8/4/2015 G.R No.

187167

ENBANC

PROF.MERLINM.MAGALLONA,G.RNo.187167

AKBAYANPARTYLISTREP.RISA

HONTIVEROS,PROF.HARRYC.Present:

ROQUE,JR.,ANDUNIVERSITYOF

THEPHILIPPINESCOLLEGEOFCORONA,C.J.,

LAWSTUDENTS,ALITHEACARPIO,

BARBARAACAS,VOLTAIREVELASCO,JR.,

ALFERES,CZARINAMAYLEONARDODECASTRO,

ALTEZ,FRANCISALVINASILO,BRION,

SHERYLBALOT,RUBYAMORPERALTA,

BARRACA,JOSEJAVIERBAUTISTA,BERSAMIN,

ROMINABERNARDO,VALERIEDELCASTILLO,

PAGASABUENAVENTURA,EDANABAD,

MARRICAETE,VANNALLENVILLARAMA,JR.,

DELACRUZ,RENEDELORINO,PEREZ,

PAULYNMAYDUMAN,SHARONMENDOZA,and

ESCOTO,RODRIGOFAJARDOIII,SERENO,JJ.

GIRLIEFERRER,RAOULLEOSEN

FERRER,CARLAREGINAGREPO,

ANNAMARIECECILIAGO,IRISH

KAYKALAW,MARYANNJOYLEE,

MARIALUISAMANALAYSAY,

MIGUELRAFAELMUSNGI,

MICHAELOCAMPO,JAKLYNHANNA

PINEDA,WILLIAMRAGAMAT,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 1/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167

MARICARRAMOS,ENRIKFORT

REVILLAS,JAMESMARKTERRY

RIDON,JOHANNFRANTZRIVERAIV,

CHRISTIANRIVERO,DIANNEMARIE

ROA,NICHOLASSANTIZO,MELISSA

CHRISTINASANTOS,CRISTINEMAE

TABING,VANESSAANNETORNO,

MARIAESTERVANGUARDIA,and

MARCELINOVELOSOIII,

Petitioners,

versus

HON.EDUARDOERMITA,INHIS

CAPACITYASEXECUTIVE

SECRETARY,HON.ALBERTO

ROMULO,INHISCAPACITYAS

SECRETARYOFTHEDEPARTMENT

OFFOREIGNAFFAIRS,HON.

ROLANDOANDAYA,INHISCAPACITY

ASSECRETARYOFTHEDEPARTMENT

OFBUDGETANDMANAGEMENT,

HON.DIONYVENTURA,INHIS

CAPACITYASADMINISTRATOROF

THENATIONALMAPPING&

RESOURCEINFORMATION

AUTHORITY,andHON.HILARIO

DAVIDE,JR.,INHISCAPACITYAS

REPRESENTATIVEOFTHE

PERMANENTMISSIONOFTHE
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 2/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167

REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINESPromulgated:

TOTHEUNITEDNATIONS,

Respondents.July16,2011

xx

DECISION

CARPIO,J.:

TheCase

ThisoriginalactionforthewritsofcertiorariandprohibitionassailstheconstitutionalityofRepublicAct
No.95221(RA9522)adjustingthecountrysarchipelagicbaselinesandclassifyingthebaselineregimeof
nearbyterritories.

TheAntecedents

In1961,CongresspassedRepublicActNo.3046(RA3046)2demarcatingthemaritimebaselinesofthe
PhilippinesasanarchipelagicState.3ThislawfollowedtheframingoftheConventionontheTerritorialSea
andtheContiguousZonein1958(UNCLOSI),4codifying,amongothers,thesovereignrightofStates
partiesovertheirterritorialsea,thebreadthofwhich,however,wasleftundetermined.Attemptstofillthis
voidduringthesecondroundofnegotiationsinGenevain1960(UNCLOSII)provedfutile.Thus,
domestically,RA3046remainedunchangedfornearlyfivedecades,saveforlegislationpassedin1968
(RepublicActNo.5446[RA5446])correctingtypographicalerrorsandreservingthedrawingofbaselines
aroundSabahinNorthBorneo.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 3/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167

InMarch2009,CongressamendedRA3046byenactingRA9522,thestatutenowunderscrutiny.The
changewaspromptedbytheneedtomakeRA3046compliantwiththetermsoftheUnitedNations
ConventionontheLawoftheSea(UNCLOSIII),5whichthePhilippinesratifiedon27February1984.6
Amongothers,UNCLOSIIIprescribesthewaterlandratio,length,andcontourofbaselinesofarchipelagic
StateslikethePhilippines7andsetsthedeadlineforthefilingofapplicationfortheextendedcontinental
shelf.8Complyingwiththeserequirements,RA9522shortenedonebaseline,optimizedthelocationofsome
basepointsaroundthePhilippinearchipelagoandclassifiedadjacentterritories,namely,theKalayaanIsland
Group(KIG)andtheScarboroughShoal,asregimesofislandswhoseislandsgeneratetheirownapplicable
maritimezones.

Petitioners,professorsoflaw,lawstudentsandalegislator,intheirrespectivecapacitiesascitizens,
taxpayersorxxxlegislators,9asthecasemaybe,assailtheconstitutionalityofRA9522ontwoprincipal
grounds,namely:(1)RA9522reducesPhilippinemaritimeterritory,andlogically,thereachofthe
Philippinestatessovereignpower,inviolationofArticle1ofthe1987Constitution,10embodyingtheterms
oftheTreatyofParis11andancillarytreaties,12and(2)RA9522opensthecountryswaterslandwardofthe
baselinestomaritimepassagebyallvesselsandaircrafts,underminingPhilippinesovereigntyandnational
security,contraveningthecountrysnuclearfreepolicy,anddamagingmarineresources,inviolationof
relevantconstitutionalprovisions.13

Inaddition,petitionerscontendthatRA9522streatmentoftheKIGasregimeofislandsnotonly
resultsinthelossofalargemaritimeareabutalsoprejudicesthelivelihoodofsubsistencefishermen.14To
buttresstheirargumentofterritorialdiminution,petitionersfaciallyattackRA9522forwhatitexcludedand
includeditsfailuretoreferenceeithertheTreatyofParisorSabahanditsuseofUNCLOSIIIsframework
ofregimeofislandstodeterminethemaritimezonesoftheKIGandtheScarboroughShoal.

Commentingonthepetition,respondentofficialsraisedthresholdissuesquestioning(1)thepetitions
compliancewiththecaseorcontroversyrequirementforjudicialreviewgroundedonpetitionersalleged
lackoflocusstandiand(2)theproprietyofthewritsofcertiorariandprohibitiontoassailthe
constitutionalityofRA9522.Onthemerits,respondentsdefendedRA9522asthecountryscompliance
withthetermsofUNCLOSIII,preservingPhilippineterritoryovertheKIGorScarboroughShoal.
RespondentsaddthatRA9522doesnotunderminethecountryssecurity,environmentandeconomic
interestsorrelinquishthePhilippinesclaimoverSabah.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 4/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167

Respondentsalsoquestionthenormativeforce,underinternationallaw,ofpetitionersassertionthat
whatSpaincededtotheUnitedStatesundertheTreatyofParisweretheislandsandallthewatersfound
withintheboundariesoftherectangularareadrawnundertheTreatyofParis.

