CASE 7: MAGALLONA VS ERMITA FACTS OF THE CASE: The antecedent facts of this case emerged upon the passing of Republic Act 3046 in 1961. The law’s purpose is to demarcate the maritime baselines of the Philippines as it was deemed to be an archipelago. RA 3046 stoodunchallenged until 2009, when Congress amended it and passed RA 9522. This amending law shortened onebaseline and determined new base points of the archipelago. Moreso, it has identified the Kalayaan IslandGroup and the Scarborough Shoal, as "regimes of islands", generating their own maritime zones.The petitioners filed a case assailing the constitutionality of RA 9522. To their opinion, the law has effectivelyreduced the maritime territory of the country. With this, Article I of the 1987 Constitution will be violated. Thepetitioners also worried that that because of the suggested changes in the maritime baselines will allow for foreign aircrafts and vessels to traverse the Philippine territory freely. In effect, it steps on the state’s sovereignty and national security.Meanwhile, the Congress insisted that in no way will the amendments affect any pertinent power of the state. Italso deferred to agree that the law impliedly relinquishes the Philippines claims over Sabah. Lastly, they havequestioned the normative force of the notion that all the waters within the rectangular boundaries in the Treatyof Paris. Now, because this treaty still has undetermined controversies, the Congress believes that in theperspective of international law, it did not see any binding obligation to honor it. Thus, this case of prayer forwrits of certiorari and prohibition is filed before the court, assailing the constitutionality of RA 9522. T HE COURT’S RULING: The Court dismissed the case. It upheld the constitutionality of the law and made it clear that it has merely demarcated the country’s maritime zones and continental shelves in accordance to UNCLOS III. Secondly, the Court found that the framework of the regime of islands suggested by the law is not incongruent with the Philippines’ enjoyment of terri torial sovereignty over the areas of Kalayaan Group of Islands and theScarborough. Third, the court reiterated that the claims over Sabah remained even with the adoption of theamendments.Further, the Court importantly stressed that the baseline laws are mere mechanisms for the UNCLOS III toprecisely describe the delimitations. It serves as a notice to the international family of states and it is in no wayaffecting or producing any effect like enlargement or diminution of territories.With regard to th e petitioners’ assertion that RA 9522 has converted the internal waters into archipelagic waters, the Court did not appear to be persuaded. Instead, the Court suggested that the political branches of Government can pass domestic laws that will aid in the competent security measures and policies that willregulate innocent passage. Since the Court emphasized innocent passage as a right based on customary law, italso believes that no state can validly invoke sovereignty to deny a right acknowledged by modern states.In the case of archipelagic states such as ours, UNCLOS III required the imposition of innocent passage as aconcession in lieu of their right to claim the entire waters landward baseline. It also made it possible forarchipelagic states to be recognized as a cohesive entity under the UNCLOS III.
Posted on: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 07:34:27 +0000