Magallona v. Ermita

Summary

In the video, the case of Magalona vs. Ermita is discussed, focusing on the constitutionality of Republic Act 9522, which adjusted the maritime baselines of the Philippines. The case involves two domestic laws and an international treaty. The Supreme Court ruled that the act is constitutional, serving as a statutory tool to demarcate maritime zones without affecting territorial claims. It also clarified that the 'regime of islands' framework does not weaken territorial claims and that internal waters' classification does not relinquish sovereignty.

Takeaways

• 📜 The case of Magalona vs. Ermita revolves around the constitutionality of Republic Act 9522, which adjusted the archipelagic baselines of the Philippines.
• 🏛️ The petitioner, Professor Magalona, argued that the new law dismembers national territory and weakens territorial claims over certain island groups and Sabah.
• 📚 The case involves two domestic laws: RA 3046 (setting maritime baselines) and RA 9522 (amending RA 3046 to comply with UNCLOS), and one international treaty, UNCLOS.
• 🌐 RA 9522 was challenged for allegedly converting internal waters into archipelagic waters and altering the territorial claims over KIG and Scarborough Shoal.
• ⚖️ The Supreme Court determined that petitioners have locus standi to bring the suit and that certiorari and prohibition are appropriate remedies to test the constitutionality of RA 9522.
• 🏝️ The Court found that RA 9522 is a statutory tool for demarcating maritime zones and does not delineate territory, thus not affecting territorial claims.
• 🔍 The 'regime of islands' framework in RA 9522 was deemed consistent with the Philippines' sovereignty claims over KIG and Scarborough Shoal.
• 📝 The Court clarified that RA 9522 does not relinquish the claim over Sabah, as it is explicitly stated in the law that it does not.
• 🌊 The Supreme Court ruled that the classification of waters as internal or archipelagic does not affect the Philippines' sovereignty, as sovereignty is not lost due to the right of innocent passage under international law.
• 📢 The case emphasizes the importance of adhering to international agreements like UNCLOS and highlights the balance between national sovereignty and international obligations.

Q & A

What is the main topic of the video?

The main topic of the video is the case of Magalona versus Ermita, which discusses the constitutionality of Republic Act number 9522 and its adjustments to the maritime baselines of the Philippines based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

What was the purpose of the writ of certiorari and prohibition filed by Professor Magalona?

The purpose of the writ of certiorari and prohibition was to challenge the constitutionality of Republic Act 9522, which adjusted the maritime baselines of the Philippines.

Which two domestic laws and one international treaty are mentioned in the case?

The two domestic laws mentioned are RA 3046 and RA 9522, while the international treaty is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

What adjustments did RA 9522 make to the maritime baselines of the Philippines?

RA 9522 shortened the baseline, optimized the location of some base points around the Philippine archipelago, and classified the Kalayaan Island Group and Scarborough Shoal as regimes of islands.

What were the arguments of Professor Magalona in his petition?

Professor Magalona argued that RA 9522 dismembers a large portion of national territory, weakens territorial claims over the Kalayaan Island Group and Scarborough Shoal, and converts internal waters into archipelagic waters.

What were the respondents' arguments in defense of RA 9522?

The respondents argued on procedural grounds and defended RA 9522 as the country's compliance with UNCLOS, emphasizing the need to adhere to international agreements.

What were the preliminary issues the Supreme Court had to resolve?

The preliminary issues were whether the petitioners had locus standi to bring the suit and whether the writs of certiorari and prohibition were proper remedies to challenge the constitutionality of RA 9522.

How did the Supreme Court rule on the preliminary issues?

The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner, as a citizen, had a constitutionally sufficient interest in the case, and that certiorari and prohibition were proper remedial vehicles to test the constitutionality of laws.

What was the main issue the Supreme Court addressed in the case?

The main issue was whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional.

What was the Supreme Court's decision regarding the constitutionality of RA 9522?

The Supreme Court held that RA 9522 is not unconstitutional, as it is a statutory tool to demarcate the Philippines' maritime zones and continental shelf under UNCLOS, not to delineate territory.

