Case Summary (G.R. No. 187167)
Key Dates
Relevant dates include: original baselines law RA 3046 (1961), corrective/amendatory RA 5446 (1968), Philippines’ ratification of UNCLOS III (27 February 1984), enactment of RA 9522 (March 2009), and the Supreme Court decision dismissing the petition (decision after 1990, thus applying the 1987 Constitution).
Applicable Law and Legal Basis of Decision
Primary domestic basis: the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Article I on national territory and related provisions). International framework: UNCLOS III (1982), particularly Articles 47–49, 51–53, and 121 regarding archipelagic baselines, measurement of maritime zones, archipelagic waters, archipelagic sea lanes passage, and regime of islands. Legislative instruments: RA 3046, RA 5446 (retained insofar as not repealed), and RA 9522. The Court treated RA 9522 as a statute implementing UNCLOS III and measured constitutionality against the 1987 Constitution.
Procedural Posture and Remedies Sought
Petitioners sought writs of certiorari and prohibition to annul RA 9522 and reliefs including an injunction. Respondents raised threshold objections as to locus standi and the propriety of certiorari/prohibition as vehicles to test a statute. The Court retained the petition for adjudication, declining to act on the injunction prayer.
Threshold Holdings: Locus Standi and Proper Remedies
Locus standi: The Court held petitioners have citizen standing. Although their claims as legislators and taxpayers lacked sufficient factual grounding, the public importance and national significance of the questions warranted citizen standing. Remedies: The Court confirmed its longstanding practice that writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper means to challenge the constitutionality of statutes, particularly where grave constitutional issues of national import are raised.
Central Legal Issue
Whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional on the grounds that it (a) reduces Philippine territory and sovereign power by altering prior baseline demarcation allegedly grounded in the Treaty of Paris and earlier constitutional formulations, and (b) opens internal waters to foreign passage and overflight in ways that violate constitutional principles on sovereignty, nuclear‑free policy, and protection of marine resources.
Core Ruling on Merits — Purpose and Legal Character of RA 9522
The Court ruled RA 9522 constitutional. It emphasized that UNCLOS III and consequent baseline legislation regulate sea‑use rights and delimit maritime zones (territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, continental shelf) but do not constitute modes of acquisition or loss of territory. Baselines laws serve as statutory mechanisms to mark basepoints from which maritime zone breadth is measured; they do not affect title to land territory, which under international law is acquired or lost by occupation, cession, accretion, or prescription.
Treatment of Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and Scarborough Shoal
RA 9522 classified the Kalayaan Island Group and Scarborough Shoal as “regime of islands” under Article 121 of UNCLOS III, thereby recognizing that islands naturally above water at high tide generate their own maritime zones. The Court found this classification consistent with the Philippines’ continued claim of sovereignty; Section 2 of RA 9522 expressly affirms Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over those areas. The exclusion of KIG and Scarborough Shoal from the archipelagic baselines was a technical necessity to comply with UNCLOS Article 47 constraints (ratio of water to land, limitation on baseline length, and the requirement not to depart appreciably from the general configuration of the archipelago). The Court held that leaving those outlying features outside straight archipelagic baselines did not diminish Philippine sovereignty over them.
Quantitative Impact on Maritime Area
Contrary to petitioners’ assertion that RA 9522 resulted in loss of territorial waters (allegedly about 15,000 square nautical miles), the Court examined comparative figures and found that RA 9522, through optimization of basepoints and compliance with UNCLOS, increased the Philippines’ total maritime area. The Court noted specific comparative area figures submitted by respondents, showing an overall increase in maritime space under RA 9522.
Sabah and Retention of RA 5446’s Statutory Claim
Petitioners argued RA 9522 was invalid for failing to reiterate the Philippines’ statutory claim over Sabah. The Court observed that RA 5446’s Section 2—preserving baseline delineation around Sabah—remains unrepealed and thus RA 9522 does not extinguish that statutory claim. RA 9522’s Section 3 further reaffirms the Philippines’ dominion, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over national territory as defined by the Constitution and applicable laws.
Archipelagic/Internal Waters, Passage Regimes and Constitutional Concerns
The Court addressed petitioners’ contention that RA 9522 effectively converted internal waters to archipelagic waters and thereby subjected them to innocent and archipelagic sea‑lanes passage rights that threaten sovereignty, national security, nuclear‑free policy, and marine resources. The Court explained that whether called internal waters (per Article I of the Constitution) or archipelagic waters (per UNCLOS III), the Philippines exercises sovereignty over waters landward of baselines, including airspace and subsoil. UNCLOS III recognizes and preserves that sovereignty even while providing limited navigation rights (innocent passage, archipelagic sea‑lanes passage) subject to treaty limi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 187167)
The Case
- Original action for the writs of certiorari and prohibition challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9522 (RA 9522).
- RA 9522 amended the country's archipelagic baselines and classified the baseline regime of nearby territories.
