Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
Same; RA 9522 increased the Philippines’ total maritime space by
145,216 square nautical miles.—Petitioners’ assertion of loss of “about
EN BANC 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters” under RA 9522 is
similarly unfounded both in fact and law. On the contrary, RA 9522, by
optimizing the location of basepoints, increased the Philippines’ total
G.R No. 187167               August 16, 2011
maritime space (covering its internal waters, territorial sea and
exclusive economic zone) by 145,216 square nautical miles.
PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, AKBAYAN PARTY-LIST REP.
RISA HONTIVEROS, PROF. HARRY C. ROQUE, JR., AND
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III);
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW
Congress’ decision to classify the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the
STUDENTS, ALITHEA BARBARA ACAS, VOLTAIRE ALFERES,
Scarborough Shoal as ‘Regime[s] of Islands’ manifests the Philippine
CZARINA MAY ALTEZ, FRANCIS ALVIN ASILO, SHERYL BALOT,
State’s responsible observance of its pacta sunt servanda obligation
RUBY AMOR BARRACA, JOSE JAVIER BAUTISTA, ROMINA
under UNCLOS III.—Far from surrendering the Philippines’ claim over
BERNARDO, VALERIE PAGASA BUENAVENTURA, EDAN MARRI
the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal, Congress’ decision to classify the
CAÑETE, VANN ALLEN DELA CRUZ, RENE DELORINO, PAULYN
KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as “‘Regime[s] of Islands’ under the
MAY DUMAN, SHARON ESCOTO, RODRIGO FAJARDO III,
Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article 121” of UNCLOS III
GIRLIE FERRER, RAOULLE OSEN FERRER, CARLA REGINA
manifests the Philippine State’s responsible observance of its pacta
GREPO, ANNA MARIE CECILIA GO, IRISH KAY KALAW, MARY
sunt servanda obligation under UNCLOS III. Under Article 121 of
ANN JOY LEE, MARIA LUISA MANALAYSAY, MIGUEL RAFAEL
UNCLOS III, any “naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water,
MUSNGI, MICHAEL OCAMPO, JAKLYN HANNA PINEDA,
which is above water at high tide,” such as portions of the KIG,
WILLIAM RAGAMAT, MARICAR RAMOS, ENRIK FORT
qualifies under the category of “regime of islands,” whose islands
REVILLAS, JAMES MARK TERRY RIDON, JOHANN FRANTZ
generate their own applicable maritime zones.
RIVERA IV, CHRISTIAN RIVERO, DIANNE MARIE ROA,
NICHOLAS SANTIZO, MELISSA CHRISTINA SANTOS, CRISTINE
MAE TABING, VANESSA ANNE TORNO, MARIA ESTER Same; The recognition of archipelagic States’ archipelago and the
VANGUARDIA, and MARCELINO VELOSO III, Petitioners, waters enclosed by their baselines as one cohesive entity prevents the
vs. treatment of their islands as separate islands under UNCLOS III.—The
HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE recognition of archipelagic States’ archipelago and the waters enclosed
SECRETARY, HON. ALBERTO ROMULO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS by their baselines as one cohesive entity prevents the treatment of
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, their islands as separate islands under UNCLOS III. Separate islands
HON. ROLANDO ANDAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF generate their own maritime zones, placing the waters between islands
THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, HON. separated by more than 24 nautical miles beyond the States’ territorial
DIONY VENTURA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF sovereignty, subjecting these waters to the rights of other States
THE NATIONAL MAPPING & RESOURCE INFORMATION under UNCLOS III.
AUTHORITY, and HON. HILARIO DAVIDE, JR., IN HIS
CAPACITY AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PERMANENT
Same; United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III)
MISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES TO THE
creates a sui generis maritime space—the exclusive economic zone—in
UNITED NATIONS, Respondents.
waters previously part of the high seas.—UNCLOS III favors States
with a long coastline like the Philippines. UNCLOS III creates a sui
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III); generis maritime space—the exclusive economic zone—in waters
UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition or loss of territory.— previously part of the high seas. UNCLOS III grants new rights to
UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. coastal States to exclusively exploit the resources found within this
It is a multilateral treaty regulating, among others, sea-use rights over zone up to 200 nautical miles. UNCLOS III, however, preserves the
maritime zones (i.e., the territorial waters [12 nautical miles from the traditional freedom of navigation of other States that attached to this
baselines], contiguous zone [24 nautical miles from the baselines], zone beyond the territorial sea before UNCLOS III.
exclusive economic zone [200 nautical miles from the baselines]), and
continental shelves that UNCLOS III delimits. UNCLOS III was the
Same; Absent an United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
culmination of decades-long negotiations among United Nations
(UNCLOS III) compliant baselines law, an archipelagic State like the
members to codify norms regulating the conduct of States in the
Philippines will find itself devoid of internationally acceptable baselines
world’s oceans and submarine areas, recognizing coastal and
from where the breadth of its maritime zones and continental shelf is
archipelagic States’ graduated authority over a limited span of waters
measured.—Absent an UNCLOS III compliant baselines law, an
and submarine lands along their coasts.
archipelagic State like the Philippines will find itself devoid of
internationally acceptable baselines from where the breadth of its
Archipelagic Baselines of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 9522); maritime zones and continental shelf is measured. This is recipe for a
Baselines laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by United Nations two-fronted disaster: first, it sends an open invitation to the seafaring
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) States parties to powers to freely enter and exploit the resources in the waters and
mark-out specific basepoints along their coasts from which baselines submarine areas around our archipelago; and second, it weakens the
are drawn, either straight or contoured, to serve as geographic starting country’s case in any international dispute over Philippine maritime
points to measure the breadth of the maritime zones and continental space. These are consequences Congress wisely avoided.
shelf.—Baselines laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III
States parties to mark-out specific basepoints along their coasts from
Same; Archipelagic Baselines of the Philippines (Republic Act No.
which baselines are drawn, either straight or contoured, to serve as
9522); The enactment of United Nations Convention on the Law of the
geographic starting points to measure the breadth of the maritime
Sea (UNCLOS III) compliant baselines law for the Philippine
zones and continental shelf. Article 48 of UNCLOS III on archipelagic
archipelago and adjacent areas, as embodied in RA 9522, allows an
States like ours could not be any clearer: Article 48. Measurement of
internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippines’
the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive
maritime zones and continental shelf.—The enactment of UNCLOS III
economic zone and the continental shelf.—The breadth of the
compliant baselines law for the Philippine archipelago and adjacent
territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and
areas, as embodied in RA 9522, allows an internationally-recognized
the continental shelf shall be measured from archi pelagic baselines
delimitation of the breadth of the Philippines’ maritime zones and
drawn in accordance with article 47. (Emphasis supplied)
continental shelf. RA 9522 is therefore a most vital step on the part of
the Philippines in safeguarding its maritime zones, consistent with the
Same; Baselines laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for United Constitution and our national interest.
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) States parties
to delimit with precision the extent of their maritime zones and
VELASCO, JR., J., Separate Concurring Opinion:
continental shelves.—Baselines laws are nothing but statutory
mechanisms for UNCLOS III States parties to delimit with precision the
extent of their maritime zones and continental shelves. In turn, this United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III);
gives notice to the rest of the international community of the scope of Archipelagic Baselines of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 9522)—View
the maritime space and submarine areas within which States parties that by setting the baselines to conform to the prescriptions of
exercise treaty-based rights, namely, the exercise of sovereignty over UNCLOS III, RA 9522 did not surrender any territory for UNCLOS III is
territorial waters (Article 2), the jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, concerned with setting order in the exercise of sea-use rights, not the
immigration, and sanitation laws in the contiguous zone (Article 33), acquisition or cession of territory.—The baselines are set to define the
and the right to exploit the living and non-living resources in the sea limits of a state, be it coastal or archipelagic, under the UNCLOS
exclusive economic zone (Article 56) and continental shelf (Article 77). III regime. By setting the baselines to conform to the prescriptions of
UNCLOS III, RA 9522 did not surrender any territory, as petitioners
would insist at every turn, for UNCLOS III is concerned with setting of some basepoints around the Philippine archipelago and classified