How did the Supreme Court address the concerns about the regime of islands framework?

The Supreme Court noted that including the Kalayaan Island Group and Scarborough Shoal within the baseline would require a significant departure from the general configuration of the archipelago, which is not allowed under UNCLOS.

What was the Supreme Court's stance on the claim over Sabah in relation to RA 9522?

The Supreme Court stated that RA 9522 does not relinquish the claim over Sabah, as it is expressly provided in the law that it does not.

How did the Supreme Court view the classification of internal waters under RA 9522?

The Supreme Court stated that whether the waters are called internal or archipelagic, the Philippines still exercises sovereignty over them, and sovereignty is not lost due to the right of innocent passage under customary international law.

Outlines

00:00

📜 Overview of Magalona vs. Ermita Case

The video discusses the legal case of Magalona versus Ermita, which revolves around the constitutionality of Republic Act 9522. This act adjusted the baselines of the Philippines' maritime zones in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The case involves two domestic laws, RA 3046 and RA 9522, and one international treaty, UNCLOS. RA 3046 established the maritime baselines of the Philippines, while RA 9522 amended RA 3046 to align with UNCLOS. The main contention was whether RA 9522 unconstitutionally altered the Philippines' territorial claims and maritime zones. The Supreme Court found that RA 9522 was a statutory tool for demarcating maritime zones and did not affect territorial claims. It also upheld the regime of islands framework, clarified the non-relinquishment of the Sabah claim, and maintained that internal waters were not converted into archipelagic waters, thus finding RA 9522 constitutional.

05:02

🏝️ Supreme Court Ruling on Maritime Zones and Territorial Claims

The second paragraph delves into the Supreme Court's reasoning for its decision in the Magalona versus Ermita case. The Court held that RA 9522 was a statutory measure to define the Philippines' maritime zones and did not affect territorial claims. It explained that the baselines and base points are merely starting points for measuring maritime zones and do not determine territory. The Court also addressed the regime of islands framework, noting that including Kig and Scarborough Shoal within the baseline would require an unnatural distortion of the baseline, which is not allowed under UNCLOS. The Court clarified that RA 9522 did not relinquish the claim over Sabah and that the classification of waters as internal or archipelagic does not affect the Philippines' sovereignty over them. The Court concluded that the Philippines' sovereignty is not diminished by the right of innocent passage, which is a customary international law principle.

Keywords

💡Writ of Certiorari and Prohibition

A writ of certiorari is a legal instrument used to review a lower court's decision, while a writ of prohibition is used to prevent a lower court from exceeding its jurisdiction. In the video's context, Professor Magalona filed a writ of certiorari and prohibition to challenge the constitutionality of Republic Act 9522, which adjusted the maritime baselines of the Philippines. This action is central to the video's theme as it sets the stage for the legal debate over the act's compliance with international law and the Philippine Constitution.

💡Archipelagic Baselines

Archipelagic baselines are the lines that connect the outermost points of an archipelago, used to measure the extent of a state's maritime zones. The video discusses how Republic Act 9522 adjusted these baselines, which is a critical aspect of the case as it affects the delineation of the Philippines' maritime territory and its sovereignty claims.

💡Republic Act 9522

Republic Act 9522 is a Philippine law that amended previous legislation to align with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The video focuses on the constitutionality of this act, particularly its adjustments to the maritime baselines and the classification of certain islands, which were contested by Professor Magalona.

💡UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea)

UNCLOS is an international treaty that establishes a legal framework for the use and conservation of the world's oceans and their resources. The video highlights how Republic Act 9522 was passed to ensure Philippine compliance with UNCLOS, emphasizing the importance of international law in shaping domestic legislation and territorial claims.

💡Regime of Islands

The term 'regime of islands' refers to a legal classification under UNCLOS, which treats certain island groups as a single entity for the purpose of drawing maritime boundaries. In the video, the Supreme Court's decision not to include the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and Scarborough Shoal within the baseline is discussed, illustrating the complexity of applying international law to specific territorial claims.

