EN BANC
G.R No. 187167 August 16, 2011
PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, AKBAYAN PARTY-LIST REP. RISA HONTIVEROS, PROF. HARRY C. ROQUE, JR., AND UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW STUDENTS, ALITHEA BARBARA ACAS, VOLTAIRE ALFERES, CZARINA MAY ALTEZ, FRANCIS ALVIN ASILO, SHERYL BALOT, RUBY AMOR BARRACA, JOSE JAVIER BAUTISTA, ROMINA BERNARDO, VALERIE PAGASA BUENAVENTURA, EDAN MARRI CAÑETE, VANN ALLEN DELA CRUZ, RENE DELORINO, PAULYN MAY DUMAN, SHARON ESCOTO, RODRIGO FAJARDO III, GIRLIE FERRER, RAOULLE OSEN FERRER, CARLA REGINA GREPO, ANNA MARIE CECILIA GO, IRISH KAY KALAW, MARY ANN JOY LEE, MARIA LUISA MANALAYSAY, MIGUEL RAFAEL MUSNGI, MICHAEL OCAMPO, JAKLYN HANNA PINEDA, WILLIAM RAGAMAT, MARICAR RAMOS, ENRIK FORT REVILLAS, JAMES MARK TERRY RIDON, JOHANN FRANTZ RIVERA IV, CHRISTIAN RIVERO, DIANNE MARIE ROA, NICHOLAS SANTIZO, MELISSA CHRISTINA SANTOS, CRISTINE MAE TABING, VANESSA ANNE TORNO, MARIA ESTER VANGUARDIA, and MARCELINO VELOSO III, Petitioners,
vs.
HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. ALBERTO ROMULO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HON. ROLANDO ANDAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, HON. DIONY VENTURA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL MAPPING & RESOURCE INFORMATION AUTHORITY, and HON. HILARIO DAVIDE, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PERMANENT MISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES TO THE UNITED NATIONS, Respondents.
TOPIC: Constitutionality of REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9522 amending R.A. 5446 to define the Archipelagic Baselines of the Philippines consistent with UNCLOS III provisions.
FACTS:
1. In 1961, Congress passed R.A. No. 3046 (RA 3046) demarcating the maritime baselines of the Philippines as an archipelagic State in accordance with UNCLOS 1 framed in 1958, codifying, among others, the sovereign right of States parties over their "territorial sea," the breadth of which, however, was left undetermined. R.A. No. 3046 stood for 5 decades until it was amended by RA 5446 correcting typographical errors and reserving the drawing of baselines around Sabah in North Borneo.
2. R.A. 9522 amended R.A. 5446, to make R.A. 3046 compliant with the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) which the Philippines ratified on 27 February 1984.
3. To comply with UNCLOS III standards, R.A. 9522 shortened one baseline, optimized the location of some basepoints around the Philippine archipelago and classified adjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG)or Spratlys and the Scarborough Shoal, as "regimes of islands" instead of being actual parts of the Philippine archipelago. These islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.
ISSUES:
W/N R.A. 9522 delimiting Philippines' scope of territory in accordance with UNCLOS III provisions is unconstitutional because:
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
3. treating Kalayaan Islands Group / Spratlys and Scarborough as ‘regime of islands’ would weaken our claim over those territories.
RULING:
NO. R.A. 9522 is CONSTITUTIONAL as it is a statutory tool to demarcate the country's maritime zones and continental shelf under UNCLOS III and not to delineate Philippine territory.
1.] Petitioners argued that the said act dismembers a large portion of the national territory because it discards the boundaries set under the Treaty of Paris and encoded in the definition of national territory under 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions; theorizing this denies the Philippines sovereign control over waters beyond the territorial sea recognized at the time of the Treaty of Paris. beyond the territorial sea recognized at the time of the Treaty of Paris. They argue that from the Treaty of Paris’ technical description, Philippine sovereignty over territorial waters extends hundreds of nautical miles around the Philippine archipelago, embracing the rectangular area delineated in the Treaty of Paris.
This is without merit since UNCLOS III is meant to codify norms regulating the conduct of States in the world’s oceans and submarine areas, recognizing coastal and archipelagic States’ graduated authority over a limited span of waters and submarine lands along their coasts among United Nations members. Simply put, it determines sea-use rights and delimits maritime zones and continental shelves.
