Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

CAPACITY AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PERMANENT

MISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES TO THE

UNITED NATIONS, Respondents.

EN BANC
G.R No. 187167

August 16, 2011

PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, AKBAYAN PARTY-LIST REP.

RISA HONTIVEROS, PROF. HARRY C. ROQUE, JR., AND
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW

STUDENTS, ALITHEA BARBARA ACAS, VOLTAIRE ALFERES,

CZARINA MAY ALTEZ, FRANCIS ALVIN ASILO, SHERYL BALOT,
RUBY AMOR BARRACA, JOSE JAVIER BAUTISTA, ROMINA

BERNARDO, VALERIE PAGASA BUENAVENTURA, EDAN MARRI

CAETE, VANN ALLEN DELA CRUZ, RENE DELORINO, PAULYN

MAY DUMAN, SHARON ESCOTO, RODRIGO FAJARDO III,

GIRLIE FERRER, RAOULLE OSEN FERRER, CARLA REGINA

GREPO, ANNA MARIE CECILIA GO, IRISH KAY KALAW, MARY

ANN JOY LEE, MARIA LUISA MANALAYSAY, MIGUEL RAFAEL

MUSNGI, MICHAEL OCAMPO, JAKLYN HANNA PINEDA,
WILLIAM RAGAMAT, MARICAR RAMOS, ENRIK FORT

REVILLAS, JAMES MARK TERRY RIDON, JOHANN FRANTZ

RIVERA IV, CHRISTIAN RIVERO, DIANNE MARIE ROA,

NICHOLAS SANTIZO, MELISSA CHRISTINA SANTOS, CRISTINE

MAE TABING, VANESSA ANNE TORNO, MARIA ESTER

VANGUARDIA, and MARCELINO VELOSO III, Petitioners,

vs.
HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY, HON. ALBERTO ROMULO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

HON. ROLANDO ANDAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, HON.

DIONY VENTURA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE NATIONAL MAPPING & RESOURCE INFORMATION
AUTHORITY, and HON. HILARIO DAVIDE, JR., IN HIS

DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This original action for the writs of certiorari and prohibition assails the
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 95221 (RA 9522) adjusting the
countrys archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline regime of
nearby territories.
The Antecedents
In 1961, Congress passed Republic Act No. 3046 (RA 3046)2 demarcating
the maritime baselines of the Philippines as an archipelagic State. 3 This
law followed the framing of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the
Contiguous Zone in 1958 (UNCLOS I),4 codifying, among others, the
sovereign right of States parties over their "territorial sea," the breadth of
which, however, was left undetermined. Attempts to fill this void during
the second round of negotiations in Geneva in 1960 (UNCLOS II) proved
futile. Thus, domestically, RA 3046 remained unchanged for nearly five
decades, save for legislation passed in 1968 (Republic Act No. 5446 [RA
5446]) correcting typographical errors and reserving the drawing of
baselines around Sabah in North Borneo.
In March 2009, Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522, the
statute now under scrutiny. The change was prompted by the need to
make RA 3046 compliant with the terms of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III),5 which the Philippines
ratified on 27 February 1984.6 Among others, UNCLOS III prescribes the
water-land ratio, length, and contour of baselines of archipelagic States
like the Philippines7 and sets the deadline for the filing of application for
the extended continental shelf.8 Complying with these requirements, RA
9522 shortened one baseline, optimized the location of some basepoints
around the Philippine archipelago and classified adjacent territories,
namely, the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal, as

