Magallona v. Ermita
Summary
TLDRIn 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
📜 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.
🏝️ 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Writ of Certiorari and Prohibition
💡Archipelagic Baselines
💡Republic Act 9522
💡UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea)
💡Regime of Islands
💡Locus Standi
💡Internal Waters
💡Sovereignty
💡Maritime Zones
💡Pacta Sunt Servanda
💡Innocent Passage
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
浏览更多相关视频
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)