Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R No.
187167 August 16, 2011PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, AKBAAN PART!LIST
REP. RISA "ONTI#EROS, PROF. "ARR C. RO$UE, %R., AN& UNI#ERSIT
OF T"E P"ILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LA' STU&ENTS, ALIT"EA BARBARA
ACAS, #OLTAIRE ALFERES, C(ARINA MA ALTE(, FRANCIS AL#IN ASILO,
S"ERL BALOT, RUB AMOR BARRACA, %OSE %A#IER BAUTISTA, ROMINA
BERNAR&O, #ALERIE PAGASA BUENA#ENTURA, E&AN MARRI CA)ETE,
#ANN ALLEN &ELA CRU(, RENE &ELORINO, PAULN MA &UMAN,
S"ARON ESCOTO, RO&RIGO FA%AR&O III, GIRLIE FERRER, RAOULLE
OSEN FERRER, CARLA REGINA GREPO, ANNA MARIE CECILIA GO, IRIS" KA
KALA', MAR ANN %O LEE, MARIA LUISA MANALASA, MIGUEL RAFAEL MUSNGI,
MIC"AEL OCAMPO, %AKLN "ANNA PINE&A, 'ILLIAM RAGAMAT, MARICAR
RAMOS, ENRIK FORT RE#ILLAS, %AMES MARK TERR RI&ON, %O"ANN
FRANT( RI#ERA I#, C"RISTIAN RI#ERO, &IANNE MARIE ROA, NIC"OLAS
SANTI(O, MELISSA C"RISTINA SANTOS, CRISTINE MAE TABING, #ANESSA
ANNE TORNO, MARIA ESTER #ANGUAR&IA, *+, MARCELINO #ELOSO III,
Petitioners, vs."ON. E&UAR&O ERMITA, IN "IS CAPACIT AS
E-ECUTI#E SECRETAR, "ON. ALBERTO ROMULO, IN "IS CAPACIT AS SECRETAR
OF T"E &EPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, "ON. ROLAN&O
AN&AA, IN "IS CAPACIT AS SECRETAR OF T"E &EPARTMENT OF
BU&GET AN& MANAGEMENT, "ON. &ION #ENTURA, IN "IS
CAPACIT AS A&MINISTRATOR OF T"E NATIONAL MAPPING . RESOURCE
INFORMATION AUT"ORIT, *+, "ON. "ILARIO &A#I&E, %R., IN "IS
CAPACIT AS REPRESENTATI#E OF T"E PERMANENT MISSION OF T"E REPUBLIC
OF T"E P"ILIPPINES TO T"E UNITE& NATIONS,Respondents.& E C
I S I O NCARPIO, J.:T/0 C*s0This original action for the writs of
certiorari and prohibition assails the constitutionalit of Republic
Act No. !"##$%RA !"##& ad'usting the countr(s archipelagic
baselines and classifing the baseline regi)e of nearb
territories.T/0 A+t010,0+ts*n $!+$, Congress passed Republic Act
No. ,-.+ %RA ,-.+ de)arcating the )ariti)e baselines of the
Philippines as an archipelagic /tate., This law followed the
fra)ing of the Convention on the Territorial /ea and the Contiguous
0one in $!"1 %2NC34/ *&,. codifing, a)ong others, the sovereign
right of /tates parties over their 5territorial sea,5 the breadth
of which, however, was left undeter)ined. Atte)pts to 6ll this void
during the second round of negotiations in 7eneva in $!+- %2NC34/
**& proved futile. Thus, do)esticall, RA ,-.+ re)ained
unchanged for nearl 6ve decades, save for legislation passed in
$!+1 %Republic Act No. "..+ 8RA "..+9& correcting tpographical
errors and reserving the drawing of baselines around /abah in North
Borneo.*n March #--!, Congress a)ended RA ,-.+ b enacting RA !"##,
the statute now under scrutin. The change was pro)pted b the need
to )a:e RA ,-.+ co)pliant with the ter)s of the 2nited Nations
Convention on the 3aw of the /ea %2NC34/ ***&," which the
Philippines rati6ed on #; tended continental shelf.1 Co)pling with
these re?uire)ents, RA !"## shortened one baseline, opti)i@ed the
location of so)e basepoints around the Philippine archipelago and
classi6ed ad'acent territories, na)el, the Aalaaan *sland 7roup
%A*7& and the /carborough /hoal, as 5regi)es of islands5 whose
islands generate their own applicable )ariti)e @ones.Petitioners,
professors of law, law students and a legislator, in their
respective capacities as 5citi@ens, ta>paers or > > >
legislators,5! as the case )a be, assail the constitutionalit of RA
!"## on two principal grounds, na)elB %$& RA !"## reduces
Philippine )ariti)e territor, and logicall, the reach of the
Philippine state(s sovereign power, in violation of Article $ of
the $!1; Constitution,$- e)boding the ter)s of the Treat of Paris$$
and ancillar treaties,$# and %#& RA !"## opens the countr(s
waters landward of the baselines to )ariti)e passage b all vessels
and aircrafts, under)ining Philippine sovereignt and national
securit, contravening the countr(s nuclear=free polic, and da)aging
)arine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional
provisions.$,*n addition, petitioners contend that RA !"##(s
treat)ent of the A*7 as 5regi)e of islands5 not onl results in the
loss of a large )ariti)e area but also pre'udices the livelihood of
subsistence 6sher)en.$. To buttress their argu)ent of territorial
di)inution, petitioners faciall attac: RA !"## for what it
e>cluded and included C its failure to reference either the
Treat of Paris or /abah and its use of 2NC34/ ***(s fra)ewor: of
regi)e of islands to deter)ine the )ariti)e @ones of the A*7 and
the /carborough /hoal.Co))enting on the petition, respondent
oDcials raised threshold issues ?uestioning %$& the petition(s
co)pliance with the case or controvers re?uire)ent for 'udicial
review grounded on petitioners( alleged lac: of locus standiand
%#& the propriet of the writs of certiorari and prohibition to
assail the constitutionalit of RA !"##. 4n the )erits, respondents
defended RA !"## as the countr(s co)pliance with the ter)s of
2NC34/ ***, preserving Philippine territor over the A*7 or
/carborough /hoal. Respondents add that RA !"## does not under)ine
the countr(s securit, environ)ent and econo)ic interests or
relin?uish the Philippines( clai) over /abah.Respondents also
?uestion the nor)ative force, under international law, of
petitioners( assertion that what /pain ceded to the 2nited /tates
under the Treat of Paris were the islands and all the waters found
within the boundaries of the rectangular area drawn under the Treat
of Paris.Ee left unacted petitioners( praer for an in'unctive
writ.T/0 Issu0sThe petition raises the following issuesB$.
Preli)inaril C$. Ehether petitioners possess locus standi to bring
this suitF and#. Ehether the writs of certiorari and prohibition
are the proper re)edies to assail the constitutionalit of RA
!"##.#. 4n the )erits, whether RA !"## is unconstitutional.T/0
Ru23+g o4 t/0 Cou5t4n the threshold issues, we hold that %$&
petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit as citi@ens and
%#& the writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper re)edies
to test the constitutionalit of RA !"##. 4n the )erits, we 6nd no
basis to declare RA !"## unconstitutional.On the Threshold
IssuesPetitioners Possess LocusStandi as CitizensPetitioners
the)selves under)ine their assertion of locus standi as legislators
and ta>paers because the petition alleges neither infringe)ent
of legislative prerogative$" nor )isuse of public funds,$+
occasioned b the passage and i)ple)entation of RA !"##.
