SC: Baselines Law constitutional

 

SC: Baselines Law constitutional

By Joel R. San Juan, Business Mirror

Posted at Aug 17 2011 09:29 AM | Updated as of Aug 17 2011 10:05 PM

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, affirmed on Tuesday the constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) 9522, or the Philippine Archipelagic Baselines Law, which was implemented during the term of former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Arroyo.

Chief Justice Renato Corona said the magistrates reached the decision at Tuesday’s regular full-court session. But a copy of the decision was not immediately available.

Associate Justice Antonio Carpio wrote the ruling, which dismissed the petition of international law experts Merlin Magallona and Harry Roque Jr. and several law students who sought to stop the implementation of the law.

The Court dismissed the argument of the petitioners that the Baselines Law declares the Kalayaan Island Group and Scarborough Shoal as mere regimes of islands, thus, weakening the Philippine claims to the disputed island, which is currently included by law in the Philippine archipelago.

The petitioners said the continued implementation of the Baselines Law resulted in the loss of 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters, thus violating several provisions of the Constitution that mandate the government to preserve the country’s territory, including its territorial waters.

The petitioners said the Baselines Law violated Article I of the Constitution by revising the definition of the Philippine archipelago.

RA 9522 essentially declares the Philippines as an “archipelagic state” under the United Nations Law of the Sea, and uses the straight baselines method in delineating the national territory.

They noted that the law was in contrast with the Treaty of Paris, as well as the 1900 Treaty of Washington and the 1930 Treaty between the United States and Britain, which define the Philippine archipelago as having a rectangular shape, about 600 miles wide and 1,200 miles long.

They said the Baselines Law likewise violated Sections 7, 8 and 16 of the Constitution which mandates that the Philippines place paramount consideration on national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest and self-determination in its pursuit of an independent foreign policy and to pursue a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in our territory.

The Court gave credence to the argument of the solicitor general that contrary to the claim of the petitioners, RA 9522 does not revise the definition of the Philippine archipelago under Article 1 of the Constitution. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO G.R. No. 73748

  [President Corazon C. Aquino] was installed by direct sovereignty, the people. The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control of the entire country. It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a je jure government; and the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government. LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO (G.R. No. 73748 - May 22, 1986) (There is no "Full-Text" of this case. This is a Minute Resolution made by the SC.) Minute Resolutions EN BANC   SIRS/MESDAMES: Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court MAY 22, 1986. In G.R. No. 73748, Lawyers League for a Better Philippines vs. President Corazon C. Aquino, et al .; G.R. No. 73972, People's Crusade for Supremacy of the Constitution vs. Mrs. Cory Aquino, et al ., and G.R. No. 73990, Councilor Clifton U. Ganay vs. Corazon C. Aquino, et al ., the legitimacy of the government of President Aquin...
Read more

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine   GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000   FACTS : Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.   ISSUE : Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?   HELD : No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there...
Read more

ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL v. CUSTOMS (29 SCRA 617)

Executive Construction ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL v. CUSTOMS (29 SCRA 617) FACTS Asturias Sugar Central, Inc., a domestic company engaged in the production and milling of centrifugal sugar for exert, was using jute bags as container for sugar. Consequently, the company made two importations of jute bags, both of which entered free of customs duties and special import tax upon the petitioner's filing of Re-exportation and Special Import Tax Bonds, under the condition that the bags shall be exported within 1 year from the date of importation. However, not all the bags were exported within the 1 year period. Petitioner asked for an extension, but it was denied. The Collector of Customs assessed customs duties and special import tax. Issues:   a.) Whether or not the Commissioner of Customs is vested with discretion to extend the period of one year provided for in section 23 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909.   b.) Whether or not interpretation or construction of...
Read more