order in the exercise of sea-use rights, not the acquisition or cession of adjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the
territory. And let it be noted that under UNCLOS III, it is recognized Scarborough Shoal, as "regimes of islands" whose islands generate
that countries can have territories outside their baselines. Far from their own applicable maritime zones.
having a dismembering effect, then, RA 9522 has in a limited but real
sense increased the country’s maritime boundaries.
Petitioners, professors of law, law students and a legislator, in their
respective capacities as "citizens, taxpayers or x x x legislators," 9 as
Same; View that the laying down of baselines is not a mode of the case may be, assail the constitutionality of RA 9522 on two
acquiring or asserting ownership a territory over which a state principal grounds, namely: (1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime
exercises sovereignty.—The laying down of baselines is not a mode of territory, and logically, the reach of the Philippine state’s sovereign
acquiring or asserting ownership a territory over which a state power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution,10 embodying
exercises sovereignty. They are drawn for the purpose of defining or the terms of the Treaty of Paris11 and ancillary treaties,12 and (2) RA
establishing the maritime areas over which a state can exercise 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of the baselines to maritime
sovereign rights. Baselines are used for fixing starting point from which passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty
the territorial belt is measured seawards or from which the adjacent and national security, contravening the country’s nuclear-free policy,
maritime waters are measured. and damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional
provisions.13
Same; View that having the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the
Scarborough Shoal outside Philippine baselines will not diminish our In addition, petitioners contend that RA 9522’s treatment of the KIG as
sovereignty over these areas.—Baselines are used to measure the "regime of islands" not only results in the loss of a large maritime area
breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.14 To
economic zone and the continental shelf. Having KIG and the buttress their argument of territorial diminution, petitioners facially
Scarborough Shoal outside Philippine baselines will not diminish our attack RA 9522 for what it excluded and included – its failure to
sovereignty over these areas. reference either the Treaty of Paris or Sabah and its use of UNCLOS
III’s framework of regime of islands to determine the maritime zones
of the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal.
Same; View that Republic Act (RA) No. 9522 simply seeks to conform
to our international agreement on the setting of baselines and provides
nothing about the designation of archipelagic sea-lane passage or the Commenting on the petition, respondent officials raised threshold
regulation of innocent passage within our waters.—A cursory reading issues questioning (1) the petition’s compliance with the case or
of RA 9522 would belie petitioners’ posture. In context, RA 9522 controversy requirement for judicial review grounded on petitioners’
simply seeks to conform to our international agreement on the setting alleged lack of locus standi and (2) the propriety of the writs of
of baselines and provides nothing about the designation of archipelagic certiorari and prohibition to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522. On
sea-lane passage or the regulation of innocent passage within our the merits, respondents defended RA 9522 as the country’s compliance
waters. Again, petitioners have read into the amendatory RA 9522 with the terms of UNCLOS III, preserving Philippine territory over the
something not intended. KIG or Scarborough Shoal. Respondents add that RA 9522 does not
undermine the country’s security, environment and economic interests
or relinquish the Philippines’ claim over Sabah.
Same; View that the landward waters embraced within the baselines
determined by Republic Act (RA) No. 9522 form part of the internal
waters of the Philippines.—The Philippines maintains the sui generis Respondents also question the normative force, under international
character of our archipelagic waters as equivalent to the internal law, of petitioners’ assertion that what Spain ceded to the United
waters of continental coastal states. In other words, the landward States under the Treaty of Paris were the islands and all the
waters embraced within the baselines determined by RA 9522, i.e., all waters found within the boundaries of the rectangular area drawn
waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the under the Treaty of Paris.
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of
the internal waters of the Philippines.
We left unacted petitioners’ prayer for an injunctive writ.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and

