Case Summary (G.R. No. 187167)
Key Dates
• Republic Act (RA) 3046 (archipelagic baselines law) – 1961
• RA 5446 (coordinate corrections; Sabah clause) – 1968
• Philippines ratified UNCLOS III – 1984
• RA 9522 (baseline adjustment; regime of islands classification) – March 2009
• Supreme Court decision – August 16, 2011
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (Art. I on national territory; Arts. II, XII, XIII on policy declarations)
• RA 3046, RA 5446, RA 9522
• 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III)
• Treaty of Paris (1898); Treaty of Washington (1930)
Antecedents
RA 3046 first defined the Philippines as an archipelagic State under UNCLOS I. RA 5446 corrected typographical errors and preserved future baselines around Sabah. RA 9522 amended the baselines to comply with UNCLOS III’s rules on straight baselines, water-land ratio, and maximum baseline lengths, and classified the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and Scarborough Shoal as independent “regimes of islands.”
Issues Presented
- Threshold: Do petitioners have locus standi as citizens? Are certiorari and prohibition proper remedies for statutory constitutionality challenges?
- Merits: Does RA 9522 unconstitutionally diminish national territory or sovereign power (Art. I)? Does it undermine sovereignty, security, environmental protection, or subsistence fishermen’s rights by opening internal waters to foreign passage?
Threshold Rulings
The Court held that petitioners enjoy citizen standing given the national significance of maritime delimitation. It affirmed that certiorari and prohibition are proper vehicles to test a statute’s constitutionality.
Conformity with UNCLOS III and Territorial Integrity
UNCLOS III and implementing statutes regulate sea-use rights and delimit maritime zones (territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, continental shelf); they do not govern land-territorial sovereignty. Baselines laws mark measurement points for maritime belts; they do not redefine or diminish land territory. RA 9522’s compliance with UNCLOS III is a valid exercise of legislative power under the 1987 Constitution.
Regime of Islands Classification
Excluding the KIG and Scarborough Shoal from the archipelagic baseline does not weaken the Philippines’ sovereignty. Section 2 of RA 9522 expressly reaffirms sovereignty and jurisdiction over these features as “regimes of islands” under UNCLOS III (Art. 121), enabling each island to generate its own maritime zones. Cartographic analysis shows RA 9522 increased the Philippines’ maritime area by over 145,000 square nautical miles.
Retention of Sabah Claim
RA 9522 did not repeal RA 5446’s provision preserving the Philippines’ dominion and sovereignty over Sabah’s baselines. Sovereignty declarations in both laws remain effective and unaltered.
Internal Waters and Passage Rights
Under the Constitution and UNCLOS III (Art. 49), waters landward of archipelagic baselines are Philippine internal waters, subject to full sovereignty (including airspace and subsoil). Recognized passage rights (innocent passage; archipelagic sea-lane passage) arise from treaty and customary law but do not deprive the Philippines of sovereignty. Regulation of foreign passage routes remains within the political branches’ constitutional authority (Arts. 52–53, UNCLOS III).
Non-Self-Executing Policy Declarations
Constitutional policy pr
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 187167)
Facts of the Case
- Original action for writs of certiorari and prohibition filed before the Supreme Court (En Banc).
- Petitioners: law professors, law students, and a party-list legislator challenging Republic Act No. 9522.
- Respondents: Executive Secretary, DFA Secretary, DBM Secretary, NAMRIA Administrator, and Philippine UN Mission Representative.
- RA 9522 amends RA 3046 (1961) as corrected by RA 5446 (1968) to redefine Philippine archipelagic baselines under UNCLOS III.
Legislative and Treaty Background
- 1958 UNCLOS I: codified sovereign rights over territorial seas; left breadth undefined.
- 1960 UNCLOS II: failed to set territorial sea limits.
- RA 3046 (1961): defined straight baselines of Philippine archipelago.
- RA 5446 (1968): corrected coordinates in RA 3046; reserved option to draw baselines around Sabah.
- Philippines ratified 1982 UNCLOS III on 27 February 1984.
- UNCLOS III: prescribes rules for archipelagic baselines (Art. 47), water-land ratio, maximum baseline lengths, classification of “regime of islands” (Art. 121), and deadlines for extended continental shelf claims.
- RA 9522 (27 March 2009): shortened one baseline, optimized basepoints, and classified Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and Scarborough Shoal as “Regime of Islands.”
Petitioners’ Main Contentions
- RA 9522 diminishes Philippine maritime territory, violating Article I, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution.
- Opens waters landward of baselines to innocent and sea-lane passage of all vessels/aircraft, undermining sovereignty, national security, nuclear-free policy, and harming marine resources.
- Treating KIG as a “Regime of Islands” reduces large maritime areas and prejudices subsistence fishermen.
- Facial attack: RA 9522 omits references to Treaty of Paris and Sabah; relies on UNCLOS III treaties to define maritime zones.
Respondents’ Principal Arguments
- Threshold: petitioners lack legislative or direct proprietary interest; wrong remedies (certiorari and prohibition).
- On merits: RA 9522 effectuates compliance with UNCLOS III, preserves Philippine territory, security, environment, and economy.
- RA 9522 does not affect sovereignty over Sabah; Treaty of Paris cession interpreted differently under general international law.
Issues Presented
- Preliminary
- Do petitioners have locus standi?
- Are writs o
...continue reading