hontiveros, Prof. Harry C. Roque, Jr., and University of the Philippines College of Law Students, Alithea Barbara Acas, Voltaire Alferes, et al., petitioners, vs. Hon. Eduardo Ermita, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, Hon. Alberto Romulo, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Hon. Rolando Andaya, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management, Hon. Diony Ventura, in his capacity as Administrator of the National Mapping & Resource Information Authority, and Hon. Hilario Davide, Jr., in his capacity as Representative of the Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Philippines to the United Nations, respondents, G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.

Petitioners filed an original action for the writs of certiorari and prohibition directly before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9522 (RA 9522), an amendment to the Philippine baselines law that updated the archipelagic baselines and classified certain adjacent features (notably the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and Scarborough Shoal) as "regimes of islands" under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III). They alleged that RA 9522 (1) diminished Philippine territory in violation of Article I, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution by abandoning the historical Treaty of Paris rectangular delimitation, (2) exposed waters landward of the baselines to foreign passage including overflight, thereby jeopardizing sovereignty, national security, the nuclear-free policy and marine resources, and (3) prejudiced subsistence fishermen by altering maritime entitlements.

The petitioners consisted of law professors, a party-list representative, and law students asserting standing principally as citizens (and, in some instances, taxpayers or legislators). Respondents—senior executive and administrative officials—moved to dismiss on threshold grounds, arguing lack of locus standi and impropriety of invoking writs of certiorari and prohibition to test a statute; on the merits they defended RA 9522 as Congress' action to comply with UNCLOS III and to preserve Philippine sovereign claims, while noting RA 9522 did not repeal RA 5446's reservation on Sabah.

The Court treated the petition as an original action; no lower-court ...(Pro-only)

Issues:

  • Do petitioners possess locus standi to bring this original action?
  • Are the writs of certiorari and prohibition proper remedies to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522?
  • On the merits, is RA 9522 unconstitutional—specifically (a) does it diminish Philippine national territory or impair sovereignty by abandoning the Treaty of Paris delimitation and treating the KIG and Scarborough Shoal as "regimes of islands"; (b) does it unlawfully expose internal waters to passage rights inconsistent with the Constitution; and (c) does i...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

  • (Pro-only)

Ratio:

  • (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

  • (Pro-only)
Unlock Full Case Digest