Gonzales, Timothy Joseph C.

1. Discovery and contiguity are sufficient bases for the acquisition of sovereignty

- On the point of discovery of why it cannot be alone a sufficient basis for the acquisition of
sovereignty, The Arbitration Court decided that:

Discovery does not create a definitive title of sovereignty, but only an “inchoate title”, which
exists without external manifestation. This inchoate title of discovery must be completed within a
reasonable period by the effective occupation of the region claimed to be discovered. There must
be a continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty.

Excerpt from the Us vs Palma Case:

“For these reasons, discovery alone, without any subsequent act, cannot at the present time
suffice to prove sovereignty over the Island of Palmas (or Miangas) ; and in so far as there
is no sovereignty, the question of an abandonment properly speaking of sovereignty by one
State in order that the sovereignty of another may take its place does not arise.”

Moreover, The title of contiguity, understood as a basis of territorial sovereignty, has no

foundation in international law.

Excerpt from the Us vs. Palmas Case:

In the last place there remains to be considered title arising out of contiguity. Although
States have in certain circumstances maintained that islands relatively close to their shores
belonged to them in virtue of their geographical situation, it is impossible to show the existence
of a rule of positive international law to the effect that islands situated outside territorial
waters should belong to a State from the mere fact that its territory forms the terra firma
(nearest continent or island of considerable size). Not only would it seem that there are no
precedents sufficiently frequent and sufficiently precise in their bearing to establish such a rule
of international law. but the alleged principle itself is by its very nature so uncertain and
contested that even Governments of the same State have on different occasions maintained
contradictory opinions as to its soundness. The principle of contiguity, in regard to islands,
may not be out of place when it is a question of allotting them to one State rather than another,
either by agreement between the Parties, or by a decision not necessarily based on law; but as a
rule establishing ipso jure the presumption of sovereignty in favour of a particular State, this
principle would be in conflict with what has been said as to territorial sovereignty and as to the
necessary relation between the right to exclude other States from a region and the duty to display
therein. Nor is this principle of contiguity admissible as a legal method of deciding questions of
territorial sovereignty; for it is wholly lacking in precision and would in its application lead to
arbitrary results. This would be especially true in a case such as that of the island in question,
which is not relatively close to one single continent, but forms part of a large archipelago in
which strict délimitai ions between the different parts are not naturally obvious.

16. The Philippines may draw straight archipelagic baselines around the Kalayaan Island
Group.

Excerpt from Magallona vs. Ermita:

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.”

26. The breadth of the contiguous zone is always 12 nautical miles from the edge of the
territorial sea.

SECTION 4. CONTIGUOUS ZONE. of the UNCLOS Provisions, it provides that:

Article33

Contiguous zone

1. In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the
coastal State may exercise the control necessary to:

(a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or

sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea;

(b) punish infringement of the above laws and regulations

committed within its territory or territorial sea.

2. The contiguous zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines
from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.