The Issues
Prohibition.

The petition raises the following issues:

DECISION

1. Preliminarily –
CARPIO, J.:

1. Whether petitioners possess locus standi to

The Case
bring this suit; and

This original action for the writs of certiorari and prohibition assails the
2. Whether the writs of certiorari and prohibition
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 95221 (RA 9522) adjusting the
are the proper remedies to assail the
country’s archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline regime of
constitutionality of RA 9522.
nearby territories.

2. On the merits, whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional.

The Antecedents

The Ruling of the Court

In 1961, Congress passed Republic Act No. 3046 (RA
3046)2 demarcating the maritime baselines of the Philippines as an
archipelagic State.3 This law followed the framing of the Convention on On the threshold issues, we hold that (1) petitioners possess locus
the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in 1958 (UNCLOS standi to bring this suit as citizens and (2) the writs of certiorari and
I),4 codifying, among others, the sovereign right of States parties over prohibition are proper remedies to test the constitutionality of RA
their "territorial sea," the breadth of which, however, was left 9522. On the merits, we find no basis to declare RA 9522
undetermined. Attempts to fill this void during the second round of unconstitutional.
negotiations in Geneva in 1960 (UNCLOS II) proved futile. Thus,
domestically, RA 3046 remained unchanged for nearly five decades, On the Threshold Issues
save for legislation passed in 1968 (Republic Act No. 5446 [RA 5446]) Petitioners Possess Locus
correcting typographical errors and reserving the drawing of baselines Standi as Citizens
around Sabah in North Borneo.

In March 2009, Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522, the

statute now under scrutiny. The change was prompted by the need to
make RA 3046 compliant with the terms of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), 5 which the Philippines
ratified on 27 February 1984.6 Among others, UNCLOS III prescribes
the water-land ratio, length, and contour of baselines of archipelagic
States like the Philippines7 and sets the deadline for the filing of
application for the extended continental shelf. 8 Complying with these
requirements, RA 9522 shortened one baseline, optimized the location
Petitioners themselves undermine their assertion of locus standi as Article 48. Measurement of the breadth of the territorial sea, the
legislators and taxpayers because the petition alleges neither contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental
infringement of legislative prerogative15 nor misuse of public shelf. – The breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the
funds,16 occasioned by the passage and implementation of RA 9522. exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf shall be measured
Nonetheless, we recognize petitioners’ locus standi as citizens with from archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47.
constitutionally sufficient interest in the resolution of the merits of the (Emphasis supplied)
case which undoubtedly raises issues of national significance
necessitating urgent resolution. Indeed, owing to the peculiar nature of
Thus, baselines laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for
RA 9522, it is understandably difficult to find other litigants possessing
UNCLOS III States parties to delimit with precision the extent of their
"a more direct and specific interest" to bring the suit, thus satisfying
maritime zones and continental shelves. In turn, this gives notice to
one of the requirements for granting citizenship standing. 17
the rest of the international community of the scope of the maritime
space and submarine areas within which States parties exercise treaty-
The Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition based rights, namely, the exercise of sovereignty over territorial waters
Are Proper Remedies to Test (Article 2), the jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, and
the Constitutionality of Statutes sanitation laws in the contiguous zone (Article 33), and the right to
exploit the living and non-living resources in the exclusive economic
zone (Article 56) and continental shelf (Article 77).
In praying for the dismissal of the petition on preliminary grounds,
respondents seek a strict observance of the offices of the writs of
certiorari and prohibition, noting that the writs cannot issue absent any Even under petitioners’ theory that the Philippine territory embraces
showing of grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of judicial, quasi- the islands and all the waters within the rectangular area delimited in
judicial or ministerial powers on the part of respondents and resulting the Treaty of Paris, the baselines of the Philippines would still have to
prejudice on the part of petitioners.18 be drawn in accordance with RA 9522 because this is the only way to
draw the baselines in conformity with UNCLOS III. The baselines
cannot be drawn from the boundaries or other portions of the
Respondents’ submission holds true in ordinary civil proceedings. When
rectangular area delineated in the Treaty of Paris, but from the
this Court exercises its constitutional power of judicial review,
"outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago." 24
however, we have, by tradition, viewed the writs of certiorari and
prohibition as proper remedial vehicles to test the constitutionality of
statutes,19 and indeed, of acts of other branches of UNCLOS III and its ancillary baselines laws play no role in the
government.20 Issues of constitutional import are sometimes crafted acquisition, enlargement or, as petitioners claim, diminution of
out of statutes which, while having no bearing on the personal territory. Under traditional international law typology, States acquire
interests of the petitioners, carry such relevance in the life of this (or conversely, lose) territory through occupation, accretion, cession
nation that the Court inevitably finds itself constrained to take and prescription,25 not by executing multilateral treaties on the
cognizance of the case and pass upon the issues raised, non- regulations of sea-use rights or enacting statutes to comply with the
compliance with the letter of procedural rules notwithstanding. The treaty’s terms to delimit maritime zones and continental shelves.
statute sought to be reviewed here is one such law. Territorial claims to land features are outside UNCLOS III, and are
instead governed by the rules on general international law.26
RA 9522 is Not Unconstitutional
RA 9522 is a Statutory Tool RA 9522’s Use of the Framework
to Demarcate the Country’s of Regime of Islands to Determine the
Maritime Zones and Continental Maritime Zones of the KIG and the
Shelf Under UNCLOS III, not to Scarborough Shoal, not Inconsistent
Delineate Philippine Territory with the Philippines’ Claim of Sovereignty
Over these Areas
Petitioners submit that RA 9522 "dismembers a large portion of the
national territory"21 because it discards the pre-UNCLOS III Petitioners next submit that RA 9522’s use of UNCLOS III’s regime of
demarcation of Philippine territory under the Treaty of Paris and islands framework to draw the baselines, and to measure the breadth
related treaties, successively encoded in the definition of national of the applicable maritime zones of the KIG, "weakens our territorial
territory under the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Petitioners claim" over that area.27 Petitioners add that the KIG’s (and
theorize that this constitutional definition trumps any treaty or Scarborough Shoal’s) exclusion from the Philippine archipelagic
statutory provision denying the Philippines sovereign control over baselines results in the loss of "about 15,000 square nautical miles of
waters, beyond the territorial sea recognized at the time of the Treaty territorial waters," prejudicing the livelihood of subsistence
of Paris, that Spain supposedly ceded to the United States. Petitioners fishermen.28 A comparison of the configuration of the baselines drawn
argue that from the Treaty of Paris’ technical description, Philippine under RA 3046 and RA 9522 and the extent of maritime space
sovereignty over territorial waters extends hundreds of nautical miles encompassed by each law, coupled with a reading of the text of RA
around the Philippine archipelago, embracing the rectangular area 9522 and its congressional deliberations, vis-à-vis the Philippines’
delineated in the Treaty of Paris.22 obligations under UNCLOS III, belie this view.1avvphi1