Weleftunactedpetitionersprayerforaninjunctivewrit.

TheIssues

Thepetitionraisesthefollowingissues:

1.Preliminarily

1.Whetherpetitionerspossesslocusstanditobringthissuitand

2.Whetherthewritsofcertiorariandprohibitionaretheproperremediestoassailtheconstitutionality
ofRA9522.

2.Onthemerits,whetherRA9522isunconstitutional.

TheRulingoftheCourt

Onthethresholdissues,weholdthat(1)petitionerspossesslocusstanditobringthissuitascitizensand(2)
thewritsofcertiorariandprohibitionareproperremediestotesttheconstitutionalityofRA9522.Onthe
merits,wefindnobasistodeclareRA9522unconstitutional.

OntheThresholdIssues

PetitionersPossessLocus

StandiasCitizens

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 5/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167

Petitionersthemselvesunderminetheirassertionoflocusstandiaslegislatorsandtaxpayersbecausethe
petitionallegesneitherinfringementoflegislativeprerogative15normisuseofpublicfunds,16occasionedby
thepassageandimplementationofRA9522.Nonetheless,werecognizepetitionerslocusstandiascitizens
withconstitutionallysufficientinterestintheresolutionofthemeritsofthecasewhichundoubtedlyraises
issuesofnationalsignificancenecessitatingurgentresolution.Indeed,owingtothepeculiarnatureofRA
9522,itisunderstandablydifficulttofindotherlitigantspossessingamoredirectandspecificinterestto
bringthesuit,thussatisfyingoneoftherequirementsforgrantingcitizenshipstanding.17

TheWritsofCertiorariandProhibition

AreProperRemediestoTest

theConstitutionalityofStatutes

Inprayingforthedismissalofthepetitiononpreliminarygrounds,respondentsseekastrictobservanceof
theofficesofthewritsofcertiorariandprohibition,notingthatthewritscannotissueabsentanyshowingof
graveabuseofdiscretionintheexerciseofjudicial,quasijudicialorministerialpowersonthepartof
respondentsandresultingprejudiceonthepartofpetitioners.18

Respondentssubmissionholdstrueinordinarycivilproceedings.WhenthisCourtexercisesits
constitutionalpowerofjudicialreview,however,wehave,bytradition,viewedthewritsofcertiorariand
prohibitionasproperremedialvehiclestotesttheconstitutionalityofstatutes,19andindeed,ofactsofother
branchesofgovernment.20Issuesofconstitutionalimportaresometimescraftedoutofstatuteswhich,while
havingnobearingonthepersonalinterestsofthepetitioners,carrysuchrelevanceinthelifeofthisnation
thattheCourtinevitablyfindsitselfconstrainedtotakecognizanceofthecaseandpassupontheissues
raised,noncompliancewiththeletterofproceduralrulesnotwithstanding.Thestatutesoughttobe
reviewedhereisonesuchlaw.

RA9522isNotUnconstitutional

RA9522isaStatutoryTool

toDemarcatetheCountrys
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 6/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167

MaritimeZonesandContinental

ShelfUnderUNCLOSIII,notto

DelineatePhilippineTerritory

PetitionerssubmitthatRA9522dismembersalargeportionofthenationalterritory21becauseitdiscardsthe
preUNCLOSIIIdemarcationofPhilippineterritoryundertheTreatyofParisandrelatedtreaties,
successivelyencodedinthedefinitionofnationalterritoryunderthe1935,1973and1987Constitutions.
Petitionerstheorizethatthisconstitutionaldefinitiontrumpsanytreatyorstatutoryprovisiondenyingthe
Philippinessovereigncontroloverwaters,beyondtheterritorialsearecognizedatthetimeoftheTreatyof
Paris,thatSpainsupposedlycededtotheUnitedStates.PetitionersarguethatfromtheTreatyofParis
technicaldescription,Philippinesovereigntyoverterritorialwatersextendshundredsofnauticalmiles
aroundthePhilippinearchipelago,embracingtherectangularareadelineatedintheTreatyofParis.22

Petitionerstheoryfailstopersuadeus.

UNCLOSIIIhasnothingtodowiththeacquisition(orloss)ofterritory.Itisamultilateraltreaty
regulating,amongothers,seauserightsovermaritimezones(i.e.,theterritorialwaters[12nauticalmiles
fromthebaselines],contiguouszone[24nauticalmilesfromthebaselines],exclusiveeconomiczone[200
nauticalmilesfromthebaselines]),andcontinentalshelvesthatUNCLOSIIIdelimits.23UNCLOSIIIwas
theculminationofdecadeslongnegotiationsamongUnitedNationsmemberstocodifynormsregulating
theconductofStatesintheworldsoceansandsubmarineareas,recognizingcoastalandarchipelagicStates
graduatedauthorityoveralimitedspanofwatersandsubmarinelandsalongtheircoasts.

Ontheotherhand,baselineslawssuchasRA9522areenactedbyUNCLOSIIIStatespartiesto
markoutspecificbasepointsalongtheircoastsfromwhichbaselinesaredrawn,eitherstraightorcontoured,
toserveasgeographicstartingpointstomeasurethebreadthofthemaritimezonesandcontinentalshelf.
Article48ofUNCLOSIIIonarchipelagicStateslikeourscouldnotbeanyclearer:

Article48.Measurementofthebreadthoftheterritorialsea,thecontiguouszone,theexclusive
economiczoneandthecontinentalshelf.Thebreadthoftheterritorialsea,thecontiguouszone,the
exclusiveeconomiczoneandthecontinentalshelfshallbemeasuredfromarchipelagicbaselinesdrawn
inaccordancewitharticle47.(Emphasissupplied)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 7/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167

Thus,baselineslawsarenothingbutstatutorymechanismsforUNCLOSIIIStatespartiestodelimit
withprecisiontheextentoftheirmaritimezonesandcontinentalshelves.Inturn,thisgivesnoticetotherest
oftheinternationalcommunityofthescopeofthemaritimespaceandsubmarineareaswithinwhichStates
partiesexercisetreatybasedrights,namely,theexerciseofsovereigntyoverterritorialwaters(Article2),
thejurisdictiontoenforcecustoms,fiscal,immigration,andsanitationlawsinthecontiguouszone(Article
33),andtherighttoexploitthelivingandnonlivingresourcesintheexclusiveeconomiczone(Article56)
andcontinentalshelf(Article77).