Nonetheless, we recogni@e petitioners( locus standi as citi@ens
with constitutionall suDcient interest in the resolution of the
)erits of the case which undoubtedl raises issues of national
signi6cance necessitating urgent resolution. *ndeed, owing to the
peculiar nature of RA !"##, it is understandabl diDcult to 6nd
other litigants possessing 5a )ore direct and speci6c interest5 to
bring the suit, thus satisfing one of the re?uire)ents for granting
citi@enship standing.$;The Writs of Certiorari and ProhibitionAre
Proper Reedies to Testthe Constitutionalit! of Statutes*n praing
for the dis)issal of the petition on preli)inar grounds,
respondents see: a strict observance of the oDces of the writs of
certiorari and prohibition, noting that the writs cannot issue
absent an showing of grave abuse of discretion in the e>ercise
of 'udicial, ?uasi='udicial or )inisterial powers on the part of
respondents and resulting pre'udice on the part of
petitioners.$1Respondents( sub)ission holds true in ordinar civil
proceedings. Ehen this Court e>ercises its constitutional power
of 'udicial review, however, we have, b tradition, viewed the writs
of certiorari and prohibition as proper re)edial vehicles to test
the constitutionalit of statutes,$! and indeed, of acts of other
branches of govern)ent.#-*ssues of constitutional i)port are
so)eti)es crafted out of statutes which, while having no bearing on
the personal interests of the petitioners, carr such relevance in
the life of this nation that the Court inevitabl 6nds itself
constrained to ta:e cogni@ance of the case and pass upon the issues
raised, non=co)pliance with the letter of procedural rules
notwithstanding. The statute sought to be reviewed here is one such
law.RA "#$$ is %ot &nconstitutionalRA "#$$ is a Statutor!
Toolto 'earcate the Countr!(s)aritie *ones and ContinentalShelf
&nder &%CLOS III+ not to'elineate Philippine
Territor!Petitioners sub)it that RA !"## 5dis)e)bers a large
portion of the national territor5#$ because it discards the
pre=2NC34/ *** de)arcation of Philippine territor under the Treat
of Paris and related treaties, successivel encoded in the de6nition
of national territor under the $!,", $!;, and $!1; Constitutions.
Petitioners theori@e that this constitutional de6nition tru)ps an
treat or statutor provision dening the Philippines sovereign
control over waters, beond the territorial sea recogni@ed at the
ti)e of the Treat of Paris, that /pain supposedl ceded to the
2nited /tates. Petitioners argue that fro) the Treat of Paris(
technical description, Philippine sovereignt over territorial
waters e>tends hundreds of nautical )iles around the Philippine
archipelago, e)bracing the rectangular area delineated in the Treat
of Paris.##Petitioners( theor fails to persuade us.2NC34/ *** has
nothing to do with the ac?uisition %or loss& of territor. *t is
a )ultilateral treat regulating, a)ong others, sea=use rights over
)ariti)e @ones %i.e., the territorial waters 8$# nautical )iles
fro) the baselines9, contiguous @one 8#. nautical)iles fro) the
baselines9, e>clusive econo)ic @one 8#-- nautical )iles fro) the
baselines9&, and continental shelves that 2NC34/ ***
deli)its.#, 2NC34/ *** was the cul)ination of decades=long
negotiations a)ong 2nited Nations )e)bers to codif nor)s regulating
the conduct of /tates in the world(s oceans and sub)arine areas,
recogni@ing coastal and archipelagic /tates( graduated authorit
over a li)ited span of waters and sub)arine lands along their
coasts.4n the other hand, baselines laws such as RA !"## are
enacted b 2NC34/ *** /tates parties to )ar:=out speci6c basepoints
along their coasts fro) which baselines are drawn, either straight
or contoured, to serve as geographic starting points to )easure the
breadth of the )ariti)e @ones and continental shelf. Article .1 of
2NC34/ *** on archipelagic /tates li:e ours could not be an
clearerBA5t3120 68. Measurement of the breadth of the territorial
sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the
continental shelf. C The breadth of the territorial sea, the
contiguous @one, the e>clusive econo)ic @one and the continental
shelf s/*22 70 80*su50, 45o8 *51/3902*g31 7*s023+0s drawn in
accordance with article .;. %E)phasis supplied&Thus, baselines
laws are nothing but statutor )echanis)s for 2NC34/ *** /tates
parties to deli)it with precision the e>tent of their )ariti)e
@ones and continental shelves. *n turn, this gives notice to the
rest of the international co))unit of the scope of the )ariti)e
space and sub)arine areas within which /tates parties e>ercise
treat=based rights, na)el, the e>ercise of sovereignt over
territorial waters %Article #&, the 'urisdiction to enforce
custo)s, 6scal, i))igration, and sanitation laws in the contiguous
@one %Article ,,&, and the right to e>ploit the living and
non=living resources in the e>clusiveecono)ic @one %Article
"+& and continental shelf %Article ;;&.Even under
petitioners( theor that the Philippine territor e)braces the
islands and all the waters within the rectangular area deli)ited in
the Treat of Paris, the baselines of the Philippines would still
have to be drawn in accordance with RA !"## because this is the onl
wa to draw the baselines in confor)it with 2NC34/ ***. The
baselines cannot be drawn fro) the boundaries or other portions of
the rectangular area delineated in the Treat of Paris, but fro) the
5outer)ost islands and dring reefs of the archipelago.5#.2NC34/ ***
and its ancillar baselines laws pla no role in the ac?uisition,
enlarge)ent or, as petitioners clai), di)inution of territor. 2nder
traditional international law tpolog, /tates ac?uire %or conversel,
lose& territor through occupation, accretion, cession and
prescription,#" not b e>ecuting )ultilateral treaties on the
regulations of sea=use rights or enacting statutes to co)pl with
the treat(s ter)s to deli)it )ariti)e @ones and continental
shelves. Territorial clai)s to land features are outside 2NC34/
***, and are instead governed b the rules on general international
law.#+RA "#$$(s &se of the ,rae-or.of Re/ie of Islands to
'eterine the)aritie *ones of the 0I1 and theScarborou/h Shoal+ not
Inconsistent-ith the Philippines( Clai of So2erei/nt!O2er these
AreasPetitioners ne>t sub)it that RA !"##(s use of 2NC34/ ***(s
regi)e of islands fra)ewor: to draw the baselines, and to )easure
the breadth of the applicable )ariti)e @ones of the A*7, 5wea:ens
our territorial clai)5 over that area.#; Petitioners add that the
A*7(s %and /carborough /hoal(s& e>clusion fro) the
Philippine archipelagic baselines results in the loss of
