Magallona v Ermita digest.doc - G.R No 187167 Magallona v Ermita Alyssa Agustin FACTS 1961 Congress passed RA 3046 demarcating(SETTING BOUNDARIES the

Magallona v Ermita digest.doc - G.R No 187167 Magallona v...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 7 pages.

G.R No. 187167 August 16, 2011Magallona v. ErmitaAlyssa AgustinFACTS:1961– Congress passed RA 3046demarcating (SETTING BOUNDARIES) the maritime baselines ofthe Philippines as an archipelagic State.oThis law followed the framing of the Convention on the Territorial Seaand the Contiguous Zone in 1958(UNCLOS I)oCodifying, among others, the sovereign right of States parties over their "territorial sea,"oBreadth was left undetermined. Attempts to fill this void during the second round of negotiations in Geneva in 1960 (UNCLOS II) proved futile.oThus, domestically, RA 3046 remained unchanged for nearly five decades,1968Save for Republic Act No. 5446correcting typographical errorsand reserving the drawingof baselines around Sabah in North Borneo. March 2009- Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522,the statute now under scrutiny.oThe change was prompted by the need to make RA 3046 compliant with the terms of theUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS III) – ratified on 27 February 1984.oRA 9522 shortened one baseline, optimized the location of some basepoints around the Ph archipelago, and classified adjacent territories, namely: Kalayaan Island Group and Scarborough Shoal, as regimes of islands who generate their own applicable maritime zones.PETITION:Assailing constitutionality of RA 9522 on two grounds:1.RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the reach of the Philippine states sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution, embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties, and2.RA 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vesselsand aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security, contravening the country’s nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions.3.RA 9522s treatment of the KIG as regime of islands not only results in the loss of a large maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.4.Failure to reference either the Treaty of Paris or Sabah and its use of UNCLOS IIIs framework of regime of islands to determine the maritime zones of the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal.RESPONDENTS QUESTION:1.the petitions compliance with the case or controversy requirement for judicial review grounded on petitioners alleged lack of locus standi2.propriety of the writs of certiorari and prohibition to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522a.defended RA 9522 as the countrys compliance with the terms of UNCLOS III, preserving Philippine territory over the KIG or Scarborough Shoal.b.RA 9522 does not undermine the countrys security, environment and economic interestsor relinquish the Philippines claim over Sabah.
Background image
3.normative force, under international law, of petitioners assertion that what Spain ceded to the United States under the Treaty of Paris were the islands and all the waters found within the boundaries of the rectangular area drawn under the Treaty of Paris.
Background image
Image of page 3

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 7 pages?

  • Summer '19
  • Law, Constitutional Law, Territorial waters, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS III, Scarborough Shoal

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture