MAGALLONA VS ERMITA

ISSUE:  Whether or not Republic Act 9522 is unconstitutional for  reducing the Philippine Maritime Territory.

FACTS:  Magallona, et. al., assailed the constitutionality of Republic Act 9522 which  mandates the adjustment of the country’s archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline regime of nearby territories. Historically, Republic Act No. 3046 is the  ruling law which demarcates the maritime baselines of the Philippines, as an  archipelago. Republic Act No. 3046 follows the framing of the Convention on  Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone of 1958, which codifies the sovereign  rights of the states over their territorial sea. Republic Act No. 9522 aims to amend  Republic Act No. 3046 by complying with the terms of United Nations Convention  on the Law of the Sea III which took between 1973 and 1982. 

DECISION:  No. United Nations Convention on the Law of  the Sea III (UNCLOS III) has nothing to do with  the acquisition or loss territory. 

RATIO DECIDENDI:  It is a multilateral treaty regulating sea use rights over maritime zones. Baseline  laws such as Republic Act 9522 are enacted pursuant to UNCLOS III and only  serves to mark out specific basepoints from which baselines are drawn straight or  curve, and to serve and to start as geographic starting points to measure the breadth  of maritime zones and continental shelf.