MAGALONA III (Article 49), and archipelagic country
MAGALONA v. ERMITA
G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011
R.A 9522 Was an act established by the
Philippines on 27th of
February, 1984. The said act was executed by the congress on March 2009 for the
purpose of complying with the rules of UNCLOS III or United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea.
Professor Merlin Magallona, together with other petitioners questioned the
efficacy of the said act (RA 9522). They
argue that the national territory of the country
(Philippines) Decreased because of this law.
It further argues that :
1. RA 9522 Violates the Article 1 of the
1987 Philippine Constitution as
As it reduces the territorial waters of the Philippines and also its
2. RA 9522 Injures the supreme authority
of the Philippines. Because the said law opens the country’s maritime waters to
all marine vessels and aircrafts. Such act might affect the country’s national security and maritime resources. It also contravenes the nuclear-free policy of
3. RA 9522′ Treatment of KIG as “regime of islands” will result to the loss of
large portion of our marine territory and will affect the livelihood of our
Because of this, the petitioners files for the writs of certiorari. It aims to
criticize whether the RA 9522 Is constitutional or not.
Whether the RA 9522 or also known as
the amendatory Philippine Baseline Law
is Unconstitutional or not.
NO. The Decision of the court is that the said
law (RA 9522) is constitutional. The court stated that UNDER The United Nations
Convention on the Law of the sea or UNCLOS III, RA 9522 is a required tool to
Demarcate the Maritime zones and continental Shelf of the Philippines. It is also an important step in protecting
the territorial waters of the Philippines.
The court also added that the conversion of our maritime zones will not risk
the Philippines as affirmed in the UNCLOS
III (Article 49), and archipelagic country has supreme authority that extends to the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines. It is further
stated that regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage will not affect the
exercise of authority of the state, both its territorial waters and airpace.
The further explained that RA 9522 are
just an instrument so that the UNCLOS III can explain the delimitations in an
accurate manner and it only serves as a notice to the others states. The court
also explained that baseline laws will not produce any effect like increasing
or decreasing of territories.
GOVERNMENT v. MONTE
G.R. No. L-9959, December 13, 1916
3rd of June, 1865, an earthquake struck the Philippines. Because of this, spain paid around $ 400,000
to the treasury of the Philippines. The said money will be going to use as a
relief fund for those who became victim of the said earthquake.
2. Because of the petition of the Monte
de Piedad, a non-for-profit institution, the government of the Philippines ordered its
treasury to give $80,000 of the relief fund given by the spain to the Monte de
Piedad. But the said money will given through installment. $20,000 will be given each installment.
Because of this petition, many petitions
were filed including the heirs of those entitled on the said money. They also
want the Philippine government to file a suit against Monte de piedad and that
the said company should for the money they took with interest.
3. The Monte de Piedad appealed since all the money that they get from the
relief fund have been spent already. Specifically on jewelry loans.
Whether or not the Philippine government is the right authority to take
YES. The Philippine government can take
action on the said issue since there has
been no change in authority. Another reason is that the Philippine government
has the supreme authority over the state and considered as the legal protector
of inhabitants of the Philippines. They can take action also since they are the
ones who has the authority on the relief fund in the first place.