EvenunderpetitionerstheorythatthePhilippineterritoryembracestheislandsandallthewaters
withintherectangularareadelimitedintheTreatyofParis,thebaselinesofthePhilippineswouldstillhave
tobedrawninaccordancewithRA9522becausethisistheonlywaytodrawthebaselinesinconformity
withUNCLOSIII.Thebaselinescannotbedrawnfromtheboundariesorotherportionsoftherectangular
areadelineatedintheTreatyofParis,butfromtheoutermostislandsanddryingreefsofthearchipelago.24

UNCLOSIIIanditsancillarybaselineslawsplaynoroleintheacquisition,enlargementor,as
petitionersclaim,diminutionofterritory.Undertraditionalinternationallawtypology,Statesacquire(or
conversely,lose)territorythroughoccupation,accretion,cessionandprescription,25notbyexecuting
multilateraltreatiesontheregulationsofseauserightsorenactingstatutestocomplywiththetreatysterms
todelimitmaritimezonesandcontinentalshelves.TerritorialclaimstolandfeaturesareoutsideUNCLOS
III,andareinsteadgovernedbytherulesongeneralinternationallaw.26

RA9522sUseoftheFramework

ofRegimeofIslandstoDeterminethe

MaritimeZonesoftheKIGandthe

ScarboroughShoal,notInconsistent

withthePhilippinesClaimofSovereignty

OvertheseAreas

PetitionersnextsubmitthatRA9522suseofUNCLOSIIIsregimeofislandsframeworktodrawthe
baselines,andtomeasurethebreadthoftheapplicablemaritimezonesoftheKIG,weakensourterritorial
claimoverthatarea.27PetitionersaddthattheKIGs(andScarboroughShoals)exclusionfromthePhilippine
archipelagicbaselinesresultsinthelossofabout15,000squarenauticalmilesofterritorialwaters,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 8/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167

prejudicingthelivelihoodofsubsistencefishermen. Acomparisonoftheconfigurationofthebaselines
28

drawnunderRA3046andRA9522andtheextentofmaritimespaceencompassedbyeachlaw,coupled
withareadingofthetextofRA9522anditscongressionaldeliberations,visvisthePhilippinesobligations
underUNCLOSIII,beliethisview.

TheconfigurationofthebaselinesdrawnunderRA3046andRA9522showsthatRA9522merely
followedthebasepointsmappedbyRA3046,saveforatleastninebasepointsthatRA9522skippedto
optimizethelocationofbasepointsandadjustthelengthofonebaseline(andthuscomplywithUNCLOS
IIIslimitationonthemaximumlengthofbaselines).UnderRA3046,asunderRA9522,theKIGandthe
ScarboroughShoallieoutsideofthebaselinesdrawnaroundthePhilippinearchipelago.Thisundeniable
cartographicfacttakesthewindoutofpetitionersargumentbrandingRA9522asastatutoryrenunciationof
thePhilippinesclaimovertheKIG,assumingthatbaselinesarerelevantforthispurpose.

Petitionersassertionoflossofabout15,000squarenauticalmilesofterritorialwatersunderRA9522is
similarlyunfoundedbothinfactandlaw.Onthecontrary,RA9522,byoptimizingthelocationof
basepoints,increasedthePhilippinestotalmaritimespace(coveringitsinternalwaters,territorialseaand
exclusiveeconomiczone)by145,216squarenauticalmiles,asshowninthetablebelow:29

Extentofmaritimearea Extentofmaritime

usingRA3046,as areausingRA9522,

amended,takinginto takingintoaccount

accounttheTreatyofParis UNCLOSIII(in

delimitation(insquare squarenautical

nauticalmiles) miles)

Internalor

archipelagic
166,858 171,435
waters

Territorial 274,136 32,106

Sea

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 9/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167

Exclusive 382,669

Economic

Zone

TOTAL 440,994 586,210

Thus,asthemapbelowshows,thereachoftheexclusiveeconomiczonedrawnunderRA9522even
extendswaybeyondthewaterscoveredbytherectangulardemarcationundertheTreatyofParis.Ofcourse,
wherethereareoverlappingexclusiveeconomiczonesofoppositeoradjacentStates,therewillhavetobea
delineationofmaritimeboundariesinaccordancewithUNCLOSIII.30

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 10/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167

Further,petitionersargumentthattheKIGnowliesoutsidePhilippineterritorybecausethebaselinesthat
RA9522drawsdonotenclosetheKIGisnegatedbyRA9522itself.Section2ofthelawcommitstotext
thePhilippinescontinuedclaimofsovereigntyandjurisdictionovertheKIGandtheScarboroughShoal:

SEC.2.ThebaselinesinthefollowingareasoverwhichthePhilippineslikewiseexercises
sovereigntyandjurisdictionshallbedeterminedasRegimeofIslandsundertheRepublicofthe
PhilippinesconsistentwithArticle121oftheUnitedNationsConventionontheLawoftheSea
(UNCLOS):
a)TheKalayaanIslandGroupasconstitutedunderPresidentialDecreeNo.1596and

b)BajodeMasinloc,alsoknownasScarboroughShoal.(Emphasissupplied)

HadCongressinRA9522enclosedtheKIGandtheScarboroughShoalaspartofthePhilippine
archipelago,adverselegaleffectswouldhaveensued.ThePhilippineswouldhavecommittedabreachof
twoprovisionsofUNCLOSIII.First,Article47(3)ofUNCLOSIIIrequiresthat[t]hedrawingofsuch
baselinesshallnotdeparttoanyappreciableextentfromthegeneralconfigurationofthearchipelago.
Second,Article47(2)ofUNCLOSIIIrequiresthatthelengthofthebaselinesshallnotexceed100nautical
miles,saveforthreepercent(3%)ofthetotalnumberofbaselineswhichcanreachupto125nautical
miles.31

AlthoughthePhilippineshasconsistentlyclaimedsovereigntyovertheKIG32andtheScarborough
Shoalforseveraldecades,theseoutlyingareasarelocatedatanappreciabledistancefromthenearest
shorelineofthePhilippinearchipelago,33suchthatanystraightbaselinelopedaroundthemfromthenearest
basepointwillinevitablydeparttoanappreciableextentfromthegeneralconfigurationofthearchipelago.

TheprincipalsponsorofRA9522intheSenate,SenatorMiriamDefensorSantiago,tookpainsto
emphasizetheforegoingduringtheSenatedeliberations:

WhatwecalltheKalayaanIslandGrouporwhattherestoftheworldcall[]theSpratlysandthe
ScarboroughShoalareoutsideourarchipelagicbaselinebecauseifweputtheminsideourbaselineswe
mightbeaccusedofviolatingtheprovisionofinternationallawwhichstates:Thedrawingofsuch
baselineshallnotdeparttoanyappreciableextentfromthegeneralconfigurationofthearchipelago.So
saloobngatingbaseline,dapatmagkalapitangmgaislands.DahilmalayoangScarboroughShoal,hindi
natinmasasabingmalapitsilasaatinalthoughwearestillallowedbyinternationallawtoclaimthemas
ourown.