- Opinion authored by Carpio, J., with a concurring opinion by Velasco, Jr., J.
- Petitioners comprised law professors, a party-list representative, law students and others, acting as citizens, taxpayers, or legislators in their respective capacities.
- Respondents were high-ranking government officials in their official capacities, including the Executive Secretary and the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, among others.
Antecedents and Legislative History
- 1961: Congress enacted Republic Act No. 3046 (RA 3046) defining the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippines as an archipelagic State; RA 3046 treated the waters around, between, and connecting Philippine islands as inland waters (per its third Whereas Clause).
- 1968: Republic Act No. 5446 (RA 5446) corrected typographical errors in RA 3046 and expressly reserved the drawing of baselines around Sabah in North Borneo.
- Philippines signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) on 10 December 1982 and ratified it on 27 February 1984.
- UNCLOS III entered into force on 16 November 1994; it prescribes the water-land ratio, maximum baseline lengths, contours for archipelagic baselines, and sets a deadline for filing applications for the extended continental shelf.
- March 2009: Congress enacted RA 9522 to make RA 3046 compliant with UNCLOS III, shortening at least one baseline, optimizing basepoint locations, and classifying adjacent territories (the Kalayaan Island Group and Scarborough Shoal) as "regimes of islands."
Petitioners’ Principal Contentions
- RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory and thus the reach of the State’s sovereign power, allegedly violating Article I of the 1987 Constitution and the terms of the Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties.
- RA 9522 allegedly opens waters landward of baselines to passage by all vessels and aircraft, undermining sovereignty, national security, and the nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources—raising constitutional concerns under Article II, Sections cited by petitioners.
- Classification of the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and Scarborough Shoal as "regimes of islands" purportedly results in the loss of a large maritime area and harms subsistence fishermen.
- Facial attack on RA 9522 for excluding references to the Treaty of Paris and Sabah and for relying on UNCLOS III's regime of islands framework.
Respondents’ Defenses and Threshold Objections
- Raised threshold issues: petitioners’ compliance with case-or-controversy requirements—challenged locus standi—and the propriety of using writs of certiorari and prohibition to test a statute’s constitutionality.
- On the merits, respondents defended RA 9522 as compliance with UNCLOS III that preserves Philippine territory over KIG and Scarborough Shoal.
- Argued RA 9522 does not undermine security, environment, economic interests, or the Philippines' claim over Sabah.
- Questioned petitioners’ international-law claim that Spain ceded islands and all waters within the Treaty of Paris’ rectangular delineation to the United States (and thus to the Philippines).
Issues Presented
- Preliminary issues:
- Do petitioners have locus standi to bring the suit?
- Are the writs of certiorari and prohibition the proper remedies to attack the constitutionality of RA 9522?
- Merits:
- Is RA 9522 unconstitutional?
Court’s Holdings — Threshold Issues
- Locus standi:
- Petitioners failed to sustain locus standi as legislators and taxpayers because the petition did not allege infringement of legislative prerogative or misuse of public funds.
- The Court recognized petitioners’ locus standi as citizens, finding a constitutionally sufficient interest given the national significance and urgency of the issues raised and the difficulty of finding litigants with "a more direct and specific interest."
- Proper remedies:
- The Court affirmed the tradition of using writs of certiorari and prohibition as proper remedies to test the constitutionality of statutes when exercising judicial review, even though ordinarily such writs require a showing of grave abuse of discretion.
Court’s Holdings — Merits (Overall)
- The Court found no basis to declare RA 9522 unconstitutional.
- RA 9522 is a statutory tool to demarcate maritime zones and the continental shelf under UNCLOS III, not an instrument to delineate or alter Philippine territory.
RA 9522 and UNCLOS III — Nature and Purpose
- UNCLOS III regulates sea-use rights over maritime zones (territorial sea at 12 nautical miles, contiguous zone at 24 nm, exclusive economic zone at 200 nm, and continental shelf) and delimits continental shelves.
- Baselines laws (like RA 9522) identify basepoints and draw straight or contoured archipelagic baselines from which the breadth of maritime zones and continental shelf are measured, in accordance with Article 48 of UNCLOS III.
- UNCLOS III and baselines laws do not decide acquisition, enlargement, or loss of territory; territory is acquired or lost under international law by occupation, accretion, cession, or prescription, not by delimitation treaties on sea-use rights.
Petitioners’ Treaty-of-Paris Argument Rejected
- Petitioners theorized that the Treaty of Paris’ technical rectangular description yields Philippine sovereignty over waters extending hundreds of nautical miles, and that RA 9522 dismembers national territory.
- The Court rejected this theory: even if the Treaty of Paris’ rectangle were accepted, baselines must be drawn from the "outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago" under UNCLOS III; therefore, RA 9522’s baselines are the necessary mechanism to draw baselines in conformity with UNCLOS III.