5about$",--- s?uare nautical )iles of territorial waters,5
pre'udicing the livelihood of subsistence 6sher)en.#1 A co)parison
of the con6guration of the baselines drawn under RA ,-.+ and RA
!"## and the e>tent of )ariti)e space enco)passed b each law,
coupled with a reading of the te>t of RA !"## and its
congressional deliberations, vis--vis the Philippines( obligations
under 2NC34/ ***, belie this view.1avvphi1The con6guration of the
baselines drawn under RA ,-.+ and RA !"## shows that RA !"## )erel
followed the basepoints )apped b RA ,-.+, save for at least nine
basepoints that RA !"## s:ipped to opti)i@e the location of
basepoints and ad'ustthe length of one baseline %and thus co)pl
with 2NC34/ ***(s li)itation on the )a>i)u) length of
baselines&. 2nder RA ,-.+, as under RA !"##, the A*7 and the
/carborough /hoal lie outside of the baselines drawn around the
Philippine archipelago. This undeniable cartographic fact ta:es the
wind out of petitioners( argu)ent branding RA !"## as a statutor
renunciation of the Philippines( clai) over the A*7, assu)ing that
baselines are relevant for this purpose.Petitioners( assertion of
loss of 5about $",--- s?uare nautical )iles of territorial waters5
under RA !"## is si)ilarl unfounded both in fact and law. 4n the
contrar, RA !"##, b opti)i@ing the location of basepoints,
increased the Philippines( total )ariti)e space %covering its
internal waters, territorial sea and e>clusive econo)ic
@one& b $.",#$+ s?uare nautical )iles, as shown in the table
belowB#!E>tent of )ariti)e area using RA ,-.+, as a)ended,
ta:ing into account the Treat of Paris( E>tent of )ariti)e area
using RA !"##, ta:ing into account 2NC34/ *** %in
s?uaredeli)itation %in s?uare nautical )iles&nautical
)iles&*nternal or archipelagic waters $++,1"1
$;$,.,"Territorial /ea #;.,$,+ ,#,$-+E>clusive Econo)ic 0one
,1#,++!TOTAL 660,::6 ;86,210Thus, as the )ap below shows, the reach
of the e>clusive econo)ic @one drawn under RA !"## even
e>tends wa beond the waters covered b the rectangular
de)arcation under the Treat of Paris. 4f course, where there are
overlapping e>clusive econo)ic @ones of opposite or ad'acent
/tates, there will have to be a delineation of )ariti)e boundaries
in accordance with 2NC34/ ***.,-t the Philippines( continued clai)
of sovereignt and 'urisdiction over the A*7 and the /carborough
/hoalBSEC. 2. The baselines in the following areas o0=3s0 0?0513s0s
soceed $-- nautical )iles,5 save for three per cent %,J& of the
total nu)ber of baselines which can reach up to $#" nautical
)iles.,$Although the Philippines has consistentl clai)ed sovereignt
over the A*7,# and the /carborough /hoal for several decades, these
outling areas are located at an appreciable distance fro) the
nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipelago,,, such that an
straight baseline loped around the) fro) the nearest basepoint will
inevitabl 5depart to an appreciable e>tent fro) the general
con6guration of the archipelago.5The principal sponsor of RA !"##
in the /enate, /enator Miria) Gefensor=/antiago, too: pains to
e)phasi@e the foregoing during the /enate deliberationsBEhat we
call the Aalaaan *sland 7roup or what the rest of the world call89
the /pratls and the /carborough /hoal 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: "he drawing of such baseline shall not depart to an!
appreciable extent from the general con"guration of the
archipelago." #o sa loob ng ating baseline, dapat mag$alapit ang
mga islands. %ahil mala!o ang #carborough #hoal, hindi natin
masasabing malapit sila sa atin although we are still allowed b!
international law to claim them as our own.This is called contested
islands outside our con6guration. Ee see that our archipelago is
de6ned b the orange line which 8we9 call89 archipelagic baseline.
Ngaon, tingnan nino ang )aliit na circle doon sa itaas, that is
/carborough /hoal, itong )ala:ing circle sa ibaba, that is Aalaaan
7roup or the /pratls. Mala!o na sila sa ating archipelago $a!a $ung
ilihis pa natin ang dating archipelagic baselines para lamang
masama itong dalawang circles, hindi na sila mag$alapit at ba$a
hindi na tatanggapin ng &nited 'ations because of the rule that
it should follow the natural con"guration of the archipelago.,.
%E)phasis supplied&/i)ilarl, the length of one baseline that RA
,-.+ drew e>ceeded 2NC34/ ***(s li)its. The need to shorten this
baseline, and in addition, to opti)i@e the location of basepoints
using current )aps, beca)e i)perative as discussed b
respondentsB8T9he a)end)ent of the baselines law was necessar to
enable the Philippines to draw the outer li)its of its )ariti)e
@ones including the e>tended continental shelf in the )anner
provided b Article .; of 82NC34/ ***9. As de6ned b R.A. ,-.+, as
a)ended b R.A. "..+, the baselines suIer fro) so)e technical
de6ciencies, to witB$. The length of the baseline across Moro 7ulf
%fro) Middle of , Roc: Awash to Tong?uil Point& is $.-.-+
nautical )iles > > >. This e>ceeds the )a>i)u)
length allowed under Article .;%#& of the 82NC34/ ***9, which
states that 5The length of such baselines shall not e>ceed $--
nautical )iles, e>cept that up to , per cent of the total nu)ber
of baselines enclosing an archipelago )a e>ceed that length, up
to a )a>i)u) length of $#" nautical )iles.5#. The selection of
basepoints is not opti)al. At least ! basepoints can be s:ipped or
deleted fro) the baselines sste). This will enclose an additional
#,$!" nautical )iles of water.,. isting in $!+1, and not
established b geodetic surve )ethods. Accordingl, so)e of the
points, particularl along the west coasts of 3u@on down to Palawan
were later found to be located either inland or on water, not on
low=water line and dring reefs as prescribed b Article .;.,"Hence,
far fro) surrendering the Philippines( clai) over the A*7 and the
/carborough /hoal, Congress( decision to classif the A*7 and the
/carborough /hoal as 5KRegi)e8s9 of *slands( under the Republic of
the Philippines consistent with Article $#$5,+ of 2NC34/ ***
)anifests the Philippine /tate(s responsible observance of its
pacta sunt servanda obligation under 2NC34/ ***. 2nder Article $#$
of 2NC34/ ***, an 5naturall for)ed area of land, surrounded b
water, which is above water athigh tide,5 such as portions of the
A*7, ?uali6es under the categor of 5regi)e of islands,5 whose
islands generate their own applicable )ariti)e @ones.,;Statutor!
Clai O2er Sabah underRA #334 RetainedPetitioners( argu)ent for the
invalidit of RA !"## for its failure to te>tuali@e the
Philippines( clai) over /abah in North Borneo is also untenable.