Thisiscalledcontestedislandsoutsideourconfiguration.Weseethatourarchipelagoisdefinedbythe
orangelinewhich[we]call[]archipelagicbaseline.Ngayon,tingnanninyoangmaliitnacircledoonsa
itaas,thatisScarboroughShoal,itongmalakingcirclesaibaba,thatisKalayaanGrouportheSpratlys.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 11/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167
Malayonasilasaatingarchipelagokayakungilihispanatinangdatingarchipelagicbaselinespara
lamangmasamaitongdalawangcircles,hindinasilamagkalapitatbakahindinatatanggapinngUnited
Nationsbecauseoftherulethatitshouldfollowthenaturalconfigurationofthearchipelago.34(Emphasis
supplied)

Similarly,thelengthofonebaselinethatRA3046drewexceededUNCLOSIIIslimits.Theneedto
shortenthisbaseline,andinaddition,tooptimizethelocationofbasepointsusingcurrentmaps,became
imperativeasdiscussedbyrespondents:

[T]heamendmentofthebaselineslawwasnecessarytoenablethePhilippinestodrawtheouter
limitsofitsmaritimezonesincludingtheextendedcontinentalshelfinthemannerprovidedbyArticle47
of[UNCLOSIII].AsdefinedbyR.A.3046,asamendedbyR.A.5446,thebaselinessufferfromsome
technicaldeficiencies,towit:

1.ThelengthofthebaselineacrossMoroGulf(fromMiddleof3RockAwashtoTongquilPoint)is140.06
nauticalmilesxxx.ThisexceedsthemaximumlengthallowedunderArticle47(2)ofthe[UNCLOSIII],
whichstatesthatThelengthofsuchbaselinesshallnotexceed100nauticalmiles,exceptthatupto3per
centofthetotalnumberofbaselinesenclosinganyarchipelagomayexceedthatlength,uptoamaximum
lengthof125nauticalmiles.
2.Theselectionofbasepointsisnotoptimal.Atleast9basepointscanbeskippedordeletedfromthe
baselinessystem.Thiswillencloseanadditional2,195nauticalmilesofwater.
3.Finally,thebasepointsweredrawnfrommapsexistingin1968,andnotestablishedbygeodeticsurvey
methods.Accordingly,someofthepoints,particularlyalongthewestcoastsofLuzondowntoPalawan
werelaterfoundtobelocatedeitherinlandoronwater,notonlowwaterlineanddryingreefsas
prescribedbyArticle47.35

Hence,farfromsurrenderingthePhilippinesclaimovertheKIGandtheScarboroughShoal,
CongressdecisiontoclassifytheKIGandtheScarboroughShoalasRegime[s]ofIslandsunderthe
RepublicofthePhilippinesconsistentwithArticle12136ofUNCLOSIIImanifeststhePhilippineStates
responsibleobservanceofitspactasuntservandaobligationunderUNCLOSIII.UnderArticle121of
UNCLOSIII,anynaturallyformedareaofland,surroundedbywater,whichisabovewaterathightide,
suchasportionsoftheKIG,qualifiesunderthecategoryofregimeofislands,whoseislandsgeneratetheir
ownapplicablemaritimezones.37

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 12/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167

StatutoryClaimOverSabahunder

RA5446Retained

PetitionersargumentfortheinvalidityofRA9522foritsfailuretotextualizethePhilippinesclaimover
SabahinNorthBorneoisalsountenable.Section2ofRA5446,whichRA9522didnotrepeal,keepsopen
thedoorfordrawingthebaselinesofSabah:

Section2.ThedefinitionofthebaselinesoftheterritorialseaofthePhilippineArchipelagoas
providedinthisActiswithoutprejudicetothedelineationofthebaselinesoftheterritorialsea
aroundtheterritoryofSabah,situatedinNorthBorneo,overwhichtheRepublicofthePhilippines
hasacquireddominionandsovereignty.(Emphasissupplied)

UNCLOSIIIandRA9522not

IncompatiblewiththeConstitutions

DelineationofInternalWaters

AstheirfinalargumentagainstthevalidityofRA9522,petitionerscontendthatthelawunconstitutionally
convertsinternalwatersintoarchipelagicwaters,hencesubjectingthesewaterstotherightofinnocentand
sealanespassageunderUNCLOSIII,includingoverflight.Petitionersextrapolatethatthesepassagerights
indubitablyexposePhilippineinternalwaterstonuclearandmaritimepollutionhazards,inviolationofthe
Constitution.38

WhetherreferredtoasPhilippineinternalwatersunderArticleIoftheConstitution39orasarchipelagic
watersunderUNCLOSIII(Article49[1]),thePhilippinesexercisessovereigntyoverthebodyofwater
lyinglandwardofthebaselines,includingtheairspaceoveritandthesubmarineareasunderneath.
UNCLOSIIIaffirmsthis:

Article49.Legalstatusofarchipelagicwaters,oftheairspaceoverarchipelagicwatersandof
theirbedandsubsoil.

1.ThesovereigntyofanarchipelagicStateextendstothewatersenclosedbythe
archipelagicbaselinesdrawninaccordancewitharticle47,describedasarchipelagic
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 13/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167
waters,regardlessoftheirdepthordistancefromthecoast.
2.Thissovereigntyextendstotheairspaceoverthearchipelagicwaters,aswellasto
theirbedandsubsoil,andtheresourcescontainedtherein.
xxxx

4.TheregimeofarchipelagicsealanespassageestablishedinthisPartshallnotinotherrespects
affectthestatusofthearchipelagicwaters,includingthesealanes,ortheexercisebythearchipelagic
Stateofitssovereigntyoversuchwatersandtheirairspace,bedandsubsoil,andtheresources
containedtherein.(Emphasissupplied)

Thefactofsovereignty,however,doesnotprecludetheoperationofmunicipalandinternationallawnorms
subjectingtheterritorialseaorarchipelagicwaterstonecessary,ifnotmarginal,burdensintheinterestof
maintainingunimpeded,expeditiousinternationalnavigation,consistentwiththeinternationallawprinciple
offreedomofnavigation.Thus,domestically,thepoliticalbranchesofthePhilippinegovernment,inthe
competentdischargeoftheirconstitutionalpowers,maypasslegislationdesignatingrouteswithinthe
archipelagicwaterstoregulateinnocentandsealanespassage.40Indeed,billsdrawingnauticalhighwaysfor
sealanespassagearenowpendinginCongress.41

Intheabsenceofmunicipallegislation,internationallawnorms,nowcodifiedinUNCLOSIII,
operatetograntinnocentpassagerightsovertheterritorialseaorarchipelagicwaters,subjecttothetreatys
limitationsandconditionsfortheirexercise.42Significantly,therightofinnocentpassageisacustomary
internationallaw,43thusautomaticallyincorporatedinthecorpusofPhilippinelaw.44NomodernStatecan
validlyinvokeitssovereigntytoabsolutelyforbidinnocentpassagethatisexercisedinaccordancewith
customaryinternationallawwithoutriskingretaliatorymeasuresfromtheinternationalcommunity.