💡Locus Standi

Locus standi is a legal term referring to the right of a party to bring a case before a court. The video explains that the Supreme Court determined that Professor Magalona, as a citizen, had a sufficient interest to challenge the constitutionality of Republic Act 9522, thus establishing his standing to initiate the legal proceedings.

💡Internal Waters

Internal waters are those waters that are landward of a state's baseline and are subject to the state's full sovereignty. The video discusses the claim that Republic Act 9522 converted internal waters into archipelagic waters, which was a point of contention in the case as it relates to the state's sovereignty and control over these waters.

💡Sovereignty

Sovereignty, in the context of the video, refers to the supreme authority of a state over its territory. The case of Magalona versus Ermita revolves around the implications of Republic Act 9522 on the Philippines' sovereignty over certain maritime areas and islands, emphasizing the significance of legal frameworks in defining and protecting national sovereignty.

💡Maritime Zones

Maritime zones are areas of the ocean over which a coastal state has certain rights and jurisdiction, as defined by international law. The video discusses how Republic Act 9522 was intended to demarcate the Philippines' maritime zones in accordance with UNCLOS, which is crucial for the country's management of its maritime resources and navigation rights.

💡Pacta Sunt Servanda

Pacta sunt servanda is a principle of international law stating that treaties must be observed in good faith. The video mentions this principle as part of the respondents' argument that the Philippines should adhere to UNCLOS, highlighting the importance of international agreements in shaping domestic legal disputes.

💡Innocent Passage

Innocent passage is a right of ships to navigate through another state's territorial waters without causing harm. The video explains that the Supreme Court's decision recognized that the Philippines still exercises sovereignty over its waters, even if they are classified as archipelagic waters, and that this sovereignty is not lost due to the right of innocent passage granted under customary international law.

Highlights

The case of Magalona versus Ermita discusses the constitutionality of Republic Act 9522, which adjusted the archipelagic baselines of the Philippines.

The case involves two domestic laws, RA 3046 and RA 9522, and one international treaty, UNCLOS.

RA 9522 was challenged for allegedly dismembering national territory and weakening territorial claims.

The Supreme Court found that RA 9522 is a statutory tool for maritime zone demarcation, not for territory acquisition.

The regime of islands framework in RA 9522 does not weaken the Philippines' claim over KIG and Scarborough Shoal.

The inclusion of KIG and Scarborough Shoal within the baseline would require an appreciable departure from the archipelagic configuration.

RA 9522 does not relinquish the Philippines' claim over Sabah, as explicitly stated in the law.

The Supreme Court ruled that the renaming of internal waters to archipelagic waters does not affect the Philippines' sovereignty.

The right of innocent passage under customary international law is automatically incorporated into Philippine law.

Petitioner Magalona's locus standi was affirmed by the Supreme Court for bringing a case of national significance.

Writs of certiorari and prohibition were deemed proper remedies to challenge the constitutionality of RA 9522.

The case highlights the importance of adhering to international agreements, such as UNCLOS, for maritime zone demarcation.

The Supreme Court's decision emphasizes the distinction between maritime zone demarcation and territorial acquisition.

The case provides clarity on the Philippines' stance on territorial claims and international law compliance.

The decision underscores the significance of the archipelagic baseline in defining maritime zones and continental shelves.

The case illustrates the role of domestic laws in implementing international treaties and conventions.

The Supreme Court's ruling ensures that the Philippines maintains its sovereignty over maritime areas.