Petitioners’ theory fails to persuade us. The configuration of the baselines drawn under RA 3046 and RA 9522
shows that RA 9522 merely followed the basepoints mapped by RA
3046, save for at least nine basepoints that RA 9522 skipped to
UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory.
optimize the location of basepoints and adjust the length of one
It is a multilateral treaty regulating, among others, sea-use rights over
baseline (and thus comply with UNCLOS III’s limitation on the
maritime zones (i.e., the territorial waters [12 nautical miles from the
maximum length of baselines). Under RA 3046, as under RA 9522, the
baselines], contiguous zone [24 nautical miles from the baselines],
KIG and the Scarborough Shoal lie outside of the baselines drawn
exclusive economic zone [200 nautical miles from the baselines]), and
around the Philippine archipelago. This undeniable cartographic fact
continental shelves that UNCLOS III delimits. 23 UNCLOS III was the
takes the wind out of petitioners’ argument branding RA 9522 as a
culmination of decades-long negotiations among United Nations
statutory renunciation of the Philippines’ claim over the KIG, assuming
members to codify norms regulating the conduct of States in the
that baselines are relevant for this purpose.
world’s oceans and submarine areas, recognizing coastal and
archipelagic States’ graduated authority over a limited span of waters
and submarine lands along their coasts. Petitioners’ assertion of loss of "about 15,000 square nautical miles of
territorial waters" under RA 9522 is similarly unfounded both in fact
and law. On the contrary, RA 9522, by optimizing the location of
On the other hand, baselines laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by
basepoints, increased  the Philippines’ total maritime space (covering
UNCLOS III States parties to mark-out specific basepoints along their
its internal waters, territorial sea and exclusive economic zone) by
coasts from which baselines are drawn, either straight or contoured, to
145,216 square nautical miles, as shown in the table below: 29
serve as geographic starting points to measure the breadth of the
maritime zones and continental shelf. Article 48 of UNCLOS III on
archipelagic States like ours could not be any clearer:

