Case Digest (G.R. No. 187167)
Facts:
In Prof. Merlin M. Magallona, et al. v. Hon. Eduardo Ermita, et al. (G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011), professors, law students and a party-list legislator filed an original action for the writs of certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9522. They challenged its amendment of the pre-existing baseline laws—RA 3046 (1961) and RA 5446 (1968)—which demarcated the Philippines as an archipelagic State and reserved baseline drawing around Sabah. Enacted on March 27, 2009 to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) ratified by the Philippines in 1984, RA 9522 shortened one baseline, optimized some basepoints, and classified the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and Scarborough Shoal as “regimes of islands” generating separate maritime zones. Petitioners alleged that RA 9522 diminished Philippine territory, opened internal waters to foreign passage in violation of sovereignty and environmental policies, ignored the TrCase Digest (G.R. No. 187167)
Facts:
- Parties and Nature of Action
- Petitioners: Professors, law students, a legislator (Magallona, Hontiveros, Roque, UP law students and others) as citizens, taxpayers or legislators.
- Respondents: Executive Secretary Ermita, DFA Secretary Romulo, DBM Secretary Andaya, NAMRIA Administrator Ventura, and UN Mission Rep. Davide Jr.
- Original action for writs of certiorari and prohibition challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9522 (RA 9522).
- Antecedents and Legal Context
- RA 3046 (1961) defined Philippine archipelagic baselines under UNCLOS I; RA 5446 (1968) corrected typographical errors and preserved Sabah baseline.
- Philippines ratified UNCLOS III in 1984, requiring baselines laws to define territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.
- Enactment of RA 9522 (2009) to amend RA 3046: optimize basepoints, shorten one baseline, classify Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and Scarborough Shoal as “regime of islands.”
- Grounds of Petition
- Alleged diminution of Philippine maritime territory and sovereign power contrary to Const. Art. I, Sec. 1 (national territory).
- Opening of waters landward of baselines to foreign vessels and aircraft (innocent and sea-lanes passage), undermining security, non-nuclear policy, and marine resources.
- Facial attack on RA 9522’s exclusion of Treaty of Paris/Sabah reference and inclusion of UNCLOS III regime of islands framework.
Issues:
- Threshold Issues
- Do petitioners have locus standi to challenge RA 9522?
- Are the writs of certiorari and prohibition proper remedies for testing the constitutionality of a statute?
- Merits
- Does RA 9522 violate the Constitution by reducing national territory or sovereign rights?
- Is the classification of KIG and Scarborough Shoal as regime of islands inconsistent with Philippine claims?
- Does RA 9522 implicitly waive the statutory claim over Sabah?
- Does RA 9522 unlawfully convert internal waters into archipelagic waters subject to passage rights?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)