Territories are acquired and likewise lost by occupation, accretion, cession, and prescription, not by treaties like UNCLOS III.
R.A. 9522 is just a baseline law to delimit/ mark-out specific basepoints which baselines are drawn to serve as geographic starting points from Philippine coasts with precision to determine the extent of its maritime zones and continental shelves in accordance with UNCLOS III.
Also, the claimed loss of about "15,000 nm of territorial waters" is unfounded. R.A. 9522, thru optimization of basepoints location, even increased the Philippines' total maritime zone by 145,216 nm.
2] No. It doesn't undermine our sovereignty and security. UNCLOS III, 49 (1) states that the sovereignty of an Archipelagic State extends to the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baseline in accordance with Art. 47, described as archipelagic waters which extends to archipelagic waters' airspace as to their bed and subsoil, and resources therein Art. 47 (2).
Art. 47 (4) also states:
The regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage established in this Part shall not in other respects affect the status of the archipelagic waters, including the sea lanes, or the exercise by the archipelagic State of its sovereignty over such waters and their air space, bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein.
Thus, domestically, Congress 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 under UNCLOS III 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, ROIP is a customary international law, no modern state can invoke its sovereignty to forbid such passage.
UNCLOS III grants rights to coastal states to exclusively exploit the resources within 200nm but preserves freedom of navigation of other States attached to this zone beyond the territorial sea before UNCLOS III.
3] It doesn't weaken our territory. R.A. 9522's use of framework of UNCLOS III's "regime of islands" to draw the baselines and to measure the breadth of the applicable maritime zones of KIG and Scarborough Shoal is patterned from the basepoints mapped by R.A. 3046, under which, said islands lie outside of the baselines drawn around the Philippine archipelago. Thus, R.A. 9522 is not a statutory renunciation of the Philippines' claim over KIG and Scarborough.
R.A. 9522, Sec. 2 expressly provided that the Philippines exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction over areas determined as "Regime of Islands" such as a.) the Kalayaan Island Group and b) Scarborough Shoal. Including these areas as part of the Philippine Archipelago would breach two UNCLOS III provisions such as:
1. UNCLOS III, Article 47(3): the drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the Archipelago
2. UNCLOS III, Article 47 (2): requires the length of baselines not to exceed 100 nm save for 3% of the total number of baselines which can reach up to 125 nm.
Since R.A. 3046 exceeded the 100nm limit across Moro Gulf, R.A. 9522 also delimited this to comply with UNCLOS.
Thus, there is no intention to surrender the claims over KIG and Scarborough and instead classified the areas as "Regime of Islands" to be consistent with UNCLOS III, Article 121 to observe pacta cunt servanda. Also, as per Miriam Defensor-Santiago, the Philippines is still allowed by international law to claim KIG and SS as our own.
THEREFORE, R.A. 9522 is CONSTITUTIONAL as it is a most vital step for the Philippines in safeguarding its maritime zones, consistent with the Constitution and our national interest, while honoring our agreement in UNCLOS III.
ADDITIONAL INFO:
R.A. No. 9522
AN ACT TO AMEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3046, AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5446, TO DEFINE THE ARCHIPELAGIC BASELINES OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
UNCLOS III
- prescribes the water-land ratio, length, and contour of baselines of archipelagic States like the Philippines and sets the deadline for the filing of the application for the extended continental shelf.
MARITIME ZONES:
- the territorial waters [12 nautical miles from the baselines]
- contiguous zone [24 nautical miles from the baselines]
- exclusive economic zone [200 nautical miles from the baselines]
HOW STATES ACQUIRE/LOSE TERRITORY as per Traditional International Law
- Occupation
- Accretion
- Cession
- Prescription
NOT BY:
- executing multilateral treaties on the regulations of sea-use rights or
- enacting statutes to comply with the treaty’s terms to delimit maritime zones and continental
shelves.
Territorial claims to land features are outside UNCLOS III, and are instead governed by the rules on general international law.
Extent of Maritime Zone by virtue of R.A. 3946: 440,994nm
Extent of Maritime Zone by virtue of R.A. 9522: 586,210nm
-------------------------------------------------
Increased by: 145,216nm
UNCLOS III, Article 121
Any naturally formed area of land surrounded by water, which is above high tide falls under the category of "regime of islands" whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.
Comments
Post a Comment