655 SCRA 476 Political Law National Territory RA 9522 is Constitutional

In March 2009, Republic Act 9522, an act defining the archipelagic baselines of the Philippines was enacted the law is
also known as the Baselines Law. This law was meant to comply with the terms of the third United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), ratified by the Philippines in February 1984.
Professor Merlin Magallona et al questioned the validity of RA 9522 as they contend, among others, that the law
decreased the national territory of the Philippines hence the law is unconstitutional. Some of their particular arguments are
as follows:
a. the law abandoned the demarcation set by the Treaty of Paris and other ancillary treaties this also resulted to the
exclusion of our claim over Sabah;
b. the law, as well as UNCLOS itself, terms the Philippine waters a archipelagic waters which, in international law, opens
our waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels (innocent passage) and aircrafts (overflight),
undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security, contravening the countrys nuclear-free policy, and damaging
marine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions;
c. the classification of the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG), as well as the Scarborough Shoal (bajo de masinloc), as a
regime of islands pursuant to UNCLOS results in the loss of a large maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of
subsistence fishermen.
ISSUE: Whether or not the contentions of Magallona et al are tenable.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court emphasized that RA 9522, or UNCLOS, itself is not a means to acquire, or lose, territory.
The treaty and the baseline law has nothing to do with the acquisition, enlargement, or diminution of the Philippine
territory. What controls when it comes to acquisition or loss of territory is the international law principle on occupation,
accretion, cession and prescription and NOT the execution of multilateral treaties on the regulations of sea-use rights or
enacting statutes to comply with the treatys terms to delimit maritime zones and continental shelves.
The law did not decrease the demarcation of our territory. In fact it increased it. Under the old law amended by RA 9522
(RA 3046), we adhered with the rectangular lines enclosing the Philippines. The area that it covered was 440,994 nautical
miles
2
. But under 9522, and with the inclusion of the exclusive economic zone, the extent of our maritime are increased to
586,210 nautical miles
2
. (See image below for comparison)
If any, the baselines law is a notice to the international community of the scope of the maritime space and submarine
areas within which States parties exercise treaty-based rights.
Anent their particular contentions:
a. The law did not abandon the Sabah claim. This is evident on the provision of Section 2 of RA 9522:
Section 2. The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Act is
without prejudice to the 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.
b. UNCLOS may term our waters as archipelagic waters and that we may term it as our internal waters, but the bottom
line is that our country exercises sovereignty over these waters and UNCLOS itself recognizes that. However, due to our
observance of international law, we allow the exercise of others of their right of innocent passage. No modern State can
validly invoke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent passage that is exercised in accordance with customary
international law without risking retaliatory measures from the international community.
c. The classification of the KIG (or the Spratlys), as well as the Scarborough Shoal, as a regime of islands did not
diminish our maritime area. Under UNCLOS and under the baselines law, since they are regimes of islands, they
generate their own maritime zones in short, they are not to be enclosed within the baselines of the main archipelago
(which is the Philippine Island group). This is because if we do that, then we will be enclosing a larger area which would
already depart from the provisions of UNCLOS that the demarcation should follow the natural contour of the
archipelago.
Nevertheless, we still continue to lay claim over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal through effective occupation.
NOTES:
Under UNCLOS and the baselines law, we have three levels of maritime zones where we exercise treaty-based rights:
a. territorial waters 12 nautical miles from the baselines; where we exercise sovereignty
b. contiguous zone 24 nautical miles from the baselines; jurisdiction where we can enforce customs, fiscal, immigration,
and sanitation laws (CFIS).
c. exclusive economic zone 200 nautical miles from the baselines; where we have the right to exploit the living and non-
living resources in the exclusive economic zone
Note: a fourth zone may be added which is the continental shelf this is covered by Article 77 of the UNCLOS.

Bacani Vs Nacoco [G.R. No. L-9657. November 29, 1956]

Facts: Plaintiffs herein are court stenographers assigned in Branch VI of the Court of First Instance of Manila. During the
pendency of Civil Case No. 2293 of said court, entitled Francisco Sycip vs. National Coconut Corporation, Assistant
Corporate Counsel Federico Alikpala, counsel for Defendant, requested said stenographers for copies of the transcript of
the stenographic notes taken by them during the hearing. Plaintiffs complied with the request by delivering to Counsel
Alikpala the needed transcript containing 714 pages and thereafter submitted to him their bills for the payment of their
fees. The National Coconut Corporation paid the amount of P564 to Leopoldo T. Bacani and P150 to Mateo A. Matoto for
said transcript at the rate of P1 per page the Auditor General required the Plaintiffs to reimburse said amounts on the
strength of a circular of the Department of Justice wherein the opinion was expressed that the National Coconut
Corporation, being a government entity, was exempt from the payment of the fees in question.
Issue: WON NACOCO is a Government Entity
Held: They do not acquire that status for the simple reason that they do not come under the classification of municipal or
public corporation. Take for instance the National Coconut Corporation. While it was organized with the purpose of
adjusting the coconut industry to a position independent of trade preferences in the United States and of providing
Facilities for the better curing of copra products and the proper utilization of coconut by-products, a function which our
government has chosen to exercise to promote the coconut industry, however, it was given a corporate power separate
and distinct from our government, for it was made subject to the provisions of our Corporation Law in so far as its
corporate existence and the powers that it may exercise are concerned (sections 2 and 4, Commonwealth Act No. 518). It
may sue and be sued in the same manner as any other private corporations, and in this sense it is an entity different from
our government. As this Court has aptly said, The mere fact that the Government happens to be a majority stockholder
does not make it a public. the term Government of the Republic of the Philippines used in section 2 of the Revised
Administrative Code refers only to that government entity through which the functions of the government are exercised as
an attribute of sovereignty, and in this are included those arms through which political authority is made effective whether
they be provincial, municipal or other form of local government. These are what we call municipal corporations. They do
not include government entities which are given a corporate personality separate and distinct from the government and
which are governed by the Corporation Law. Their powers, duties and liabilities have to be determined in the light of that
law and of their corporate charters. They do not therefore come within the exemption clause prescribed in section 16,
Rule 130 of our Rules of Court