Case Digest: GR No.

187167
Prof. Magallona, Hontiveros, Prof. Roque and 38 UP College of Law Students -vs- Ermita Exec.Sec.,
Romulo Sec DFA, Andaya Sec DBM, Ventura Administrator National Mapping & Resource Information
Authority and Davide Jr.
-writ of certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of RA 9522
Facts:
RA 3046 was passed in 1961 which provides among others the demarcation lines of the baselines of the
Philippines as an archipelago. This is in consonance with UNCLOS I.
RA 5446 amended RA 3046 in terms of typographical errors and included Section 2 in which the government
reserved the drawing of baselines in Sabah in North Borneo.
RA 9522 took effect on March 2009 amending RA 5446. The amendments, which are in compliance with
UNCLOS III in which the Philippines is one of the signatory, shortening one baseline while optimizing the other and
classifying Kalayaan Group of Island and Scarborough Shoal as Regimes of Island.
Petitioners in their capacity as taxpayer, citizen and legislator assailed the constitutionality of RA 9522:- it
reduces the territory of the Philippines in violation to the Constitution and it opens the country to maritime passage of
vessels and aircrafts of other states to the detriment of the economy, sovereignty, national security and of the
Constitution as well. They added that the classification of Regime of Islands would be prejudicial to the lives of the
fishermen.
Issues:
1. WON the petitioners have locus standi to bring the suit; and
2. WON RA 9522 is unconstitutional
Ruling:
Petition is dismissed.
1st Issue:
The SC ruled the suit is not a taxpayer or legislator, but as a citizen suit, since it is the citizens who will be
directly injured and benefitted in affording relief over the remedy sought.
2nd Issue:
The SC upheld the constitutionality of RA 9522.
First, RA 9522 did not delineate the territory the Philippines but is merely a statutory tool to demarcate the
countrys maritime zone and continental shelf under UNCLOS III. SC emphasized that UNCLOS III is not a mode of
acquiring or losing a territory as provided under the laws of nations. UNCLOS III is a multi-lateral treaty that is a result
of a long-time negotiation to establish a uniform sea-use rights over maritime zones (i.e., the territorial waters [12
nautical miles from the baselines], contiguous zone [24 nautical miles from the baselines], exclusive economic zone
[200 nautical miles from the baselines]), and continental shelves. In order to measure said distances, it is a must for
the state parties to have their archipelagic doctrines measured in accordance to the treatythe role played by RA
9522. The contention of the petitioner that RA 9522 resulted to the loss of 15,000 square nautical miles is devoid of
merit. The truth is, RA 9522, by optimizing the location of base points, increased the Philippines total maritime space
of 145,216 square nautical miles.
Second, the classification of KGI and Scarborough Shoal as Regime of Islands is consistent with the Philippines
sovereignty. Had RA 9522 enclosed the islands as part of the archipelago, the country will be violating UNCLOS III since
it categorically stated that the length of the baseline shall not exceed 125 nautical miles. So what the legislators did is
to carefully analyze the situation: the country, for decades, had been claiming sovereignty over KGI and Scarborough
Shoal on one hand and on the other hand they had to consider that these are located at non-appreciable distance from
the nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipelago. So, the classification is in accordance with the Philippines
sovereignty and States responsible observance of its pacta sunt servanda obligation under UNCLOS III.
Third, the new base line introduced by RA 9522 is without prejudice with 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.
And lastly, the UNCLOS III and RA 9522 are not incompatible with the Constitutions delineation of internal
waters. Petitioners contend that RA 9522 transformed the internal waters of the Philippines to archipelagic waters
hence subjecting these waters to the right of innocent and sea lanes passages, exposing the Philippine internal waters
to nuclear and maritime pollution hazards. The Court emphasized that the Philippines exercises sovereignty over the
body of water lying landward of the baselines, including the air space over it and the submarine areas underneath,
regardless whether internal or archipelagic waters. However, sovereignty will not bar the Philippines to comply with its
obligation in maintaining freedom of navigation and the generally accepted principles of international law. It can be
either passed by legislator as a municipal law or in the absence thereof, it is deemed incorporated in the Philippines
law since the right of innocent passage is a customary international law, thus automatically incorporated thereto.
This does not mean that the states are placed in a lesser footing; it just signifies concession of archipelagic
states in exchange for their right to claim all waters inside the baseline. 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.
The Court expressed that it is within the Congress who has the prerogative to determine the passing of a law
and not the Court. Moreover, such enactment was necessary in order to comply with the UNCLOS III; otherwise, it shall
backfire on the Philippines for its territory shall be open to seafaring powers to freely enter and exploit the resources in
the waters and submarine areas around our archipelago and it will weaken the countrys case in any international
dispute over Philippine maritime space.

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.

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORRAS
DE MANILA
G.R. No. L-9959 December 13, 1916

Parens Patriae
On June 3, 1863 a devastating earthquake occurred in the Philippines. The Spanish
Dominions then provided $400,000.00 as aid for the victims and it was received by the Philippine
Treasury. Out of the aid, $80,000.00 was left untouched; it was then invested in the Monte
de Piedad Bank which in turn invested the amount in jewelries. But when the Philippine
government later tried to withdraw the said amount, the bank cannot provide for the amount.
The bank argued that the Philippine government is not an affected party hence has no right to
institute a complaint. Bank argues that the government was not the intended beneficiary of the
said amount.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Philippine government is competent to file a complaint against the
respondent bank?
HELD:
The Philippine government is competent to institute action against Monte de Piedad, this is
in accordance with the doctrine of Parens Patriae. The government being the protector of the
rights of the people has the inherent supreme power to enforce such laws that will promote
the public interest. No other party has been entrusted with such right hence as parents of the
people the government has the right to take back the money intended for the people.