Extent of maritime area

using RA 3046, as Extent of maritime area
amended, taking into using RA 9522, taking into
 
account the Treaty of Paris’ account UNCLOS III (in
delimitation (in square square nautical miles)
nautical miles)
 Internal or archipelagic
waters 166,858 171,435
Territorial Sea 274,136 32,106
Exclusive Economic
Zone   382,669
TOTAL 440,994 586,210

Thus, as the map below shows, the reach of the exclusive economic zone drawn under RA 9522 even extends way beyond the waters covered by the
rectangular demarcation under the Treaty of Paris. Of course, where there are overlapping exclusive economic zones of opposite or adjacent States,
there will have to be a delineation of maritime boundaries in accordance with UNCLOS III. 30

Further, petitioners’ argument that the KIG now lies outside Philippine appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago."
territory because the baselines that RA 9522 draws do not enclose the Second, Article 47 (2) of UNCLOS III requires that "the length of the
KIG is negated by RA 9522 itself. Section 2 of the law commits to text baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles," save for three per cent
the Philippines’ continued claim of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the (3%) of the total number of baselines which can reach up to 125
KIG and the Scarborough Shoal: nautical miles.31

SEC. 2. The baselines in the following areas over which the Although the Philippines has consistently claimed sovereignty over the
Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction shall KIG32 and the Scarborough Shoal for several decades, these outlying
be determined as "Regime of Islands" under the Republic of the areas are located at an appreciable distance from the nearest shoreline
Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the United Nations Convention of the Philippine archipelago, 33 such that any straight baseline loped
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): around them from the nearest basepoint will inevitably "depart to an
appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago."
a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under
Presidential Decree No. 1596 and The principal sponsor of RA 9522 in the Senate, Senator Miriam
Defensor-Santiago, took pains to emphasize the foregoing during the
Senate deliberations:
b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal.
(Emphasis supplied)
What we call the Kalayaan Island Group or what the rest of the world
call[] the Spratlys and the Scarborough Shoal are outside our
Had Congress in RA 9522 enclosed the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal
archipelagic baseline because if we put them inside our baselines we
as part of the Philippine archipelago, adverse legal effects would have
might be accused of violating the provision of international law which
ensued. The Philippines would have committed a breach of two
states: "The drawing of such baseline shall not depart to any
provisions of UNCLOS III. First, Article 47 (3) of UNCLOS III requires
appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago."
that "[t]he drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any
So sa loob ng ating baseline, dapat magkalapit ang mga islands. Dahil expose Philippine internal waters to nuclear and maritime pollution
malayo ang Scarborough Shoal, hindi natin masasabing malapit sila sa hazards, in violation of the Constitution.38
atin although we are still allowed by international law to claim them as
our own.
Whether referred to as Philippine "internal waters" under Article I of
the Constitution39 or as "archipelagic waters" under UNCLOS III (Article
This is called contested islands outside our configuration. We see that 49 [1]), the Philippines exercises sovereignty over the body of water
our archipelago is defined by the orange line which [we] call[] lying landward of the baselines, including the air space over it and the
archipelagic baseline. Ngayon, tingnan ninyo ang maliit na circle doon submarine areas underneath. UNCLOS III affirms this:
sa itaas, that is Scarborough Shoal, itong malaking circle sa ibaba, that
is Kalayaan Group or the Spratlys. Malayo na sila sa ating archipelago
Article 49. Legal status of archipelagic waters, of the air space over
kaya kung ilihis pa natin ang dating archipelagic baselines para lamang
archipelagic waters and of their bed and subsoil. –
masama itong dalawang circles, hindi na sila magkalapit at baka hindi
na tatanggapin ng United Nations because of the rule that it should
follow the natural configuration of the archipelago.34 (Emphasis 1. The sovereignty of an archipelagic State extends to
supplied) the waters enclosed by the archipelagic
baselines drawn in accordance with article 47, described as
archipelagic waters, regardless of their depth or distance
Similarly, the length of one baseline that RA 3046 drew exceeded
from the coast.
UNCLOS III’s limits.1avvphi1 The need to shorten this baseline, and in
addition, to optimize the location of basepoints using current maps,
became imperative as discussed by respondents: 2. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the
archipelagic waters, as well as to their bed and
subsoil, and the resources contained therein.
[T]he amendment of the baselines law was necessary to enable the
Philippines to draw the outer limits of its maritime zones including the
extended continental shelf in the manner provided by Article 47 of xxxx
[UNCLOS III]. As defined by R.A. 3046, as amended by R.A. 5446, the
baselines suffer from some technical deficiencies, to wit: 4. The regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage established
in this Part shall not in other respects affect the status
1. The length of the baseline across Moro Gulf (from Middle of the archipelagic waters, including the sea lanes, or
of 3 Rock Awash to Tongquil Point) is 140.06 nautical miles x the exercise by the archipelagic State of its
x x. This exceeds the maximum length allowed under Article sovereignty over such waters and their air space, bed
47(2) of the [UNCLOS III], which states that "The length of and subsoil, and the resources contained therein.
such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, except (Emphasis supplied)
that up to 3 per cent of the total number of baselines
enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length, up to a The fact of sovereignty, however, does not preclude the operation of
maximum length of 125 nautical miles." municipal and international law norms subjecting the territorial sea or
archipelagic waters to necessary, if not marginal, burdens in the
2. The selection of basepoints is not optimal. At least 9 interest of maintaining unimpeded, expeditious international
basepoints can be skipped or deleted from the baselines navigation, consistent with the international law principle of freedom of
system. This will enclose an additional 2,195 nautical miles navigation. Thus, domestically, the political branches of the Philippine
of water. government, in the competent discharge of their constitutional powers,
may pass legislation designating routes within the archipelagic waters
to regulate innocent and sea lanes passage.40 Indeed, bills drawing
3. Finally, the basepoints were drawn from maps existing in
nautical highways for sea lanes passage are now pending in
1968, and not established by geodetic survey methods.
Congress.41
Accordingly, some of the points, particularly along the west
coasts of Luzon down to Palawan were later found to be
located either inland or on water, not on low-water line and In the absence of municipal legislation, international law norms, now
drying reefs as prescribed by Article 47.35 codified in UNCLOS III, operate to grant innocent passage rights over
the territorial sea or archipelagic waters, subject to the treaty’s
limitations and conditions for their exercise.42 Significantly, the right of
Hence, far from surrendering the Philippines’ claim over the KIG and
innocent passage is a customary international law, 43 thus automatically
the Scarborough Shoal, Congress’ decision to classify the KIG and the
incorporated in the corpus of Philippine law.44 No modern State can
Scarborough Shoal as "‘Regime[s] of Islands’ under the Republic of the
validly invoke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent passage that
Philippines consistent with Article 121"36 of UNCLOS III manifests the
is exercised in accordance with customary international law without
Philippine State’s responsible observance of its pacta sunt
risking retaliatory measures from the international community.
servanda obligation under UNCLOS III. Under Article 121 of UNCLOS
III, any "naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is
above water at high tide," such as portions of the KIG, qualifies under The fact that for archipelagic States, their archipelagic waters are
the category of "regime of islands," whose islands generate their own subject to both the right of innocent passage and sea lanes
applicable maritime zones.37 passage45 does not place them in lesser footing vis-à-vis continental
coastal States which are subject, in their territorial sea, to the right of
innocent passage and the right of transit passage through international
Statutory Claim Over Sabah under
straits. The imposition of these passage rights through archipelagic
RA 5446 Retained
waters under UNCLOS III was a concession by archipelagic States, in
exchange for their right to claim all the waters landward of their
Petitioners’ argument for the invalidity of RA 9522 for its failure to baselines, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast, as
textualize the Philippines’ claim over Sabah in North Borneo is also archipelagic waters subject to their territorial sovereignty. More
untenable. Section 2 of RA 5446, which RA 9522 did not repeal, keeps importantly, the recognition of archipelagic States’ archipelago and the
open the door for drawing the baselines of Sabah: waters enclosed by their baselines as one cohesive entity prevents the
treatment of their islands as separate islands under UNCLOS
III.46 Separate islands generate their own maritime zones, placing the
Section 2. The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the
waters between islands separated by more than 24 nautical miles
Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Act is without prejudice to
beyond the States’ territorial sovereignty, subjecting these waters to
the delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea around
the rights of other States under UNCLOS III. 47
the territory of Sabah, situated in North Borneo, over which
the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and
sovereignty. (Emphasis supplied) Petitioners’ invocation of non-executory constitutional provisions in
Article II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies) 48 must also fail.
Our present state of jurisprudence considers the provisions in Article II
UNCLOS III and RA 9522 not
as mere legislative guides, which, absent enabling legislation, "do not
Incompatible with the Constitution’s
embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights x x x."49 Article II
Delineation of Internal Waters
provisions serve as guides in formulating and interpreting
implementing legislation, as well as in interpreting executory provisions
As their final argument against the validity of RA 9522, petitioners of the Constitution. Although Oposa v. Factoran50 treated the right to a
contend that the law unconstitutionally "converts" internal waters into healthful and balanced ecology under Section 16 of Article II as an
archipelagic waters, hence subjecting these waters to the right of exception, the present petition lacks factual basis to substantiate the
innocent and sea lanes passage under UNCLOS III, including claimed constitutional violation. The other provisions petitioners cite,
overflight. Petitioners extrapolate that these passage rights indubitably relating to the protection of marine wealth (Article XII, Section 2,
paragraph 251 ) and subsistence fishermen (Article XIII, Section 752 ),
are not violated by RA 9522.

