Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Article 1, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution 1935 constitution did not use the word
Philippine archipelago.
The national territory comprises the
Philippine archipelago, with all the islands 1973 first time to use Philippine
and waters embraced therein, and all other Archipelago which was carried over in the
territories over which the Philippines has 1987 Consti.
sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its
terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, “The Philippine archipelago, with all the
including its territorial sea, the seabed, the islands and waters embraced therein..” is
subsoil, the insular shelves, and other exactly the same text used in the 1973
submarine areas. The waters around, consti.
between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and Reference for Philippine Archipelago:
dimensions, form part of the internal waters
of the Philippines a. Article 1, 1935 Constitution – “all
territory over which the present
1. Philippine archipelago, with all the government exercises jurisdiction”;
islands and waters embraced therein inclusion of batanes
- What is an archipelago? What b. Treaty of Paris – unclear about tSibutu,
comprises the Philippine Archipelago? Cagayan de Cebu, Turtle Islands, Mangsee
What is the archipelagic doctrine? Islands
c. Treaty of Washington – covered the
ARCHIPELAGO, DEFINED islands of Sibutu
1. body of islands, surrounding d. Treaty between US and Great Britain –
waters (around and between) turtle islands and mangsee islands
connecting these islands
2. wide body of water which is Therefore, all Islands embraced by these
studded with islands treaties are what compromise the
archipelago.
1935 Constitution
- our understanding of an archipelago is UNCLOS
hinged on the 2nd definition
-Group of islands surrounded by a body
but virtue of UNCLOS III (Art. 46) of water and then created maritime zones.
Article 47 of UNCLOS III – limit is 125 Martime zones – we own it; no state can
nautical miles of the straight line that you’ve dictate what we do there
drawn
EEZ - we only have sovereign rights there;
Why we follow the straight baseline? there is a regime of sharing among the
neighboring countries; you cannot exclusively
Proof: all our baseline laws employ the enjoy the benefit only that you have more or
straight baseline method less a say on how the other countries will use
it by virtue of your sovereign rights
BASELINE LAWS (UNCLOS III); Philippines only has a
sovereign right over EEZ
RA 3046
RA 5446 Sovereignty – no other country can tell what
Article 47 of UNCLOS III we are going to do; result of ownership of a
particular territory
1982 – we became a party to the UNCLOS
Sovereign – you don’t own it fully
ARTICLE 47 OF UNCLOS III
1. Join the outermost points of the SC: The UNCLOS has nothing to do with the
outermost islands acquisition or loss of territory. It is a
2. When you join the outermost point of multilateral treaty regulating, among others,
the outermost islands, the ratio of the sea-use rights over maritime zones.
water to the land should be 9:1 Therefore, the UNCLOS would not resolve
3. When you draw the baselines the our conflicting claims over Scarborough
length should not exceed 125 nautical Shoal, Spratlys and even Sabah.
miles
4. Drawing of such baseline should not Regime of islands – has a different treatment;
depart from any general configuration own maritime zones
of the Philippine archipelago
RA 5446
- provided all the guidelines but became
problematic because of UNCLOS III
Internal Water v. Archipelagic Water
hence, we passed
RA 9522 – present baseline law; third and so
Territorial sea – can invoke right of innocent
far the last
passage for as long as the passage is innocent
-comply with UNCLOS III
Internal water – perspective of our - Preventive measures are put so that it
Constitution will not have adversary threats to your
Archipelagic water – perspective of UNCLOS territory
III EEZ
- an area beyond an adjacent to the
territorial sea; should not exceed 200
Under UNCLOS III nautical miles from the baseline
- sovereign rights: you really have the
There is innocent passage in archipelagic choice WON you would want to share
water it and impose conditions as to how that
area will be utilized
Is there innocent passage in our internal Super-jacent water – water above the seabed
waters?
INNOCENT PASSAGE
- not prejudicial to the peace, good order
and security of the coastal state
Contiguous Zone
- not exceed beyond 24 nautical miles
from the baseline
- Sovereign rights