"regimes of islands" whose islands generate their own applicable

maritime zones.
Petitioners, professors of law, law students and a legislator, in their
respective capacities as "citizens, taxpayers or x x x legislators," 9 as the
case may be, assail the constitutionality of RA 9522 on two principal
grounds, namely: (1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and
logically, the reach of the Philippine states sovereign power, in violation
of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution,10 embodying the terms of the Treaty
of Paris11 and ancillary treaties,12 and (2) RA 9522 opens the countrys
waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and
aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security,
contravening the countrys nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine
resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions.13
In addition, petitioners contend that RA 9522s treatment of the KIG as
"regime of islands" not only results in the loss of a large maritime area
but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen. 14 To buttress
their argument of territorial diminution, petitioners facially attack RA
9522 for what it excluded and included its failure to reference either the
Treaty of Paris or Sabah and its use of UNCLOS IIIs framework of
regime of islands to determine the maritime zones of the KIG and the
Scarborough Shoal.
Commenting on the petition, respondent officials raised threshold issues
questioning (1) the petitions compliance with the case or controversy
requirement for judicial review grounded on petitioners alleged lack of
locus standi and (2) the propriety of the writs of certiorari and prohibition
to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522. On the merits, respondents
defended RA 9522 as the countrys compliance with the terms of
UNCLOS III, preserving Philippine territory over the KIG or
Scarborough Shoal. Respondents add that RA 9522 does not undermine
the countrys security, environment and economic interests or relinquish
the Philippines claim over Sabah.
Respondents also question the normative force, under international law,
of petitioners assertion that what Spain ceded to the United States under
the Treaty of Paris were the islands and all the waters found within the
boundaries of the rectangular area drawn under the Treaty of Paris.

We left unacted petitioners prayer for an injunctive writ.

The Issues
The petition raises the following issues:
1. Preliminarily
1. Whether petitioners possess locus standi to bring this
suit; and
2. Whether the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the
proper remedies to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522.
2. On the merits, whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional.
The Ruling of the Court
On the threshold issues, we hold that (1) petitioners possess locus standi
to bring this suit as citizens and (2) the writs of certiorari and prohibition
are proper remedies to test the constitutionality of RA 9522. On the
merits, we find no basis to declare RA 9522 unconstitutional.
On the Threshold Issues

Petitioners Possess Locus

Standi as Citizens
Petitioners themselves undermine their assertion of locus standi as
legislators and taxpayers because the petition alleges neither
infringement of legislative prerogative15 nor misuse of public funds,16
occasioned by the passage and implementation of RA 9522. Nonetheless,
we recognize petitioners locus standi as citizens with constitutionally
sufficient interest in the resolution of the merits of the case which
undoubtedly raises issues of national significance necessitating urgent
resolution. Indeed, owing to the peculiar nature of RA 9522, it is
understandably difficult to find other litigants possessing "a more direct
and specific interest" to bring the suit, thus satisfying one of the
requirements for granting citizenship standing.17
The Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition
Are Proper Remedies to Test

the Constitutionality of Statutes

In praying for the dismissal of the petition on preliminary grounds,

respondents seek a strict observance of the offices of the writs of certiorari
and prohibition, noting that the writs cannot issue absent any showing of
grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial or
ministerial powers on the part of respondents and resulting prejudice on
the part of petitioners.18
Respondents submission holds true in ordinary civil proceedings. When
this Court exercises its constitutional power of judicial review, however,
we have, by tradition, viewed the writs of certiorari and prohibition as
proper remedial vehicles to test the constitutionality of statutes, 19 and
indeed, of acts of other branches of government. 20 Issues of constitutional
import are sometimes crafted out of statutes which, while having no
bearing on the personal interests of the petitioners, carry such relevance
in the life of this nation that the Court inevitably finds itself constrained
to take cognizance of the case and pass upon the issues raised, noncompliance with the letter of procedural rules notwithstanding. The
statute sought to be reviewed here is one such law.
RA 9522 is Not Unconstitutional
RA 9522 is a Statutory Tool

to Demarcate the Countrys

Maritime Zones and Continental

Shelf Under UNCLOS III, not to
Delineate Philippine Territory

Petitioners submit that RA 9522 "dismembers a large portion of the

national territory"21 because it discards the pre-UNCLOS III demarcation
of Philippine territory under the Treaty of Paris and related treaties,
successively encoded in the definition of national territory under the
1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Petitioners theorize that this
constitutional definition trumps any treaty or statutory provision denying
the Philippines sovereign control over waters, beyond the territorial sea
recognized at the time of the Treaty of Paris, that Spain supposedly ceded
to the United States. Petitioners argue that from the Treaty of Paris
technical description, Philippine sovereignty over territorial waters
extends hundreds of nautical miles around the Philippine archipelago,
embracing the rectangular area delineated in the Treaty of Paris. 22

Petitioners theory fails to persuade us.

UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory.
It is a multilateral treaty regulating, among others, sea-use rights over
maritime zones (i.e., the territorial waters [12 nautical miles from the
baselines], contiguous zone [24 nautical miles from the baselines],
exclusive economic zone [200 nautical miles from the baselines]), and
continental shelves that UNCLOS III delimits. 23 UNCLOS III was the
culmination of decades-long negotiations among United Nations members
to codify norms regulating the conduct of States in the worlds oceans and
submarine areas, recognizing coastal and archipelagic States graduated
authority over a limited span of waters and submarine lands along their
coasts.
On the other hand, baselines laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by
UNCLOS III States parties to mark-out specific basepoints along their
coasts from which baselines are drawn, either straight or contoured, to
serve as geographic starting points to measure the breadth of the
maritime zones and continental shelf. Article 48 of UNCLOS III on
archipelagic States like ours could not be any clearer:
Article 48. Measurement of the breadth of the territorial sea, the
contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf.
The breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive
economic zone and the continental shelf shall be measured from

archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47. (Emphasis

supplied)
Thus, baselines laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS
III States parties to delimit with precision the extent of their maritime
zones and continental shelves. In turn, this gives notice to the rest of the
international community of the scope of the maritime space and
submarine areas within which States parties exercise treaty-based rights,
namely, the exercise of sovereignty over territorial waters (Article 2), the
jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitation laws in
the contiguous zone (Article 33), and the right to exploit the living and
non-living resources in the exclusive economic zone (Article 56) and
continental shelf (Article 77).

Even under petitioners theory that the Philippine territory embraces the
islands and all the waters within the rectangular area delimited in the
Treaty of Paris, the baselines of the Philippines would still have to be
drawn in accordance with RA 9522 because this is the only way to draw
the baselines in conformity with UNCLOS III. The baselines cannot be
drawn from the boundaries or other portions of the rectangular area
delineated in the Treaty of Paris, but from the "outermost islands and
drying reefs of the archipelago."24
UNCLOS III and its ancillary baselines laws play no role in the
acquisition, enlargement or, as petitioners claim, diminution of territory.
Under traditional international law typology, States acquire (or
conversely, lose) territory through occupation, accretion, cession and
prescription,25 not by executing 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. Territorial claims to land
features are outside UNCLOS III, and are instead governed by the rules
on general international law.26

The configuration of the baselines drawn under RA 3046 and RA 9522

shows that RA 9522 merely followed the basepoints mapped by RA 3046,
save for at least nine basepoints that RA 9522 skipped to optimize the
location of basepoints and adjust the length of one baseline (and thus
comply with UNCLOS IIIs limitation on the maximum length of
baselines). Under RA 3046, as under RA 9522, the KIG and the
Scarborough Shoal lie outside of the baselines drawn around the
Philippine archipelago. This undeniable cartographic fact takes the wind
out of petitioners argument branding RA 9522 as a statutory
renunciation of the Philippines claim over the KIG, assuming that
baselines are relevant for this purpose.
Petitioners assertion of loss of "about 15,000 square nautical miles of
territorial waters" under RA 9522 is similarly unfounded both in fact and
law. On the contrary, RA 9522, by optimizing the location of basepoints,
increased the Philippines total maritime space (covering its internal
waters, territorial sea and exclusive economic zone) by 145,216 square
nautical miles, as shown in the table below:29

RA 9522s Use of the Framework

Extent of maritime
area using RA 3046,
as amended, taking
into account the
Treaty of Paris
delimitation (in
square nautical
miles)

Extent of maritime
area using RA 9522,
taking into account
UNCLOS III (in
square nautical
miles)