Transcripts

hello again everyone my good tug mug in

the home Agha mind Robbie Mac Integra P

in this video we will be talking about

the case of Magalona versus Ermita this

case is all about our archaeologic based

lines based on the own clause

it all began with the writ of certiorari

and prohibition filed by the petitioner

in this case professor Magalona and the

petition was for the purpose of

assailing the constitutionality of

Republic Act number 95 22 which adjusted

the archaeologic based lines of the

Philippines based on the own cause now

this case involves two domestic laws and

one international treaty or convention

the two domestic laws are are a 30:46

and are a ninety five twenty to thirty

forty six double kated the maritime

baselines of the Philippines and it

followed the framing of uncross one are

a ninety five twenty-two on the other

hand was passed to amend thirty forty

six and to make our domestic statute

compliant with one plus three now on

close three prescribes Waterland ratio

length and the contour of base lines of

archaeologic States now you might be

wondering why we skipped from one coast

one to uncross three 1 plus two is

rather unremarkable it only attempted to

define the breadth of territorial sea

and apparently it failed so it is of no

significance in this case now let's talk

about our a ninety five twenty two which

is really the law which was assailed in

this case those passed to amend again

thirty forty six and in complying with

enclose 395 twenty-two shortened one

baseline it optimized the location of

some base points around the Philippine

archipelago and classify the callahan

island group which we will be referring

to as kig and Scarborough Shoal

as regimes of islands now in filing his

writ for of certiorari and prohibition

petitioner Mandela Magalona asserted

that the new law dismembers a large

portion of national territory that the

regime of regime of islands framework

weakens our territorial claim over the

Kalia an island grouper kg and the

Scarborough Shoal and our claim to Sabah

was relinquished according to him and

that it converted our internal waters

into archaeologic waters the respondents

on the other hand argued on procedural

grounds and defended ninety-five 22 as

the country's compliance with enclose

essentially they were claiming that we

entered into this treaty or this

international agreement and therefore we

should adhere to it like pacta sunt

serve and a-- so the issues are

preliminary whether or not petitioners

possess locus standi to bring this suit

and whether or not the writs of

certiorari and prohibition are proper

remedies to assail the constitutionality

of our a ninety-five 22 on the merits

the main issue was whether or not our a

ninety-five 22 is cons is

unconstitutional in resolving the first

issue the Supreme Court held that as a

citizen petitioner has a

constitutionally sufficient interest in

the resolution of a case with national

significance then as to the propriety of

the writs the Supreme Court also held

that certiorari and prohibition are

traditionally viewed as proper remedial

vehicles to test constitutionality of

laws or acts of other branches of

government therefore it was allowed now

going to the main issue in this case the

Supreme Court held that our a ninety

five twenty two is

not unconstitutional first it found that

our a 95 22 is only a statutory not only

a statutory tool to demarcate the

Philippines maritime zones and

constitutional shelf under unclose 3 not

to delineate th territory one Clause has

nothing to do with the acquisition of

territory since it merely regulates see

use rights over maritime zones and

continental shelves the baseline or base

points merely serve as starting points

to measure the extent of the maritime

zones and continental shelf second the

regime of Islands framework is not

inconsistent with the Philippines claim

of sovereignty over kig and Scarborough

Shoal initially the Supreme Court noted

that in re 30:46 kig and Scarborough

Shoal were also outside the baseline

drawn next the court also noted that

under enclose the baseline drone must

not depart to an appreciable extent from

the general configuration of the

archipelago and to include the kig in

Scarborough Shoal within the baseline

would mean we would have to deliberately

skew the lines to loop around them that

would be essentially that the baseline

of the Philippines would depart to an

appreciable extent from the

configuration of the Philippine

archipelago now third under our a 95 22

our claim over Sabah is not relinquished

according to the Supreme Court because

it is expressly provided therein that it

is not and lastly one Clause and our a

95

- is not incompatible with the

Constitution's delineation of internal

waters the Supreme Court said that it

does not matter what they are called

whether internal or archaeologic whether

there are internal waters under the

Constitution or archaeologic waters on

their own clause the Philippines still

exercises sovereignty it does not waive

or forfeit sovereignty over those waters

sovereignty is not lost just because it

is burdened by the right of innocent

passage which is customary under

international law and being because

customary international law it is deemed

automatically incorporated in our laws

and this was a concession made by our

key pelagic States like the Philippines

in exchange for the right to claim all

waters landward of their baselines and

that's it

nagging salamat thank you for watching

or listening to digest tube we hope you

enjoyed this discussion if you did

please hit like and subscribe to this

channel for updates on our

ever-increasing content if you want to

request us to digest a specific case let

us know in the comments below and we

will try to do them as soon as we are

able thank you and good luck