ThefactthatforarchipelagicStates,theirarchipelagicwatersaresubjecttoboththerightofinnocent
passageandsealanespassage45doesnotplacetheminlesserfootingvisviscontinentalcoastalStates
whicharesubject,intheirterritorialsea,totherightofinnocentpassageandtherightoftransitpassage
throughinternationalstraits.Theimpositionofthesepassagerightsthrougharchipelagicwatersunder
UNCLOSIIIwasaconcessionbyarchipelagicStates,inexchangefortheirrighttoclaimallthewaters
landwardoftheirbaselines,regardlessoftheirdepthordistancefromthecoast,asarchipelagicwaters
subjecttotheirterritorialsovereignty.Moreimportantly,therecognitionofarchipelagicStatesarchipelago
andthewatersenclosedbytheirbaselinesasonecohesiveentitypreventsthetreatmentoftheirislandsas
separateislandsunderUNCLOSIII.46Separateislandsgeneratetheirownmaritimezones,placingthe
watersbetweenislandsseparatedbymorethan24nauticalmilesbeyondtheStatesterritorialsovereignty,
subjectingthesewaterstotherightsofotherStatesunderUNCLOSIII.47

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 14/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167

PetitionersinvocationofnonexecutoryconstitutionalprovisionsinArticleII(Declarationof
PrinciplesandStatePolicies)48mustalsofail.Ourpresentstateofjurisprudenceconsiderstheprovisionsin
ArticleIIasmerelegislativeguides,which,absentenablinglegislation,donotembodyjudicially
enforceableconstitutionalrightsxxx.49ArticleIIprovisionsserveasguidesinformulatingandinterpreting
implementinglegislation,aswellasininterpretingexecutoryprovisionsoftheConstitution.Although
Oposav.Factoran50treatedtherighttoahealthfulandbalancedecologyunderSection16ofArticleIIasan
exception,thepresentpetitionlacksfactualbasistosubstantiatetheclaimedconstitutionalviolation.The
otherprovisionspetitionerscite,relatingtotheprotectionofmarinewealth(ArticleXII,Section2,
paragraph251)andsubsistencefishermen(ArticleXIII,Section752),arenotviolatedbyRA9522.

Infact,thedemarcationofthebaselinesenablesthePhilippinestodelimititsexclusiveeconomic
zone,reservingsolelytothePhilippinestheexploitationofalllivingandnonlivingresourceswithinsuch
zone.Suchamaritimedelineationbindstheinternationalcommunitysincethedelineationisinstrict
observanceofUNCLOSIII.IfthemaritimedelineationiscontrarytoUNCLOSIII,theinternational
communitywillofcourserejectitandwillrefusetobeboundbyit.

UNCLOSIIIfavorsStateswithalongcoastlinelikethePhilippines.UNCLOSIIIcreatesasui
generismaritimespacetheexclusiveeconomiczoneinwaterspreviouslypartofthehighseas.UNCLOSIII
grantsnewrightstocoastalStatestoexclusivelyexploittheresourcesfoundwithinthiszoneupto200
nauticalmiles.53UNCLOSIII,however,preservesthetraditionalfreedomofnavigationofotherStatesthat
attachedtothiszonebeyondtheterritorialseabeforeUNCLOSIII.

RA9522andthePhilippinesMaritimeZones

Petitionersholdtheviewthat,basedonthepermissivetextofUNCLOSIII,Congresswasnotbound
topassRA9522.54WehavelookedattherelevantprovisionofUNCLOSIII55andwefindpetitioners
readingplausible.Nevertheless,theprerogativeofchoosingthisoptionbelongstoCongress,nottothis
Court.Moreover,theluxuryofchoosingthisoptioncomesataverysteepprice.AbsentanUNCLOSIII
compliantbaselineslaw,anarchipelagicStatelikethePhilippineswillfinditselfdevoidofinternationally
acceptablebaselinesfromwherethebreadthofitsmaritimezonesandcontinentalshelfismeasured.Thisis
recipeforatwofronteddisaster:first,itsendsanopeninvitationtotheseafaringpowerstofreelyenterand
exploittheresourcesinthewatersandsubmarineareasaroundourarchipelagoandsecond,itweakensthe
countryscaseinanyinternationaldisputeoverPhilippinemaritimespace.TheseareconsequencesCongress
wiselyavoided.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 15/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167

TheenactmentofUNCLOSIIIcompliantbaselineslawforthePhilippinearchipelagoandadjacent
areas,asembodiedinRA9522,allowsaninternationallyrecognizeddelimitationofthebreadthofthe
Philippinesmaritimezonesandcontinentalshelf.RA9522isthereforeamostvitalsteponthepartofthe
Philippinesinsafeguardingitsmaritimezones,consistentwiththeConstitutionandournationalinterest.

WHEREFORE,weDISMISSthepetition.

SOORDERED.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO

AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

RENATOC.CORONA

ChiefJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 16/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167

(Pls.seeconcurringopinion) TERESITAJ.LEONARDO
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
DECASTRO
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice

ARTUROD.BRION DIOSDADOM.PERALTA

AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO

LUCASP.BERSAMIN AssociateJustice

AssociateJustice

IcertifythatMr.JusticeAbad MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.

lefthisconcurringvote.
AssociateJustice
ROBERTOA.ABAD

AssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 17/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167

(onleave) JOSEC.MENDOZA

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

AssociateJustice

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO

AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 18/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,IcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveDecision
hadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt.

RENATOC.CORONA

ChiefJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 19/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167

1EntitledAnActtoAmendCertainProvisionsofRepublicActNo.3046,asAmendedbyRepublicActNo.5446,toDefinetheArchipelagic
BaselinesofthePhilippines,andforOtherPurposes.

2EntitledAnActtoDefinetheBaselinesoftheTerritorialSeaofthePhilippines.

3ThethirdWhereasClauseofRA3046expressestheimportoftreatingthePhilippinesasanarchipelagicState:
WHEREAS,allthewatersaround,between,andconnectingthevariousislandsofthePhilippinearchipelago,
irrespectiveoftheirwidthordimensions,havealwaysbeenconsideredasnecessaryappurtenancesofthelandterritory,forming
partoftheinlandwatersofthePhilippines.

4OneofthefourconventionsframedduringthefirstUnitedNationsConventionontheLawoftheSeainGeneva,thistreaty,excludingthe
Philippines,enteredintoforceon10September1964.

5UNCLOSIIIenteredintoforceon16November1994.

6ThePhilippinessignedthetreatyon10December1982.