In fact, the demarcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to

delimit its exclusive economic zone, reserving solely to the Philippines
the exploitation of all living and non-living resources within such zone.
Such a maritime delineation binds the international community since
the delineation is in strict observance of UNCLOS III. If the maritime
delineation is contrary to UNCLOS III, the international community will
of course reject it and will refuse to be bound by it.

UNCLOS III favors States with a long coastline like the Philippines.
UNCLOS III creates a sui generis maritime space – the exclusive
economic zone – in waters previously part of the high seas. UNCLOS
III grants new rights to coastal States to exclusively exploit the
resources found within this zone up to 200 nautical miles.53 UNCLOS
III, however, preserves the traditional freedom of navigation of other
States that attached to this zone beyond the territorial sea before
UNCLOS III.

RA 9522 and the Philippines’ Maritime Zones

Petitioners hold the view that, based on the permissive text of UNCLOS
III, Congress was not bound to pass RA 9522.54 We have looked at the
relevant provision of UNCLOS III55 and we find petitioners’ reading
plausible. Nevertheless, the prerogative of choosing this option belongs
to Congress, not to this Court. Moreover, the luxury of choosing this
option comes at a very steep price. Absent an UNCLOS III compliant
baselines law, an archipelagic State like the Philippines will find itself
devoid of internationally acceptable baselines from where the breadth
of its maritime zones and continental shelf is measured. This is recipe
for a two-fronted disaster: first, it sends an open invitation to the
seafaring powers to freely enter and exploit the resources in the
waters and submarine areas around our archipelago; and second, it
weakens the country’s case in any international dispute over Philippine
maritime space. These are consequences Congress wisely avoided.

The enactment of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for the

Philippine archipelago and adjacent areas, as embodied in RA 9522,
allows an internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth of the
Philippines’ maritime zones and continental shelf. RA 9522 is therefore
a most vital step on the part of the Philippines in safeguarding its
maritime zones, consistent with the Constitution and our national
interest.

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition.

SO ORDERED.

Petition dismissed.

Note.—The sovereign people may, if it so desired, go to the extent of

giving up a portion of its own territory to the Moros for the sake of
peace, for it can change the Constitution in any it wants, so long as
the change is not inconsistent with what, in international law, is known
as Jus Cogens.