Internal or
archipelagic
waters

166,858

171,435

Territorial Sea

274,136

32,106

of Regime of Islands to Determine the

Maritime Zones of the KIG and the

Scarborough Shoal, not Inconsistent

with the Philippines Claim of Sovereignty
Over these Areas

Petitioners next submit that RA 9522s use of UNCLOS IIIs regime of

islands framework to draw the baselines, and to measure the breadth of
the applicable maritime zones of the KIG, "weakens our territorial claim"
over that area.27 Petitioners add that the KIGs (and Scarborough Shoals)
exclusion from the Philippine archipelagic baselines results in the loss of
"about 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters," prejudicing the
livelihood of subsistence fishermen.28 A comparison of the configuration of
the baselines drawn under RA 3046 and RA 9522 and the extent of
maritime space encompassed by each law, coupled with a reading of the
text of RA 9522 and its congressional deliberations, vis--vis the
Philippines obligations under UNCLOS III, belie this view.1avvphi1

Exclusive
Economic Zone

382,669

TOTAL

440,994

586,210

Thus, as the map below shows, the reach of the exclusive economic zone
drawn under RA 9522 even extends way beyond the waters covered by the
rectangular demarcation under the Treaty of Paris. Of course, where
there are overlapping exclusive economic zones of opposite or adjacent
States, there will have to be a delineation of maritime boundaries in
accordance with UNCLOS III.30

Further, petitioners argument that the KIG now lies outside Philippine
territory because the baselines that RA 9522 draws do not enclose the
KIG is negated by RA 9522 itself. Section 2 of the law commits to text the
Philippines continued claim of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the KIG
and the Scarborough Shoal:

SEC. 2. The baselines in the following areas over which the

Shoal, hindi natin masasabing malapit sila sa atin although we are still
allowed by international law to claim them as our own.

be determined as "Regime of Islands" under the Republic of the

Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS):

This is called contested islands outside our configuration. We see that our
archipelago is defined by the orange line which [we] call[] archipelagic
baseline. Ngayon, tingnan ninyo ang maliit na circle doon sa itaas, that is
Scarborough Shoal, itong malaking circle sa ibaba, that is Kalayaan
Group or the Spratlys. Malayo na sila sa ating archipelago kaya kung
ilihis pa natin ang dating archipelagic baselines para lamang masama
itong dalawang circles, hindi na sila magkalapit at baka hindi na
tatanggapin ng United Nations because of the rule that it should follow
the natural configuration of the archipelago.34 (Emphasis supplied)

Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction shall

a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential

Decree No. 1596 and
b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal. (Emphasis
supplied)
Had Congress in RA 9522 enclosed the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal
as part of the Philippine archipelago, adverse legal effects would have
ensued. The Philippines would have committed a breach of two provisions
of UNCLOS III. First, Article 47 (3) of UNCLOS III requires that "[t]he
drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from
the general configuration of the archipelago." Second, Article 47 (2) of
UNCLOS III requires that "the length of the baselines shall not exceed
100 nautical miles," save for three per cent (3%) of the total number of
baselines which can reach up to 125 nautical miles.31
Although the Philippines has consistently claimed sovereignty over the
KIG32 and the Scarborough Shoal for several decades, these outlying
areas are located at an appreciable distance from the nearest shoreline of
the Philippine archipelago,33 such that any straight baseline loped around
them from the nearest basepoint will inevitably "depart to an appreciable
extent from the general configuration of the archipelago."
The principal sponsor of RA 9522 in the Senate, Senator Miriam
Defensor-Santiago, took pains to emphasize the foregoing during the
Senate deliberations:
What we call the Kalayaan Island Group or what the rest of the world
call[] the Spratlys and the Scarborough Shoal are outside our archipelagic
baseline because if we put them inside our baselines we might be accused
of violating the provision of international law which states: "The drawing
of such baseline shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the
general configuration of the archipelago." So sa loob ng ating baseline,
dapat magkalapit ang mga islands. Dahil malayo ang Scarborough