7Article47,paragraphs13,provide:
1.AnarchipelagicStatemaydrawstraightarchipelagicbaselinesjoiningtheoutermostpointsofthe
outermostislandsanddryingreefsofthearchipelagoprovidedthatwithinsuchbaselinesareincludedthemainislands
andanareainwhichtheratiooftheareaofthewatertotheareaoftheland,includingatolls,isbetween1to1and9to
1.
2.Thelengthofsuchbaselinesshallnotexceed100nauticalmiles,exceptthatupto3percentofthetotal
numberofbaselinesenclosinganyarchipelagomayexceedthatlength,uptoamaximumlengthof125nauticalmiles.
3.Thedrawingofsuchbaselinesshallnotdeparttoanyappreciableextentfromthegeneralconfigurationof
thearchipelago.(Emphasissupplied)

xxxx

8UNCLOSIIIenteredintoforceon16November1994.ThedeadlineforthefilingofapplicationismandatedinArticle4,AnnexII:Wherea
coastalStateintendstoestablish,inaccordancewitharticle76,theouterlimitsofitscontinentalshelfbeyond200nauticalmiles,itshall
submitparticularsofsuchlimitstotheCommissionalongwithsupportingscientificandtechnicaldataassoonaspossiblebutinanycase
within10yearsoftheentryintoforceofthisConventionforthatState.ThecoastalStateshallatthesametimegivethenamesofany
Commissionmemberswhohaveprovideditwithscientificandtechnicaladvice.(Underscoringsupplied)

Inasubsequentmeeting,theStatespartiesagreedthatforStateswhichbecameboundbythetreatybefore13May1999(suchasthePhilippines)
thetenyearperiodwillbecountedfromthatdate.Thus,RA9522,whichtookeffecton27March2009,barelymetthedeadline.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 20/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167
9Rollo,p.34.

10Whichprovides:ThenationalterritorycomprisesthePhilippinearchipelago,withalltheislandsandwatersembracedtherein,andallother
territoriesoverwhichthePhilippineshassovereigntyorjurisdiction,consistingofitsterrestrial,fluvial,andaerialdomains,includingits
territorialsea,theseabed,thesubsoil,theinsularshelves,andothersubmarineareas.Thewatersaround,between,andconnectingthe
islandsofthearchipelago,regardlessoftheirbreadthanddimensions,formpartoftheinternalwatersofthePhilippines.

11EnteredintobetweentheUnitesStatesandSpainon10December1898followingtheconclusionoftheSpanishAmericanWar.Underthe
termsofthetreaty,SpaincededtotheUnitedStatesthearchipelagoknownasthePhilippineIslandslyingwithinitstechnical
description.

12TheTreatyofWashington,betweenSpainandtheUnitedStates(7November1900),transferringtotheUStheislandsofCagayan,Sulu,and
SibutuandtheUSGreatBritainConvention(2January1930)demarcatingboundarylinesbetweenthePhilippinesandNorthBorneo.

13ArticleII,Section7,Section8,andSection16.

14AllegedlyinviolationofArticleXII,Section2,paragraph2andArticleXIII,Section7oftheConstitution.

15Kilosbayan,Inc.v.Morato,320Phil.171,186(1995).

16Pascualv.SecretaryofPublicWorks,110Phil.331(1960)Sanidadv.COMELEC,165Phil.303(1976).

17Francisco,Jr.v.HouseofRepresentatives,460Phil.830,899(2003)citingKilosbayan,Inc.v.Guingona,Jr.,G.R.No.113375,5May1994,
232SCRA110,155156(1995)(Feliciano,J.,concurring).Thetwootherfactorsare:thecharacteroffundsorassetsinvolvedinthe
controversyandacleardisregardofconstitutionalorstatutoryprohibition.Id.

18.Rollo,pp.144147.

19Seee.g.AquinoIIIv.COMELEC,G.R.No.189793,7April2010,617SCRA623(dismissingapetitionforcertiorariandprohibitionassailing
theconstitutionalityofRepublicActNo.9716,notfortheimproprietyofremedybutforlackofmerit)Aldabav.COMELEC,G.R.No.
188078,25January2010,611SCRA137(issuingthewritofprohibitiontodeclareunconstitutionalRepublicActNo.9591)Macalintal
v.COMELEC,453Phil.586(2003)(issuingthewritsofcertiorariandprohibitiondeclaringunconstitutionalportionsofRepublicAct
No.9189).

20Seee.g.Neriv.SenateCommitteeonAccountabilityofPublicOfficersandInvestigations,G.R.No.180643,25March2008,549SCRA77
(grantingawritofcertiorariagainstthePhilippineSenateandnullifyingtheSenatecontemptorderissuedagainstpetitioner).

21Rollo,p.31.

22RespondentsstateintheirCommentthatpetitionerstheoryhasnotbeenacceptedorrecognizedbyeithertheUnitedStatesorSpain,theparties
totheTreatyofParis.RespondentsaddthatnoStateisknowntohavesupportedthisproposition.Rollo,p.179.

23UNCLOSIIIbelongstothatlargercorpusofinternationallawofthesea,whichpetitionerMagallonahimselfdefinedasabodyoftreatyrules
andcustomarynormsgoverningtheusesofthesea,theexploitationofitsresources,andtheexerciseofjurisdictionovermaritime
regimes.xxxx(MerlinM.Magallona,PrimerontheLawoftheSea1[1997])(Italicizationsupplied).

24FollowingArticle47(1)ofUNCLOSIIIwhichprovides:
AnarchipelagicStatemaydrawstraightarchipelagicbaselinesjoiningtheoutermostpointsoftheoutermost
islandsanddryingreefsofthearchipelagoprovidedthatwithinsuchbaselinesareincludedthemainislandsandan
areainwhichtheratiooftheareaofthewatertotheareaoftheland,includingatolls,isbetween1to1and9to1.
(Emphasissupplied)

25UndertheUnitedNationsCharter,useofforceisnolongeravalidmeansofacquiringterritory.

26ThelastparagraphofthepreambleofUNCLOSIIIstatesthatmattersnotregulatedbythisConventioncontinuetobegovernedbytherules
andprinciplesofgeneralinternationallaw.

27Rollo,p.51.

28Id.at5152,6466.

29BasedonfiguresrespondentssubmittedintheirComment(id.at182).

30UnderArticle74.

31Seenote7.

32PresidentialDecreeNo.1596classifiestheKIGasamunicipalityofPalawan.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 21/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167
33KIGliesaround80nauticalmileswestofPalawanwhileScarboroughShoalisaround123nauticalwestofZambales.

34Journal,Senate14thCongress44thSession1416(27January2009).

35Rollo,p.159.

36Section2,RA9522.

37Article121provides:Regimeofislands.

1.Anislandisanaturallyformedareaofland,surroundedbywater,whichisabovewaterathightide.

2.Exceptasprovidedforinparagraph3,theterritorialsea,thecontiguouszone,theexclusiveeconomiczoneandthecontinentalshelfof
anislandaredeterminedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthisConventionapplicabletootherlandterritory.

3.Rockswhichcannotsustainhumanhabitationoreconomiclifeoftheirownshallhavenoexclusiveeconomiczoneorcontinental
shelf.

38Rollo,pp.5657,6064.

39Paragraph2,Section2,ArticleXIIoftheConstitutionusesthetermarchipelagicwatersseparatelyfromterritorialsea.UnderUNCLOSIII,an
archipelagicStatemayhaveinternalwaterssuchasthoseenclosedbyclosinglinesacrossbaysandmouthsofrivers.SeeArticle50,
UNCLOSIII.Moreover,Article8(2)ofUNCLOSIIIprovides:Wheretheestablishmentofastraightbaselineinaccordancewiththe
methodsetforthinarticle7hastheeffectofenclosingasinternalwatersareaswhichhadnotpreviouslybeenconsideredassuch,a
rightofinnocentpassageasprovidedinthisConventionshallexistinthosewaters.(Emphasissupplied)

40MandatedunderArticles52and53ofUNCLOSIII:
Article52.Rightofinnocentpassage.
1.Subjecttoarticle53andwithoutprejudicetoarticle50,shipsofallStatesenjoytherightofinnocentpassage
througharchipelagicwaters,inaccordancewithPartII,section3.
2.ThearchipelagicStatemay,withoutdiscriminationinformorinfactamongforeignships,suspendtemporarilyin
specifiedareasofitsarchipelagicwaterstheinnocentpassageofforeignshipsifsuchsuspensionisessentialforthe
protectionofitssecurity.Suchsuspensionshalltakeeffectonlyafterhavingbeendulypublished.(Emphasissupplied)

Article53.Rightofarchipelagicsealanespassage.
1.AnarchipelagicStatemaydesignatesealanesandairroutesthereabove,suitableforthecontinuousand
expeditiouspassageofforeignshipsandaircraftthroughoroveritsarchipelagicwatersandtheadjacentterritorialsea.
2.Allshipsandaircraftenjoytherightofarchipelagicsealanespassageinsuchsealanesandairroutes.
3.ArchipelagicsealanespassagemeanstheexerciseinaccordancewiththisConventionoftherightsof
navigationandoverflightinthenormalmodesolelyforthepurposeofcontinuous,expeditiousandunobstructedtransit
betweenonepartofthehighseasoranexclusiveeconomiczoneandanotherpartofthehighseasoranexclusive
economiczone.
4.Suchsealanesandairroutesshalltraversethearchipelagicwatersandtheadjacentterritorialseaandshall
includeallnormalpassageroutesusedasroutesforinternationalnavigationoroverflightthroughoroverarchipelagic
watersand,withinsuchroutes,sofarasshipsareconcerned,allnormalnavigationalchannels,providedthat
duplicationofroutesofsimilarconveniencebetweenthesameentryandexitpointsshallnotbenecessary.
5.Suchsealanesandairroutesshallbedefinedbyaseriesofcontinuousaxislinesfromtheentrypointsof
passageroutestotheexitpoints.Shipsandaircraftinarchipelagicsealanespassageshallnotdeviatemorethan25
nauticalmilestoeithersideofsuchaxislinesduringpassage,providedthatsuchshipsandaircraftshallnotnavigate
closertothecoaststhan10percentofthedistancebetweenthenearestpointsonislandsborderingthesealane.
6.AnarchipelagicStatewhichdesignatessealanesunderthisarticlemayalsoprescribetrafficseparation
schemesforthesafepassageofshipsthroughnarrowchannelsinsuchsealanes.
7.AnarchipelagicStatemay,whencircumstancesrequire,aftergivingduepublicitythereto,substituteother
sealanesortrafficseparationschemesforanysealanesortrafficseparationschemespreviouslydesignatedor
prescribedbyit.
8.Suchsealanesandtrafficseparationschemesshallconformtogenerallyacceptedinternationalregulations.
9.Indesignatingorsubstitutingsealanesorprescribingorsubstitutingtrafficseparationschemes,an
archipelagicStateshallreferproposalstothecompetentinternationalorganizationwithaviewtotheiradoption.The
organizationmayadoptonlysuchsealanesandtrafficseparationschemesasmaybeagreedwiththearchipelagicState,
afterwhichthearchipelagicStatemaydesignate,prescribeorsubstitutethem.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 22/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167
10.ThearchipelagicStateshallclearlyindicatetheaxisofthesealanesandthetrafficseparationschemes
designatedorprescribedbyitonchartstowhichduepublicityshallbegiven.
11.Shipsinarchipelagicsealanespassageshallrespectapplicablesealanesandtrafficseparationschemes
establishedinaccordancewiththisarticle.
12.IfanarchipelagicStatedoesnotdesignatesealanesorairroutes,therightofarchipelagicsealanes
passagemaybeexercisedthroughtheroutesnormallyusedforinternationalnavigation.(Emphasissupplied)

41Namely,HouseBillNo.4153andSenateBillNo.2738,identicallytitledANACTTOESTABLISHTHEARCHIPELAGICSEALANESIN
THEPHILIPPINEARCHIPELAGICWATERS,PRESCRIBINGTHERIGHTSANDOBLIGATIONSOFFOREIGNSHIPSAND
AIRCRAFTSEXERCISINGTHERIGHTOFARCHIPELAGICSEALANESPASSAGETHROUGHTHEESTABLISHED
ARCHIPELAGICSEALANESANDPROVIDINGFORTHEASSOCIATEDPROTECTIVEMEASURESTHEREIN.

42TherelevantprovisionofUNCLOSIIIprovides:
Article17.Rightofinnocentpassage.
SubjecttothisConvention,shipsofallStates,whethercoastalorlandlocked,enjoytherightofinnocent
passagethroughtheterritorialsea.(Emphasissupplied)

Article19.Meaningofinnocentpassage.
1.Passageisinnocentsolongasitisnotprejudicialtothepeace,goodorderorsecurityofthecoastalState.
SuchpassageshalltakeplaceinconformitywiththisConventionandwithotherrulesofinternationallaw.
2.Passageofaforeignshipshallbeconsideredtobeprejudicialtothepeace,goodorderorsecurityofthe
coastalStateifintheterritorialseaitengagesinanyofthefollowingactivities:
(a)anythreatoruseofforceagainstthesovereignty,territorialintegrityorpoliticalindependenceofthe
coastalState,orinanyothermannerinviolationoftheprinciplesofinternationallawembodiedintheCharterofthe
UnitedNations
(b)anyexerciseorpracticewithweaponsofanykind
(c)anyactaimedatcollectinginformationtotheprejudiceofthedefenceorsecurityofthecoastalState
(d)anyactofpropagandaaimedataffectingthedefenceorsecurityofthecoastalState
(e)thelaunching,landingortakingonboardofanyaircraft
(f)thelaunching,landingortakingonboardofanymilitarydevice
(g)theloadingorunloadingofanycommodity,currencyorpersoncontrarytothecustoms,fiscal,
immigrationorsanitarylawsandregulationsofthecoastalState

