ARTICLE I

National Territory
 
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and
waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains,
including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other
submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal
waters of the Philippines.
 
MUNICIPAL LAW - binds only the nation promulgating it.
Will bind internationally if is supported by proof that can stand as international law.
How? Is there a Constitution that is binding internationally?
 
Rationale for having a national territory provision in the Constitution:
 Preservation of national wealth
 Preservation of national security
 Manifestation of own solidarity as a people
 EDUCATION VALUE
 
Archipelago - body of water studded with islands
US military bases - Part of PH territory which the government exercised sovereign control
"waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago" - PH
claims them as part of its "internal waters."
 
Archipelagic Principle - recognized by 1982 Convention of the Law of the Sea
Elements
o Irrespective of breadth and dimension
o Straight baseline method of delineating the territorial sea
 
1982 UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
 Not exactly accept the PH position on the archipelagic principle. "Waters around,
between …" are considered archipelagic waters which a are subject to the right of
innocent passage through passages designated by the archipelago concerned.
 PH ratified/signed this with reservation as it is contrary to what Art 1 says about these
waters being internal
 
RA 9522 March 10, 2009 - AN ACT TO AMEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT
NO. 3046, AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5446, TO DEFINE THE ARCHIPELAGIC
BASELINE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
 Provides for one baseline around the archipelago and separete baselines for the
"Regime of Islands" outside the archipelago
 Baselines - lines drawn along the low water mark of an island or group of islands which
mark the end of internal waters and the beginning of the territorial sea. Each country
must draw its own baseline according to the provision of the Law of the Sea.

 
Maritime boundaries
 Internal waters – within baseline
 Territorial sea – 12 nm. from baseline. Part of sovereign; all laws apply; right of innocent
 passage.
 Contiguous zone – 24 nm. from baseline. Limited jurisdiction relating to fiscal, customs,
 immigration and sanitary matters.
 Exclusive Economic Zone – 200 nm. from end territorial sea. State has sovereign rights
for
 the purpose of exploration, exploitation, conservation and management of the natural
 resources.
 
 Juridical/Legal – up to 200 nm. – It inheres automatically to all coastal States whether or not the
continental margin does not extend to 200 nm.
 “Extended” – up to 350 nm. o2,500m. isobath + 100nm. – Considers the submerged
prolongation of the land mass of the coastal State which terminates to what is referred to as
“foot of the slope”
 
 Validity of R.A. 9255 (New Baselines Lawof 2009)
 Prior to RA 9522, Philippine baselines law is not compliant with UNCLOS
 Signed by GMA
 
  
**Magallona v. Exec. Sec. Ermita, GR No. 187167, August 16, 2011 (Valid law)
 
Facts:
 R.A. 3046 in 1961 demarcating the maritime baselines of the Philippines as an
Archepelagic State pursuant to UNCLOS I of 9158, codifying the sovereignty of State
parties over their territorial sea.
 R.A. 5446 in 1968, amended R.A. 3046, correcting some errors in R.A. 3046 reserving the
drawing of baselines around Sabah.
 R.A. 9522 in 2009, amended R.A. 5446, to be compliant with the UNCLOS III of 1984. The
requirements complied with are: to shorten one baseline, to optimize the location of
some basepoints and classify KIG and Scarborough Shoal as ‘regime of islands’ whose
islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.
 
Petitioner now assails the constitutionality of the law for TWO main reasons:
1. it reduces the Philippine maritime territory under Article 1;
2. it opens the country’s waters to innocent and sea lanes passages hence
undermining our sovereignty and security; and
 
In addition, petitioners contend that 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.
 
Issues raised by respondents
 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.
 
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.
 
Whether R.A. 9522 is constitutional?
 
Ruling:
1. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with acquisition or loss of territory. it is just a
codified norm that regulates conduct of States. On the other hand, RA 9522 is a
baseline law to mark out basepoints along coasts, serving as geographic starting
points to measure. it merely notices the international community of the scope of our
maritime space.
 
2. If passages is the issue, domestically, the legislature can enact legislation
designating routes within the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and sea lanes
passages. but in the absence of such, international law norms operate.
 
the fact that for archipelagic states, their waters are subject to both passages does
not place them in lesser footing vis a vis continental coastal states. Moreover, RIOP
is a customary international law, no modern state can invoke its sovereignty to
forbid such passage.
 
3. On the KIG issue, RA 9522 merely followed the basepoints mapped by RA 3046
and in fact, it increased the Phils.’ total maritime space. Moreover, the itself
commits the Phils.’ continues claim of sovereignty and jurisdiction over KIG.
 
If not, it would be a breach to 2 provisions of the UNCLOS III:
Art. 47 (3): ‘drawing of basepoints shall not depart to any appreciable extent from
the general configuration of the archipelago’.
Art 47 (2): the length of baselines shall not exceed 100 mm.
KIG and SS are far from our baselines, if we draw to include them, we’ll breach the
rules: that it should follow the natural configuration of the archipelago.
 
 
**PCA Case No. 2013-19, In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration, 12 July
2016
On 22 January 2013, PH instituted arbitral proceedings against the China under
Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the
“Convention”). The arbitration concerned the role of historic rights and the source
of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, the status of certain maritime
features in the South China Sea, and the lawfulness of certain actions by China in the
South China Sea that the Philippines alleged to be in violation of the Convention.
China adopted a position of non-acceptance and non-participation in the
proceedings. The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) served as Registry in this
arbitration.