Similarly, the length of one baseline that RA 3046 drew exceeded

UNCLOS IIIs limits.1avvphi1 The need to shorten this baseline, and in
addition, to optimize the location of basepoints using current maps,
became imperative as discussed by respondents:
[T]he amendment of the baselines law was necessary to enable the
Philippines to draw the outer limits of its maritime zones including the
extended continental shelf in the manner provided by Article 47 of
[UNCLOS III]. As defined by R.A. 3046, as amended by R.A. 5446, the
baselines suffer from some technical deficiencies, to wit:
1. The length of the baseline across Moro Gulf (from Middle of 3
Rock Awash to Tongquil Point) is 140.06 nautical miles x x x. This
exceeds the maximum length allowed under Article 47(2) of the
[UNCLOS III], which states that "The length of such baselines
shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, except that up to 3 per cent of
the total number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may
exceed that length, up to a maximum length of 125 nautical
miles."
2. The selection of basepoints is not optimal. At least 9 basepoints
can be skipped or deleted from the baselines system. This will
enclose an additional 2,195 nautical miles of water.
3. Finally, the basepoints were drawn from maps existing in 1968,
and not established by geodetic survey methods. Accordingly,
some of the points, particularly along the west coasts of Luzon

down to Palawan were later found to be located either inland or

on water, not on low-water line and drying reefs as prescribed by
Article 47.35
Hence, far from surrendering the Philippines claim over the KIG and the
Scarborough Shoal, Congress decision to classify the KIG and the
Scarborough Shoal as "Regime[s] of Islands under the Republic of the
Philippines consistent with Article 121"36 of UNCLOS III manifests the
Philippine States responsible observance of its pacta sunt servanda
obligation under UNCLOS III. Under Article 121 of UNCLOS III, any
"naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above
water at high tide," such as portions of the KIG, qualifies under the
category of "regime of islands," whose islands generate their own
applicable maritime zones.37
Statutory Claim Over Sabah under
RA 5446 Retained

Petitioners argument for the invalidity of RA 9522 for its failure to

textualize the Philippines claim over Sabah in North Borneo is also
untenable. Section 2 of RA 5446, which RA 9522 did not repeal, keeps
open the door for drawing the baselines of Sabah:
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. (Emphasis supplied)
UNCLOS III and RA 9522 not
Incompatible with the Constitutions
Delineation of Internal Waters

As their final argument against the validity of RA 9522, petitioners

contend that the law unconstitutionally "converts" internal waters into
archipelagic waters, hence subjecting these waters to the right of
innocent and sea lanes passage under UNCLOS III, including overflight.
Petitioners extrapolate that these passage rights indubitably expose

Philippine internal waters to nuclear and maritime pollution hazards, in

violation of the Constitution.38
Whether referred to as Philippine "internal waters" under Article I of the
Constitution39 or as "archipelagic waters" under UNCLOS III (Article 49
[1]), the Philippines exercises sovereignty over the body of water lying
landward of the baselines, including the air space over it and the
submarine areas underneath. UNCLOS III affirms this:
Article 49. Legal status of archipelagic waters, of the air space over
archipelagic waters and of their bed and subsoil.
1. The sovereignty of an archipelagic State extends to the
waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines drawn in
accordance with article 47, described as archipelagic waters,
regardless of their depth or distance from the coast.
2. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the

archipelagic waters, as well as to their bed and subsoil,

and the resources contained therein.
xxxx
4. The regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage established in this
Part shall not in other respects affect the status of the
archipelagic waters, including the sea lanes, or the exercise
by the archipelagic State of its sovereignty over such
waters and their air space, bed and subsoil, and the
resources contained therein. (Emphasis supplied)

The fact of sovereignty, however, does not preclude the operation of

municipal and international law norms subjecting the territorial sea or
archipelagic waters to necessary, if not marginal, burdens in the interest
of maintaining unimpeded, expeditious international navigation,
consistent with the international law principle of freedom of navigation.
Thus, domestically, the political branches of the Philippine government,
in the competent discharge of their constitutional powers, may pass
legislation designating routes within the archipelagic waters to regulate
innocent and sea lanes passage.40 Indeed, bills drawing nautical highways
for sea lanes passage are now pending in Congress.41