/ection # of RA "..+, which RA !"## did not repeal, :eeps open the
door for drawing the baselines of /abahB/ection #. The de6nition of
the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago
as provided in this Act3s =3t/out 950Au,310 to t/0 ,023+0*t3o+ o4
t/0 7*s023+0s o4 t/0 t0553to53*2 s0* *5ou+, t/0 t0553to5@ o4 S*7*/,
s3tu*t0, 3+ No5t/ Bo5+0o, opeditious international navigation,
consistent with the international law principle of freedo) of
navigation. Thus, do)esticall, the political branches of the
Philippine govern)ent, in the co)petent discharge of their
constitutional powers, )a pass legislation designating routes
within the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and sea lanes
passage..- *ndeed, bills drawing nautical highwas for sea lanes
passage are now pending in Congress..$*n the absence of )unicipal
legislation, international law nor)s, now codi6ed in 2NC34/ ***,
operate to grant innocent passage rights over the territorial sea
or archipelagic waters, sub'ect to the treat(s li)itations and
conditions for their e>ercise..# /igni6cantl, the right of
innocent passage is a custo)ar international law,., thus
auto)aticall incorporated in the corpus of Philippine law... No
)odern /tate can validl invo:e its sovereignt to absolutel forbid
innocent passage that is e>ercised in accordance with custo)ar
international law without ris:ing retaliator )easures fro) the
international co))unit.The fact that for archipelagic /tates, their
archipelagic waters are sub'ect to both the right of innocent
passage and sea lanespassage." does not place the) in lesser
footing vis--vis continental coastal /tates which are sub'ect, in
their territorial sea, to the right of innocent passage and the
right of transit passage through international straits. The
i)position of these passage rights through archipelagic waters
under 2NC34/ *** was a concession b archipelagic /tates, in
e>change for their right to clai) all the waters landward of
their baselines,regardless of their depth or distance from the
coast, as archipelagic waters sub'ect to their territorial
sovereignt!. More i)portantl, the recognition of archipelagic
/tates( archipelago and the waters enclosed b their baselines as
one cohesive entit prevents the treat)ent of their islands as
separate islands under 2NC34/ ***..+ /eparate islands generate
their own )ariti)e @ones, placing the waters between islands
separated b )ore than #. nautical )iles beond the /tates(
territorial sovereignt, sub'ecting these waters to the rights of
other /tates under 2NC34/ ***..;Petitioners( invocation of
non=e>ecutor constitutional provisions in Article **
%Geclaration of Principles and /tate Policies&.1 )ust also
fail. 4ur present state of 'urisprudence considers the provisions
in Article ** as )ere legislative guides, which, absent enabling
legislation, 5do not e)bod 'udiciall enforceable constitutional
rights > > >.5.! Article ** provisions serve as guides in
for)ulating and interpreting i)ple)enting legislation, as well as
in interpreting e>ecutor provisions of the Constitution.
Although )posa v. *actoran"- treated the right to a healthful and
balanced ecolog under /ection $+ of Article ** as an e>ception,
the present petition lac:s factual basis to substantiate the
clai)ed constitutional violation. The other provisions petitioners
cite, relating to the protection of )arine wealth %Article M**,
/ection #, paragraph #"$ & and subsistence 6sher)en %Article
M***, /ection ;"# &, are not violated b RA !"##.*n fact, the
de)arcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to deli)it its
e>clusive econo)ic @one, reserving solel to the Philippines the
e>ploitation of all living and non=living resources within such
@one. /uch a )ariti)e delineation binds the international co))unit
since the delineation is in strict observance of 2NC34/ ***. *f the
)ariti)e delineation is contrar to 2NC34/ ***, the international
co))unit will of course re'ect it and will refuse to be bound b
it.2NC34/ *** favors /tates with a long coastline li:e the
Philippines. 2NC34/ *** creates a sui generis )ariti)e space C the
e>clusive econo)ic @one C in waters previousl part of the high
seas. 2NC34/ *** grants new rights to coastal /tates to
e>clusivel e>ploit the resources found within this @one up to
#-- nautical )iles.", 2NC34/ ***, however, preserves the
traditional freedo) of navigation of other /tates that attached to
this @one beond the territorial sea before 2NC34/ ***.RA "#$$ and
the Philippines( )aritie *onesPetitioners hold the view that, based
on the per)issive te>t of 2NC34/ ***, Congress was not bound to
pass RA !"##.". Ee have loo:ed at the relevant provision of 2NC34/
***"" and we 6nd petitioners( reading plausible. Nevertheless, the
prerogativeof choosing this option belongs to Congress, not to this
Court. Moreover, the lu>ur of choosing this option co)es at a
ver steep price. Absent an 2NC34/ *** co)pliant baselines law, an
archipelagic /tate li:e the Philippines will 6nd itself devoid of
internationall acceptable baselines fro) where the breadth of its
)ariti)e @ones and continental shelf is )easured. This is recipe
for a two=fronted disasterB "rst, it sends an open invitation to
the seafaring powers to freel enter and e>ploit the resources in
the waters and sub)arine areas around our archipelagoF and second,
it wea:ens the countr(s case in an international dispute over
Philippine )ariti)e space. These are conse?uences Congress wisel
avoided.The enact)ent of 2NC34/ *** co)pliant baselines law for the
Philippine archipelago and ad'acent areas, as e)bodied in RA !"##,
allows an internationall=recogni@ed deli)itation of the breadth of
the Philippines( )ariti)e @ones and continental shelf. RA !"## is
therefore a )ost vital step on the part of the Philippines in
safeguarding its )ariti)e @ones, consistent with the Constitution
and our national interest.'"EREFORE, we &ISMISS the petition./4
4RGEREG.ANTONIO T. CARPIOAssociate NusticeEE C4NC2RBRENATO C.
CORONAChief NusticePRESBITERO %. #ELASCO, %R.Associate
NusticeTERESITA %. LEONAR&O!&E CASTROAssociate
NusticeARTURO &. BRION &IOS&A&O M. PERALTAAssociate
Nustice Associate NusticeLUCAS P. BERSAMINAssociate NusticeMARIANO
C. &EL CASTILLOAssociate NusticeROBERTO A. ABA&Associate
NusticeMARTIN S. #ILLARAMA, %R.Associate Nustice%OSE PORTUGAL
PERE(Associate Nustice%OSE C. MEN&O(AAssociate NusticeMARIA
LOUR&ES P. A. SERENOAssociate NusticeC E R T * < * C A T * 4
NPursuant to /ection $,, Article O*** of the Constitution, * certif
that the conclusions in the above Gecision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.RENATO C. CORONAChief NusticeFoot+ot0s$
Entitled 5An Act to A)end Certain Provisions of Republic Act No.
