Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 119 views

    Magallona Vs Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, Aug. 16,2011

    Uploaded by

    Pau Perez
    1) The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of RA 9522, which adjusted the Philippines' archipelagic baselines in accordance with UNCLOS. 2) The Court ruled the petitioners had locus standi and writs were proper remedies. 3) On the merits, the Court found RA 9522 was constitutional as it was a statutory tool to delineate maritime zones under UNCLOS, not territory, and did not weaken Philippine claims over disputed areas.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Magallona Vs Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, Aug. 16,2011

    Uploaded by

    Pau Perez
    119 views14 pages
    1) The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of RA 9522, which adjusted the Philippines' archipelagic baselines in accordance with UNCLOS. 2) The Court ruled the petitioners had locus standi and writs were proper remedies. 3) On the merits, the Court found RA 9522 was constitutional as it was a statutory tool to delineate maritime zones under UNCLOS, not territory, and did not weaken Philippine claims over disputed areas.

    Original Title

    Magallona vs Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, Aug. 16,2011

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of RA 9522, which adjusted the Philippines' archipelagic baselines in accordance with UNCLOS. 2) The Court ruled the petitioners had locus standi and writs were proper remedies. 3) On the merits, the Court found RA 9522 was constitutional as it was a statutory tool to delineate maritime zones under UNCLOS, not territory, and did not weaken Philippine claims over disputed areas.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    119 views14 pages

    Magallona Vs Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, Aug. 16,2011

    Uploaded by

    Pau Perez
    1) The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of RA 9522, which adjusted the Philippines' archipelagic baselines in accordance with UNCLOS. 2) The Court ruled the petitioners had locus standi and writs were proper remedies. 3) On the merits, the Court found RA 9522 was constitutional as it was a statutory tool to delineate maritime zones under UNCLOS, not territory, and did not weaken Philippine claims over disputed areas.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 14

    Magallona vs.

    Ermita,
    G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011
    The Case
    • Writ of Certiorari and Prohibition, filed by
    Prof. Merlin M. Magallona.

    • Assailing the Constitutionality of Republic


    Act No. 9522
    • Adjusted the archipelagic baselines
    Facts
    2 Domestic Laws and 1 International Treaty
    • R.A. No. 3046
    • Demarcating the maritime baselines of the Philippines
    • Followed the framing of UNCLOS I

    • R.A. 9522 – make our statute compliant with UNCLOS III


    • UNCLOS II – attempted to define the “breadth” of “territorial sea”

    • UNCLOS III
    • Prescribes water-land ration, length and contour of baselines of archipelagic states
    Facts
    • R.A. 9522
    • Shortened one baseline
    • Optimized the location of some basepoints around the Philippine
    archipelago
    • 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.
    The Main Arguments
    Petitioner Respondent
     R.A. 9522 dismembers a large
    • Questioned petitioners’ lack of
    portion of the national territory.
     The “regime of islands” locus standi and the propriety of
    framework weakens our writs of certiorari and prohibition.
    territorial claim over KIG and
    Scarborough Shoal. • Defended R.A. 9522 as Philippines
     Claim over Sabah is compliance with UNCLOS III
    relinquished.
     R.A. 9522 converts internal
    waters into archipelagic waters.
    Issues
    I. Preliminary
    • W.O.N. petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit; and

    • W.O.N. the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper


    remedies to assail the constitutionality of R.A. 9522

    II. On the merits


    • W.O.N. R.A. 9522 is unconstitutional.
    RULING of the Court
    • LOCUS STANDI
    • As citizens with constitutionally sufficient interest in the resolution of a
    case with “national significance” necessitating urgent resolution.

    • PROPRIETY OF WRITS
    • Traditionally viewed as “proper remedial vehicles” to test constitutionality
    of laws or acts of other branches of government
    RULING of the Court
    • R.A. 9522 IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL .
    I. Only a statutory tool to demarcate Philippine maritime zones and continental shelf
    under UNCLOS III, not to delineate Philippine territory;
    o UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a
    multilateral treaty regulating sea-use rights over maritime zones and continental
    shelves.
    o R.A. 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III States parties to mark-out specific
    basepoints along their coasts from which baselines are drawn, either straight or
    contoured, to serve as geographic starting points to measure the breadth of the
    maritime zones and continental shelf.
    RULING of the Court
    II. The “regime of islands” framework is not inconsistent with the
    Philippines’ claim of sovereignty over KIG and the Scarborough Shoal.
    o The KIG and the Scarborough Shoal also lie outside of the baselines drawn around
    the Philippine archipelago under R.A. 3046
    o By optimizing the location of basepoints, R.A. 9552 increased the Philippines total
    maritime space by 145, 216 square nautical miles.
    o Any straight baseline loped around KIG and Scarborough Shoal from the nearest
    basepoint will inevitably “depart to an appreciable extent from the general
    configuration of the archipelago” which is required under UNCLOS III.
    Table 1
    Comparison of RA 5446 (amended from RA
    3046 through UNCLOS II on September 18
    1968) to RA 9552 through UNCLOS III.
    RULING of the Court
    III. Statutory claim over Sabah under R.A. 5446 retained; and
    o Petitioners’ argument for the invalidity of RA 9522 for its failure to
    textualize the Philippines’ claim over Sabah in North Borneo is also
    untenable. Section 2 of RA 5446, which RA 9522 did not repeal,
    keeps open the door for drawing the baselines of Sabah:
    o Section 2. The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as
    provided in this Act is without prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea
    around the territory of Sabah, situated in North Borneo, over which the Republic of the
    Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty.
    RULING of the Court
    IV. UNCLOS and R.A. 9522 not incompatible with the Constitutions’
    delineation of internal waters.
    o Whether referred to as “internal water” under Constitution or “archipelagic waters”
    under UNCLOS III, Philippine exercises sovereignty over the body of water lying
    landward.
    o The right of innocent passage is customary under international law- automatically
    incorporated, which is in concession by archipelagic states in exchange for right
    to claim all waters landward of their baselines.

    You might also like