In the absence of municipal legislation, international law norms, now

codified in UNCLOS III, operate to grant innocent passage rights over the
territorial sea or archipelagic waters, subject to the treatys limitations
and conditions for their exercise.42 Significantly, the right of innocent
passage is a customary international law,43 thus automatically
incorporated in the corpus of Philippine law.44 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.
The fact that for archipelagic States, their archipelagic waters are subject
to both the right of innocent passage and sea lanes passage45 does not
place them in lesser footing vis--vis continental coastal States which are
subject, in their territorial sea, to the right of innocent passage and the
right of transit passage through international straits. The imposition of
these passage rights through archipelagic waters under UNCLOS III was
a concession by archipelagic States, in exchange for their right to claim all
the waters landward of their baselines, regardless of their depth or
distance from the coast, as archipelagic waters subject to their territorial
sovereignty. More importantly, the recognition of archipelagic States
archipelago and the waters enclosed by their baselines as one cohesive
entity prevents the treatment of their islands as separate islands under
UNCLOS III.46 Separate islands generate their own maritime zones,
placing the waters between islands separated by more than 24 nautical
miles beyond the States territorial sovereignty, subjecting these waters to
the rights of other States under UNCLOS III.47
Petitioners invocation of non-executory constitutional provisions in
Article II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies) 48 must also fail.
Our present state of jurisprudence considers the provisions in Article II
as mere legislative guides, which, absent enabling legislation, "do not
embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights x x x." 49 Article II
provisions serve as guides in formulating and interpreting implementing
legislation, as well as in interpreting executory provisions of the
Constitution. Although Oposa v. Factoran50 treated the right to a
healthful and balanced ecology under Section 16 of Article II as an
exception, the present petition lacks factual basis to substantiate the

claimed constitutional violation. The other provisions petitioners cite,

relating to the protection of marine wealth (Article XII, Section 2,
paragraph 251 ) and subsistence fishermen (Article XIII, Section 752 ), are
not violated by RA 9522.
In fact, the demarcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to
delimit its exclusive economic zone, reserving solely to the Philippines the
exploitation of all living and non-living resources within such zone. Such
a maritime delineation binds the international community since the
delineation is in strict observance of UNCLOS III. If the maritime
delineation is contrary to UNCLOS III, the international community will
of course reject it and will refuse to be bound by it.
UNCLOS III favors States with a long coastline like the Philippines.
UNCLOS III creates a sui generis maritime space the exclusive
economic zone in waters previously part of the high seas. UNCLOS III
grants new rights to coastal States to exclusively exploit the resources
found within this zone up to 200 nautical miles.53 UNCLOS III, however,
preserves the traditional freedom of navigation of other States that
attached to this zone beyond the territorial sea before UNCLOS III.
RA 9522 and the Philippines Maritime Zones
Petitioners hold the view that, based on the permissive text of UNCLOS
III, Congress was not bound to pass RA 9522.54 We have looked at the
relevant provision of UNCLOS III55 and we find petitioners reading
plausible. Nevertheless, the prerogative of choosing this option belongs to
Congress, not to this Court. Moreover, the luxury of choosing this option
comes at a very steep price. Absent an UNCLOS III compliant baselines
law, an archipelagic State like the Philippines will find itself devoid of
internationally acceptable baselines from where the breadth of its
maritime zones and continental shelf is measured. This is recipe for a
two-fronted disaster: first, it sends an open invitation to the seafaring
powers to freely enter and exploit the resources in the waters and
submarine areas around our archipelago; and second, it weakens the
countrys case in any international dispute over Philippine maritime
space. These are consequences Congress wisely avoided.

The enactment of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for the Philippine
archipelago and adjacent areas, as embodied in RA 9522, allows an
internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippines
maritime zones and continental shelf. RA 9522 is therefore a most vital
step on the part of the Philippines in safeguarding its maritime zones,
consistent with the Constitution and our national interest.

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition.

SO ORDERED.