,-.+, as A)ended b Republic Act No. "..+, to Ge6ne the Archipelagic
Baselines of the Philippines, and for 4ther Purposes.5# Entitled
5An Act to Ge6ne the Baselines of the Territorial /ea of the
Philippines.5, The third 5Ehereas Clause5 of RA ,-.+ e>presses
the i)port of treating the Philippines as an archipelagic
/tateB5EHEREA/, all the waters around, between, and connecting the
various islands of the Philippine archipelago, irrespective of
their width or di)ensions, have alwas been considered as necessar
appurtenances of the land territor, for)ing part of the inland
waters of the Philippines.5. 4ne of the four conventions fra)ed
during the 6rst 2nited Nations Convention on the 3aw of the /ea in
7eneva, this treat, e>cluding the Philippines, entered into
force on $- /epte)ber $!+.." 2NC34/ *** entered into force on $+
Nove)ber $!!..+ The Philippines signed the treat on $- Gece)ber
$!1#.; Article .;, paragraphs $=,, provideB$. An archipelagic /tate
)a draw straight archipelagic baselines 'oining the outer)ost
points of the outer)ost islands and dring reefs of the archipelago
provided that within such baselines are included the )ain islands
and an area in which the ratio of the area of the water to the area
of the land, including atolls, isbetween $ to $ and ! to $.#. The
length of such baselines shall not e>ceed $-- nautical )iles,
e>cept that up to , per cent of the total nu)ber of baselines
enclosing an archipelago )a e>ceed that length, up to a
)a>i)u) length of $#" nautical )iles.,. The drawing of such
baselines shall not depart to an appreciable e>tent fro) the
general con6guration of the archipelago. %E)phasis
supplied&> > > >1 2NC34/ *** entered into force on
$+ Nove)ber $!!.. The deadline for the 6ling of application is
)andated in Article ., Anne> **B 5Ehere a coastal /tate intends
to establish, in accordance with article ;+, the outer li)its of
its continental shelf beond #-- nautical )iles, it shall sub)it
particulars of such li)its to the Co))ission along with supporting
scienti6c and technical data as soon as possible but in an case
within $- ears of the entr into force of this Convention for that
/tate. The coastal /tate shall at the sa)e ti)e give the na)es of
an Co))ission )e)bers who have provided it with scienti6c and
technical advice.5 %2nderscoring supplied&*n a subse?uent
)eeting, the /tates parties agreed that for /tates which beca)e
bound b the treat before $, Ma $!!! %such as the Philippines&
the ten=ear period will be counted fro) that date. Thus, RA !"##,
which too: eIect on #; March #--!, barel )et the deadline.! +ollo,
p. ,..$- Ehich providesB 5The national territor co)prises the
Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters e)braced
therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignt or 'urisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, Luvial,
and aerial do)ains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the
subsoil, the insular shelves, and other sub)arine areas. The waters
around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago,
regardless of their breadth and di)ensions, for) part of the
internal waters of the Philippines.5$$ Entered into between the
2nites /tates and /pain on $- Gece)ber $1!1 following the
conclusion of the /panish=A)erican Ear. 2nder the ter)s of the
treat, /pain ceded to the 2nited /tates 5the archipelago :nown as
the Philippine *slands5 ling within its technical description.$#
The Treat of Eashington, between /pain and the 2nited /tates %;
Nove)ber $!--&, transferring to the 2/ the islands of Cagaan,
/ulu, and /ibutu and the 2/=7reat Britain Convention %# Nanuar
$!,-& de)arcating boundar lines between the Philippines and
North Borneo.$, Article **, /ection ;, /ection 1, and /ection $+.$.
Allegedl in violation of Article M**, /ection #, paragraph # and
Article M***, /ection ; of the Constitution.$" ,ilosba!an, -nc. v.
Morato, ,#- Phil. $;$, $1+ %$!!"&.$+ .ascual v. #ecretar! of
.ublic /or$s, $$- Phil. ,,$ %$!+-&F #anidad v. 0)M1(10, $+"
Phil. ,-, %$!;+&.$; *rancisco, 2r. v. 3ouse of +epresentatives,
.+- Phil. 1,-, 1!! %#--,& citing ,ilosba!an, -nc. v.
4uingona,2r., 7.R. No. $$,,;", " Ma $!!., #,# /CRA $$-, $""=$"+
%$!!"& %cept as provided for in paragraph ,, the territorial
sea, the contiguous @one, the e>clusive econo)ic @one and the
continental shelf of an island are deter)ined in accordance with
the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land
territor.,. Roc:s which cannot sustain hu)an habitation or econo)ic
life of their own shall have no e>clusive econo)ic @one or
continental shelf.5,1 +ollo, pp. "+=";, +-=+..,! Paragraph #,
/ection #, Article M** of the Constitution uses the ter)
5archipelagic waters5 separatel fro) 5territorial sea.5 2nder
2NC34/ ***, an archipelagic /tate )a have internal waters C such as
those enclosed b closing lines across bas and )ouths of rivers. /ee
Article "-, 2NC34/ ***. Moreover, Article 1 %#& of 2NC34/ ***
providesB 5Ehere the establish)ent of a straight baseline in
accordance with the )ethod set forth in article ; has theeIect of
enclosing as 3+t05+*2 =*t05s areas which had not previousl been
considered as such, a right of innocent passage as provided in this
Convention shall e>ist in those waters.5 %E)phasis
supplied&.- Mandated under Articles "# and ", of 2NC34/
***BArticle "#. Right of innocent passage. P$. /ub'ect to article
", and without pre'udice to article "-, s/39s o4 *22 St*t0s 0+Ao@
t/0 53g/t o4 3++o10+t 9*ss*g0 t/5oug/ *51/3902*g31 =*t05s, in
accordance with Part **, section ,.#. The archipelagic /tate )a,
without discri)ination in for) or in fact a)ong foreign ships,
suspend te)poraril in speci6ed areas of its archipelagic waters the
innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential
for the protection of its securit. /uch suspension shall ta:e eIect
onl after having been dul published. %E)phasis supplied&Article
",. Right of archipelagic sea lanes passage. P$. An archipelagic
/tate )a designate sea lanes and air routes thereabove, suitable
for the continuous and e>peditious passage of foreign ships and
aircraft through or over its archipelagic waters and the ad'acent
territorial sea.#. A22 s/39s *+, *3515*4t 0+Ao@ t/0 53g/t o4
*51/3902*g31 s0* 2*+0s 9*ss*g0 3+ su1/ s0* 2*+0s*+, *35 5out0s.,.
Archipelagic sea lanes passage )eans the e>ercise in accordance
with this Convention of the rights of navigation and overLight in
the nor)al )ode solel for the purpose of continuous, e>peditious
and unobstructed transit between one part of the high seas or an
e>clusive econo)ic @one and another part of the high seas or an
e>clusive econo)ic @one... /uch sea lanes and air routes shall
traverse the archipelagic waters and the ad'acent territorial
seaand shall include all nor)al passage routes used as routes for
international navigation or overLight through or over archipelagic
waters and, within such routes, so far as ships are concerned, all
nor)al navigational channels, provided that duplication of routes
of si)ilar convenience between the sa)e entr and e>it points
shall not be necessar.". /uch sea lanes and air routes shall be
de6ned b a series of continuous a>is lines fro) the entr points
of passage routes to the e>it points. /hips and aircraft in
archipelagic sea lanes passage shall not deviate )ore than #"
nautical )iles to either side of such a>is lines during passage,
provided that such ships and aircraft shall not navigate closer to
the coasts than $- per cent of the distance between the nearest
points on islands bordering the sea lane.+. An archipelagic /tate
which designates sea lanes under this article )a also prescribe
traDc separation sche)es for the safe passage of ships through
narrow channels in such sea lanes.;. An archipelagic /tate )a, when
circu)stances re?uire, after giving due publicit thereto,
substitute other sea lanes or traDc separation sche)es for an sea
lanes or traDc separation sche)es previousl designated or
prescribed b it.1. /uch sea lanes and traDc separation sche)es
shall confor) to generall accepted international regulations.!. *n
designating or substituting sea lanes or prescribing or
substituting traDc separation sche)es, an archipelagic /tate shall
refer proposals to the co)petent international organi@ation with a
view to their adoption. The organi@ation )a adopt onl such sea
lanes and traDc separation sche)es as )a be agreed with the
archipelagic /tate, after which the archipelagic /tate )a
designate, prescribe or substitute the).$-. The archipelagic /tate
shall clearl indicate the a>is of the sea lanes and the traDc
separation sche)es designated or prescribed b it on charts to which
due publicit shall be given.$$. /hips in archipelagic sea lanes
passage shall respect applicable sea lanes and traDc separation
sche)es established in accordance with this article.$#. *f an
archipelagic /tate does not designate sea lanes or air routes, the
right of archipelagic sea lanes passage )a be e>ercised through
the routes nor)all used for international navigation. %E)phasis
supplied&.$ Na)el, House Bill No. .$", and /enate Bill No.
