Detailed Ruling on the Right of Indigenous Peoples

Facts of the Case

Legislative Background: In nineteen sixty-one, RA three thousand forty-six defined the maritime baselines of the Philippines. In two thousand nine, Congress enacted RA nine thousand five hundred twenty-two to amend RA three thousand forty-six, aiming to make the Philippines' baselines compliant with UNCLOS three.

Key Changes in RA nine thousand five hundred twenty-two: The law shortened one baseline, optimized basepoints, and classified the Kalayaan Island Group and Scarborough Shoal as a "regime of islands" under Philippine sovereignty.

The Petition: Petitioners (law professors, students, and a legislator) argued that RA nine thousand five hundred twenty-two was unconstitutional because it allegedly reduced Philippine maritime territory, opened internal waters to foreign passage, and undermined sovereignty over the Kalayaan Island Group and Scarborough Shoal.

Issues

One. Procedural: Do petitioners have locus standi (legal standing), and are certiorari and prohibition the proper remedies?

Two. Substantive: Is RA nine thousand five hundred twenty-two unconstitutional on the grounds that it diminishes national territory and violates Philippine sovereignty?

The Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding RA nine thousand five hundred twenty-two constitutional.

Procedural Ruling: The Court recognized the petitioners' standing as citizens because the case raised issues of national significance. It also held that certiorari and prohibition are proper for testing the constitutionality of statutes.

Substantive Ruling: The Court found no basis to declare the law unconstitutional, clarifying that RA nine thousand five hundred twenty-two is a tool for demarcating maritime zones, not for defining the limits of national territory.