(h)anyactofwillfulandseriouspollutioncontrarytothisConvention
(i)anyfishingactivities
(j)thecarryingoutofresearchorsurveyactivities
(k)anyactaimedatinterferingwithanysystemsofcommunicationoranyotherfacilitiesorinstallationsof
thecoastalState
(l)anyotheractivitynothavingadirectbearingonpassage

Article21.LawsandregulationsofthecoastalStaterelatingtoinnocentpassage.
1.ThecoastalStatemayadoptlawsandregulations,inconformitywiththeprovisionsofthisConventionand
otherrulesofinternationallaw,relatingtoinnocentpassagethroughtheterritorialsea,inrespectofalloranyofthe
following:
(a)thesafetyofnavigationandtheregulationofmaritimetraffic
(b)theprotectionofnavigationalaidsandfacilitiesandotherfacilitiesorinstallations
(c)theprotectionofcablesandpipelines
(d)theconservationofthelivingresourcesofthesea
(e)thepreventionofinfringementofthefisherieslawsandregulationsofthecoastalState
(f)thepreservationoftheenvironmentofthecoastalStateandtheprevention,reductionandcontrolof
pollutionthereof
(g)marinescientificresearchandhydrographicsurveys

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 23/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167
(h)thepreventionofinfringementofthecustoms,fiscal,immigrationorsanitarylawsandregulationsofthe
coastalState.
2.Suchlawsandregulationsshallnotapplytothedesign,construction,manningorequipmentofforeign
shipsunlesstheyaregivingeffecttogenerallyacceptedinternationalrulesorstandards.
3.ThecoastalStateshallgiveduepublicitytoallsuchlawsandregulations.
4.Foreignshipsexercisingtherightofinnocentpassagethroughtheterritorialseashallcomplywithallsuch
lawsandregulationsandallgenerallyacceptedinternationalregulationsrelatingtothepreventionofcollisionsatsea.

43Therightofinnocentpassagethroughtheterritorialseaappliesonlytoshipsandnottoaircrafts(Article17,UNCLOSIII).Therightof
innocentpassageofaircraftsthroughthesovereignterritoryofaStatearisesonlyunderaninternationalagreement.Incontrast,theright
ofinnocentpassagethrougharchipelagicwatersappliestobothshipsandaircrafts(Article53(12),UNCLOSIII).

44FollowingSection2,ArticleIIoftheConstitution:Section2.ThePhilippinesrenounceswarasaninstrumentofnationalpolicy,adoptsthe
generallyacceptedprinciplesofinternationallawaspartofthelawofthelandandadherestothepolicyofpeace,equality,justice,
freedom,cooperation,andamitywithallnations.(Emphasissupplied)

45ArchipelagicsealanespassageisessentiallythesameastransitpassagethroughstraitstowhichtheterritorialseaofcontinentalcoastalStateis
subject.R.R.ChurabillandA.V.Lowe,TheLawoftheSea127(1999).

46FallingunderArticle121ofUNCLOSIII(seenote37).

47Withintheexclusiveeconomiczone,otherStatesenjoythefollowingrightsunderUNCLOSIII:

Article58.RightsanddutiesofotherStatesintheexclusiveeconomiczone.
1.Intheexclusiveeconomiczone,allStates,whethercoastalorlandlocked,enjoy,subjecttotherelevantprovisionsof
thisConvention,thefreedomsreferredtoinarticle87ofnavigationandoverflightandofthelayingofsubmarine
cablesandpipelines,andotherinternationallylawfulusesofthesearelatedtothesefreedoms,suchasthoseassociated
withtheoperationofships,aircraftandsubmarinecablesandpipelines,andcompatiblewiththeotherprovisionsof
thisConvention.
2.Articles88to115andotherpertinentrulesofinternationallawapplytotheexclusiveeconomiczoneinsofar
astheyarenotincompatiblewiththisPart.
xxxx

Beyondtheexclusiveeconomiczone,otherStatesenjoythefreedomofthehighseas,definedunderUNCLOSIIIasfollows:

Article87.Freedomofthehighseas.
1.ThehighseasareopentoallStates,whethercoastalorlandlocked.Freedomofthehighseasisexercisedunderthe
conditionslaiddownbythisConventionandbyotherrulesofinternationallaw.Itcomprises,interalia,bothforcoastal
andlandlockedStates:
(a)freedomofnavigation
(b)freedomofoverflight
(c)freedomtolaysubmarinecablesandpipelines,subjecttoPartVI
(d)freedomtoconstructartificialislandsandotherinstallationspermittedunderinternationallaw,subjectto
PartVI
(e)freedomoffishing,subjecttotheconditionslaiddowninsection2
(f)freedomofscientificresearch,subjecttoPartsVIandXIII.
2.ThesefreedomsshallbeexercisedbyallStateswithdueregardfortheinterestsofotherStatesintheir
exerciseofthefreedomofthehighseas,andalsowithdueregardfortherightsunderthisConventionwithrespectto
activitiesintheArea.

48Seenote13.

49Kilosbayan,Inc.v.Morato,316Phil.652,698(1995)Taadav.Angara,338Phil.546,580581(1997).

50G.R.No.101083,30July1993,224SCRA792.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 24/25
8/4/2015 G.R No. 187167
51TheStateshallprotectthenationsmarinewealthinitsarchipelagicwaters,territorialsea,andexclusiveeconomiczone,andreserveitsuseand
enjoymentexclusivelytoFilipinocitizens.

52TheStateshallprotecttherightsofsubsistencefishermen,especiallyoflocalcommunities,tothepreferentialuseofthecommunalmarineand
fishingresources,bothinlandandoffshore.Itshallprovidesupporttosuchfishermenthroughappropriatetechnologyandresearch,
adequatefinancial,production,andmarketingassistance,andotherservices.TheStateshallalsoprotect,develop,andconservesuch
resources.Theprotectionshallextendtooffshorefishinggroundsofsubsistencefishermenagainstforeignintrusion.Fishworkersshall
receiveajustsharefromtheirlaborintheutilizationofmarineandfishingresources.

53Thiscanextendupto350nauticalmilesifthecoastalStateprovesitsrighttoclaimanextendedcontinentalshelf(seeUNCLOSIII,Article76,
paragraphs4(a),5and6,inrelationtoArticle77).

54Rollo,pp.6769.

55Article47(1)provides:AnarchipelagicStatemaydrawstraightarchipelagicbaselinesjoiningtheoutermostpointsoftheoutermostislands
anddryingreefsofthearchipelagoprovidedthatwithinsuchbaselinesareincludedthemainislandsandanareainwhichtheratioofthe
areaofthewatertotheareaoftheland,includingatolls,isbetween1to1and9to1.(Emphasissupplied)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187167.html 25/25