#;,1, identicall titled 5AN ACT T4 E/TAB3*/H THE ARCH*PE3A7*C /EA
3ANE/ *N THE PH*3*PP*NE ARCH*PE3A7*C EATER/, PRE/CR*B*N7 THE R*7HT/
ANG 4B3*7AT*4N/ 4< clusive econo)ic @one. P$. *n the
e>clusive econo)ic @one, all /tates, whether coastal or
land=loc:ed, en'o, sub'ect to the relevant provisions of this
Convention, the freedo)s referred to in article 1; of navigation
and overLight and of the laing of sub)arine cables and pipelines,
and other internationall lawful uses of the sea related to these
freedo)s, such as those associated with the operation of ships,
aircraft and sub)arine cables and pipelines, and co)patible with
the other provisions of this Convention.#. Articles 11 to $$" and
other pertinent rules of international law appl to the e>clusive
econo)ic @one in so far as the are not inco)patible with this
Part.> > > >Beond the e>clusive econo)ic @one, other
/tates en'o the freedo) of the high seas, de6ned under 2NC34/ ***
as followsBArticle 1;. ercised b all /tates with due regard for the
interests of other /tates in their e>ercise of the freedo) of
the high seas, and also with due regard for the rights under this
Convention with respect to activities in the Area..1 /ee note $,..!
,ilosba!an, -nc. v. Morato, ,$+ Phil. +"#, +!1 %$!!"&F a9ada v.
5ngara, ,,1 Phil. ".+, "1-="1$ %$!!;&."- 7.R. No. $-$-1,, ,-
Nul $!!,, ##. /CRA ;!#."$ 5The /tate shall protect the nation(s
)arine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and
e>clusive econo)ic @one, and reserve its use and en'o)ent
e>clusivel to tend up to ,"- nautical )iles if the coastal /tate
proves its right to clai) an e>tended continental shelf %see
2NC34/ ***, Article ;+, paragraphs .%a&, " and +, in relation
to Article ;;&.". +ollo, pp. +;=+!."" Article .; %$&
providesB 5An archipelagic /tate 8*@ draw straight archipelagic
baselines 'oining the outer)ost points of the outer)ost islands and
dring reefs of the archipelago provided that within such baselines
are included the )ain islands and an area in which the ratio of the
area of the water to the area of the land, including atolls, is
between $ to $ and ! to $.5 %E)phasis supplied& in the Area.The
3awphil Pro'ect = Arellano 3aw ercisessovereign authorit, such as
the Aalaaan *slands, and the waters appurtenant theretoFThe
Convention shall not be construed as a)ending in an )anner an
pertinent laws and Presidential Gecrees or Procla)ations of the
Republic of the Philippines. The 87RP9 )aintains and reserves the
right and authorit to )a:e an a)end)ents to such laws, decrees or
procla)ations pursuant to the provisions of the Philippine
ConstitutionFThe provisions of the Convention on archipelagic
passage through sea lanes do not nullif or i)pair the sovereignt of
the Philippines as an archipelagic state over the sea lanes and do
not deprive it of authorit to enact legislation to protect its
sovereignt independence and securitFThe concept of archipelagic
waters is si)ilar to the concept of internal waters under the
Constitution of the Philippines, and re)oves straits connecting
these waters with the econo)ic @one or high sea fro) the rights of
foreign vessels to transit passage for international navigation.1
%E)phasis added.&Petitioners challenge the constitutionalit of
RA !"## on the principal ground that the law violates /ection $,
Article * of the $!1; Constitution on national territor which
statesB/ection $. The national territor co)prises the Philippine
archipelago, with all the islands and waters e)braced therein, and
all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignt or
'urisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, Luvial and aerial
do)ains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil,
the insular shelves, and other sub)arine areas. The waters around,
between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless
of their breadth and di)ensions, for) part of the internal waters
of the Philippines. %E)phasis supplied.&According to press
)ention of the Treat of Paris.Report No. -$ of the Co))ittee on
National Territor had in fact been e>plicit in its delineation
of the e>panse of this archipelago. *t saidBNow if we plot on a
)ap the boundaries of this archipelago as set forth in the Treat of
Paris, a huge or giant rectangle will e)erge, )easuring about +--
)iles in width and $,#-- )iles in length. *nside this giant
rectangle are the ;,$-- islands co)prising the Philippine *slands.
> >.Ehile the Treat of Paris is not )entioned in both the
$!;, and $!1; Constitutions, its )ention, so the nationalistic
argu)ents went, being 5a repulsive re)inder of the indignit of our
colonial past,5$. it is at once clear that the Treat of Paris had
been utili@ed as :e reference point in the de6nition of the
national territor.4n the other hand, the phrase 5all other
territories over which the Philippines has sovereignt or
'urisdiction,5 found in the $!1; Constitution, which replaced the
deleted phrase 5all territories belonging to the Philippines b
historic right or legal title5$" found in the $!;, Constitution,
covers areas lin:ed to the Philippines with varing degrees of
certaint.$+ 2nder this categor would fallB %a& Batanes, which
then $!;$ Convention Gelegate Eduardo Tuintero, Chairperson of the
Co))ittee on National Territor, described as belonging to the
Philippines in all its historF$; %b& /abah, over which a for)al
clai) had been 6led, the so=called ercise sovereignt.$!2pon the
foregoing perspective and going into speci6cs, petitioners would
have RA !"## stric:en down as unconstitutional for the reasons that
it deprives the Philippines of what has long been established as
part and parcel of its national territor under the Treat of Paris,
as supple)ented b the afore)entioned $!-- Treat of Eashington or,
to the sa)e eIect, revises the de6nition on or dis)e)bers the
national territor. Pushing their case, petitioners argue that the
constitutional de6nition of the national territor cannot be re)ade
b a )ere statutor act.#- As another point, petitioners parla the
theor that the law in ?uestion virtuall wea:ens the countr(s
territorial clai) over the Aalaaan *sland 7roup %A*7& and
/abah, both of which co)e under the categor of 5other territories5
over the Philippines has sovereignt or 'urisdiction. Petitioners
would also assail the law on grounds related to territorial sea
lanes and internal waters transit passage b foreign vessels.*t is
re)ar:able that petitioners could seriousl argue that RA !"##
revises the Philippine territor as de6ned in the Constitution, or
worse, constitutes an abdication of territor.*t cannot be
over=e)phasi@ed enough that RA !"## is a baseline law enacted to
i)ple)ent the $!1# 34/C, which in turn see:s to regulate and
establish an orderl sea use rights over )ariti)e @ones. 4r as the
ponencia aptl states, RA !"## ai)sto )ar:=out speci6c base points
along the Philippine coast fro) which baselines are drawn to serve
as starting points to )easure the breadth of the territorial sea
and )ariti)e @ones.#$ The baselines are set to de6ne the sea li)its
of a state, be itcoastal or archipelagic, under the 2NC34/ ***
regi)e. B setting the baselines to confor) to the prescriptions of
2NC34/ ***, RA !"## did not surrender an territor, as petitioners
would insist at ever turn, for 2NC34/ *** is concerned with setting
order in the e>ercise of sea=use rights, not the ac?uisition or
cession of territor. And let it be noted that under 2NC34/ ***, it
is recogni@ed that countries can have territories outside their
baselines. clusive Econo)ic 0one %EE0& 5shall not e>tend
beond #-- nautical )iles fro) the baselines fro) which the breadth
of the territorial sea is )easured.5#. Most i)portant to note is
that the baselines indicated under RA !"## are derived fro) Art. .;
of the $!1# 34/C which was earlier ?uoted./ince the $!1;
Constitution(s de6nition of national territor does not deli)it
where the Philippine(s baselines are located, it isup to the
political branches of the govern)ent to suppl the de6cienc. Through
Congress, the Philippines has ta:en an oDcial position regarding
its baselines to the international co))unit through RA ,-.+,#" as
a)ended b RA "..+#+ and RA !"##. Ehen the Philippines deposited a
cop of RA !"## with the 2N /ecretar 7eneral, we eIectivel co)plied
in good faithwith our obligation under the $!1# 34/C. A declaration
b the Court of the constitutionalit of the law will co)plete the
bona 6des of the Philippines vis=a=vis the law of the sea treat.*t
)a be that baseline provisions of 2NC34/ ***, if strictl
i)ple)ented, )a have an i)posing i)pact on the signator states(
'urisdiction and even their sovereignt. But this actualit, without
)ore, can hardl provide a 'ustifing di)ension to nullif the
co)pling RA !"##. As held b the Court in Baan Muna v. Ro)ulo,#;
treaties and international agree)ents have ali)iting eIect on the
otherwise enco)passing and absolute nature of sovereignt. B their
voluntar acts, states )a decide to surrender or waive so)e aspects
of their sovereignt. The usual underling consideration in this
partial surrender )a be the greater bene6ts derived fro) a pact or
reciprocal underta:ing. 4n the pre)ise that the Philippines has
adopted the generall accepted principles of international law as
part of the law of the land, a portion of sovereignt )a be waived
without violating the Constitution.As a signator of the $!1# 34/C,
it behooves the Philippines to honor its obligations thereunder.
Pacta sunt servanda, a basicinternational law postulate that 5ever
treat in force is binding upon the parties to it and )ust be
perfor)ed b the) in good faith.5#1 The e>acting i)perative of
this principle is such that a state )a not invo:e provisions in its
constitution or its laws as an e>cuse for failure to perfor)
this dut.5#!The allegation that /abah has been surrendered b virtue
of RA !"##, which supposedl repealed the hereunder provision of RA
"..+, is li:ewise unfounded./ection #. The de6nition of the
baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as
provided in this Act is without pre'udice to the delineation of the
baselines of the territorial sea around the territor of /abah,
situated in North Borneo, overwhich the Republic of the Philippines
has ac?uired do)inion and sovereignt.There is nothing in RA !"##
indicating a clear intention to supersede /ec. # of RA "..+.
Petitioners obviousl have read too )uch into RA !"##(s a)end)ent on
the baselines found in an older law. Aside fro) setting the
countr(s baselines, RA !"## is, in its /ec. ,, ?uite e>plicit in
its reiteration of the Philippines( e>ercise of sovereignt,
thusB/ection ,. This Act aDr)s that the Republic of the Philippines
has do)inion, sovereignt and 'urisdiction over all portions of the
national territor as de6ned in the Constitution and b provisions of
applicable laws including, without li)itation, RepublicAct No.
;$+-, otherwise :nown as the 3ocal 7overn)ent Code of $!!$, as
a)ended.To e)phasi@e, baselines are used to )easure the breadth of
the territorial sea, the contiguous @one, the e>clusive econo)ic
@one and the continental shelf. Having A*7 and the /carborough
/hoal outside Philippine baselines will not di)inish our sovereignt
over these areas. Art. .+ of 2NC34/ *** in fact recogni@es that an
archipelagic state, such as the Philippines, is a state
5constituted wholl b one or )ore archipelagos and )a include other
islands.5 %e)phasis supplied& The 5other islands5 referred to
in Art. .+ are doubtless islands not for)ing part of the
archipelago but are nevertheless part of the state(s territor.The
Philippines( sovereignt over A*7 and /carborough /hoal are, thus,
in no wa di)inished. ConsiderB 4ther countries such as Malasia and
the 2nited /tates have territories that are located outside its
baselines, et there is no territorial ?uestion arising fro) this
arrange)ent. ,-*t )a well be apropos to point out that the /enate
version of the baseline bill that would beco)e RA !"## contained
the following e>planator noteB The law 5reiterates our
sovereignt over the Aalaaan 7roup of *slands declared as part of
the Philippine territor under Presidential Gecree No. $"!+. As part
of the Philippine territor, the shall be considered as a Kregi)e of
islands( under Article $#$ of the Convention.5,$ Thus, instead of
being in the nature of a 5treasonous surrender5 that petitioners
have described it to be, RA !"## even har)oni@es our baseline laws
with our international agree)ents, without li)iting our territor to
those con6ned within the countr(s baselines.Contrar to petitioners(
contention, the classi6cation of A*7 and the /carborough /hoal as
falling under the Philippine(s regi)e of islands is not
constitutionall ob'ectionable. /uch a classi6cation serves as
co)pliance with 34/C and the Philippines( assertion of sovereignt
over A*7 and /carborough /hoal. *n setting the baseline in A*7 and
/carborough /hoal, RA !"## states that these are areas 5over which
the Philippines li:ewise e>ercises sovereignt and 'urisdiction.5
*t is, thus, not correct for petitioners to clai) that the
Philippines has lost $",--- s?uare nautical )iles of territorial
waters upon )a:ingthis classi6cation. Having $",--- s?uare nautical
)iles of Philippine waters outside of our baselines, to reiterate,
does not translate to a surrender of these waters. The Philippines
)aintains its assertion of ownership over territories outside of
its baselines. Even China views RA !"## as an assertion of
ownership, as seen in its Protest,# 6led with the 2N
/ecretar=7eneral upon the deposit of RA !"##.Ee ta:e 'udicial
notice of the eIective occupation of A*7 b the Philippines.
Petitioners even point out that national and local elections are
regularl held there. The classi6cation of A*7 as under a 5regi)e of
islands5 does not in an )anner aIect the Philippines( consistent
position with regard to sovereignt over A*7. *t does not aIect the
Philippines( other acts of ownership such as occupation or a)end
Presidential Gecree No. $"!+, which declared A*7 as a )unicipalit
of Palawan.The fact that the baselines of A*7 and /carborough /hoal
have et to be de6ned would not detract to the constitutionalit of
the law in ?uestion. The resolution of the proble) lies with the
political depart)ents of the govern)ent.All told, the concerns
raised b the petitioners about the di)inution or the virtual
dis)e)ber)ent of the Philippine territor b the enact)ent of RA !"##
are, to )e, not well grounded. To repeat, 2NC34/ *** pertains to a
law on the seas, not territor. As part of its Prea)ble,,, 34/C
recogni@es 5the desirabilit of establishing through this
Convention, with due regard for the sovereignt of all /tates, a
legal order for the seas and oceans > > >.5This brings )e
to the )atter of transit passage of foreign vessels through
Philippine waters.Apropos thereto, petitioners allege that RA !"##
violates the nuclear weapons=free polic under /ec. 1, in relation
to /ec. $+, Art. ** of the Constitution, and e>poses the
Philippines to )arine pollution ha@ards, since under the 34/C the
Philippines supposedl )ust give to ships of all states the right of
innocent passage and the right of archipelagic sea=lane passage.The
adverted /ec. 1, Art. ** of the $!1; Constitution declares the
adoption and pursuit b the Philippines of 5a polic of freedo) fro)
nuclear weapons in its territor.5 4n the other hand, the succeeding
/ec. l+ underscores the /tate(s 6r) co))it)ent 5to protect and
advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecolog
in accord with the rhth) and har)on of nature.5 t, RA !"## si)pl
see:s to confor) to our international agree)ent on the setting of
baselines and provides nothing about the designation of
archipelagic sea=lane passage or the regulation of innocent passage
within our waters. Again, petitioners have read into the a)endator
RA !"## so)ething not intended.*ndeed, the $!1# 34/C enu)erates the
rights and obligations of archipelagic part=states in ter)s of
transit under Arts. "$ to",, which are e>plained belowBTo
safeguard, in e>plicit ter)s, the general balance struc: b
8Articles "$ and "#9 between the need for passage through the area
%other than straits used for international navigation& and the
archipelagic state(s need for securit, Article ", gave the
archipelagic state the right to regulate where and how ships and
aircraft pass through its territor b designating speci6c sealanes.
Rights of passage through these archipelagic sea lanes are regarded
as those of transit passageB%$& An archipelagic /tate )a
designate sea lanes and air routes thereabove, suitable for safe,
continuous and e>peditious passage of foreign ships and aircraft
through or over its archipelagic waters and the ad'acent
territorial sea.%#& All ships and aircraft en'o the right of
archipelagic sea lanes passage in such sea lanes and air
routes.%,& Archipelagic sea lanes passage is the e>ercise in
accordance with the present Convention of the rights of navigation
and overLight in the nor)al )ode solel for the purpose of
continuous, e>peditious and unobstructed transit between one
part of the high seas or an e>clusive econo)ic @one and another
part of the high seas or an e>clusive econo)ic @one.,.But owing
to the geographic structure and phsical features of the countr,
i.e., where it is 5essentiall a bod of water studded with islands,
rather than islands with water around the),5," the Philippines has
consistentl )aintained the conceptual unit of land and water as a
necessar ele)ent for territorial integrit,,+ national securit
%which )a be co)pro)ised b the presence of warships and
surveillance ships on waters between the islands&,,; and the
preservation of its )ariti)e resources. As succinctl e>plained b
Minister Arturo Tolentino, the essence of the archipelagic concept
is 5the do)inion and sovereignt of the archipelagic /tate within
its baselines, which were so drawn as to preserve the territorial
integrit of the archipelago b the inseparable unit of the land and
water do)ain.5,1 *ndonesia, li:e the Philippines, in ter)s of
geographic realit, has e>pressed agree)ent with this
interpretation of the archipelagic concept. /o it was that in $!";,
the *ndonesian 7overn)ent issued the G'uanda Geclaration, therein
stating B8H9istoricall, the *ndonesian archipelago has been an
entit since ti)e i))e)orial.1avvphi1 *n view of the territorial
entiret and of preserving the wealth of the *ndonesian state, it is
dee)ed necessar to consider all waters between the islands and
entire entit.> > > 4n the ground of the above
considerations, the 7overn)ent states that all waters around,
between and connecting, the islands or parts of islands belonging
to the *ndonesian archipelago irrespective of their width or
di)ension are natural appurtenances of its land territor and
therefore an integral part of the inland or national waters sub'ect
to the absolute sovereignt of *ndonesia.,! %E)phasis
supplied.&Hence, the Philippines )aintains the sui generis
character of our archipelagic waters as e?uivalent to the internal
waters of continental coastal states. *n other words, the landward
waters e)braced within the baselines deter)ined b RA !"##, i.e.,
all waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and di)ensions, for) part
of the internal waters of the Philippines..- Accordingl, such
waters are not covered b the 'urisdiction of the 34/C and cannot be
sub'ected to the rights granted to foreign states in
archipelagicwaters, e.g., the right of innocent passage,.$ which is
allowed onl in the territorial seas, or that area of the ocean
co)prising $# )iles fro) the baselines of our archipelagoF
archipelagic sea=lane passageF.# over LightF., and traditional
6shing rights...4ur position that all waters within our baselines
are internal waters, which are outside the 'urisdiction of the $!1#
34/C,." was abundantl )ade clear b the Philippine Geclaration at
the ti)e of the signing of the 34/C on Gece)ber$-, $!1#. To
reiterate, paragraphs ", + and ; of the Geclaration stateB". The
Convention shall not be construed as a)ending in an )anner an
pertinent laws and Presidential decrees of Procla)ation of the
republic of the PhilippinesF the 7overn)ent > > >
)aintains and reserves the right and authorit to )a:e an a)end)ents
to such laws, decrees or procla)ations pursuant to the provisions
of the Philippine ConstitutionF+. The provisions of the Convention
on archipelagic passage through sea lanes do not nullif or i)pair
the sovereignt of the Philippines as an archipelagic /tate over the
sea lanes and do not deprive it of authorit to enact legislation to
protect its sovereignt, independence and securitF;. The concept of
archipelagic waters is si)ilar to the concept of internal waters
under the Constitution of the Philippines and re)oves straits
connecting this water with the econo)ic @one or high seas fro) the
rights of foreign vessels to transit passage for international
navigation. %E)phasis supplied.&.+More i)portantl, b the
rati6cation of the $!1; Constitution on change for the
international co))unit(s recognition of the Philippines as an
archipelagic state. The ecutive agree)ent, law, presidential
decree, procla)ation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation
is in ?uestion. %E)phasis supplied.&, Gece)ber $-, $!1#.. Ma 1,
$!1.." Available on
UhttpBQQwww.un.orgQGeptsQlosQconventionVagree)entsQte>tsQunclosQclosind>.ht)W
%visited Nul #1, #-$$&.+ 2NC34/, Art. .;, Gece)ber $-, $!1#.;
N. Bernas, /.N., The $!1; Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines A Co))entar "; %#--,&.1 /ee N. Batongbacal, The
Metes and Bounds of the Philippine National Territor, An
*nternational 3aw and Polic Perspective, /upre)e Court of the
Philippines, Philippine Nudicial Acade) Third Gistinguished
3ecture, clusive econo)ic @one and the continental shelf shall be
)easured fro) the archipelagic baseline drawn in accordance with
Art. .;.## R.P. 3otilla, The Philippine National TerritorB A
Collection of Related Gocu)ents "$,="$; %$!!"&F citing Batasang
Pa)bansa, Acts and Resolution, +th Regular /ession.#, N. Bernas,
supra note ;, at ##.#. 2NC34/ ***, Art. ";.#" Nune $;, $!+$.#+
/epte)ber $1, $!+1.#; 7.R. No. $"!+$1,