line running from west to east along or near the twentieth parallel of north latitude, and through the

middle of the navigable channel of Bachi, from the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) to the one hundred and twenty-seventh (127th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, thence along the one hundred and twenty seventh (127th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to the parallel of four degrees and forty five minutes (4 45') north latitude, thence along the parallel of four degrees and forty five minutes (4 45') north latitude to its intersection with the meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty five minutes (119 35') east of Greenwich, thence along the meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty five minutes (119 35') east of Greenwich to the parallel of latitude seven degrees and forty minutes (7 40') north, thence along the parallel of latitude of seven degrees and forty minutes (7 40') north to its intersection with the one hundred and sixteenth (116th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, thence by a direct line to the intersection of the tenth (10th) degree parallel of north latitude with the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, and thence along the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to the point of beginning.

Philippine Territory. Compare the 1935, 1973, and 1987 definition of National Territory. In 1935 Constitution under Article I (National Territory), Sec. 1, states that: The Philippines comprises all the territory ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris concluded between United States and Spain on the tenth day of December, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, the limits which are set forth in Article III of said treaty, together with all the islands embraced in the treaty concluded at Washington between the United States and Spain on the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred, and the treaty concluded between the United States and Great Britain on the second day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty, and all territory over which the present Government of the Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction. The 1973 Constitution, on the other hand, states that: The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all the other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic or legal title, including the territorial sea, the air space, the subsoil, the sea-bed, the insular shelves, and the submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, irrespective of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. Meanwhile, the 1987 Constitution states that: 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 water around between, the connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, from part of the internal waters of the Philippines. Define National Territory and its Components. 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.

Components of the National Territory a. The Philippine Archipelago with all the Islands and Waters Embraced therein.

Archipelago is that part of the sea studded with islands. The sea and the islands are considered as a single geographical unit. The archipelago that is referred to in Article I, Sec. 1 includes: 1. Those ceded by Spain to the US according to the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898; 2. Those that were included according to the Treaty of Washington on November 7, 1900 between US and Spain, which were not included in the Treaty of Paris. There are the islands of Cagayan, Sulu, and Sibuto; 3. Those which were identified in the Treaty with Great Britain on January 2, 1930 between US and Great Britain, such as the Turtle Islands and the Mangsee Islands; and 4. The islands if Batanes, which were not included under the treaty of Paris and consequently, covered under the 1935 Constitution. b. All other Territories over which the Philippines has Sovereignty or Jurisdiction. These refers to territories already acquired or will be acquired in the future according to international law. These include Batanes Islands, which was left out under the Treaty of Paris. It pertains also to Sabah, Spratlys Islands in the China Sea, and Mariana Islands that includes Guam in the Pacific. In the 1973 Constitution, the phrase was originally worded and all other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right and legal title. It was changed to the present phrase to avoid direct referral to our chain to Sabah, which Malaysia detests. This change was aimed to improve Philippine relations with Malaysia. It does not mean, however, that we drop our claim to Sabah. This phrase does not actually claim nor disclaim Sabah but there is no obstacle to pursue our claim on it under Public International law (Nolledo, 1994). The Terrestrial, Fluvial, and Aerial Domains. The fluvial domains, aside from its external waters, are: 1. The territorial sea, which extends 12 nautical miles (19 kms) from the shore. It is also called marginal sea or marine belt. It is the belt of waters, which are adjacent or parallel to the coastline of the state, outside of the internal waters. 2. The seabed or the seafloor. It is the land holding the sea extending from the shore. It is simply the bottom of the territorial sea. 3. The subsoil, which is the soil layer beneath the surface soil of the territorial sea or the seabed. 4. The insular shelves or the continental shelves. It is that submerged portion of the continent or offshore, extending to a point of steep descent to the ocean floor. It consists of the shore but outside of the territorial sea, to a depth of 200 meters and beyond. 5. Other submarine areas, which refer to those areas under the territorial sea commonly called as reefs, basin, shoal, and the like.

The Inland Waters There are three kinds of waters of the seas. These are: 1. Internal or inland waters (referred to as national waters); 2. Territorial sea; and 3. High seas. The internal or inland waters are waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago. They are in the same category as inland rivers or lakes which are subject to the exclusive use and exploitation of the state. The internal waters are referred to as national waters. The inland water and the territorial waters of the state in which the state exercises sovereignty and exclusive domain just like its land territory. However, through the principle of right of innocent passage, foreign ships can pass through the territorial sea of a state subject to regulations imposed by the state. But the open seas or the high seas that lie seaward of the territorial sea or are beyond the territorial sea are international waters and therefore, every state has the equal right of use and not subject to sovereignty of any state. Define Archipelago Doctrine By the Philippine Constitution of 1973 and by the ratified Constitution of 1987, the Philippines adhered to the Archipelagic Doctrine in defining the boundaries of the country. Article 1, Section 1, of the 1973 Philippine Constitution, provided that the national territory

comprises the Philippine archipelago with all the islands and waters embraced therein and all the other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title, including the territorial sea, the air space, the subsoil, the seabed, the insular shelves, and the other submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
The same provision of the Philippine Constitution added: The waters around, between, and

connecting the islands of the archipelago, irrespective of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
Article 1 of the ratified Constitution of 1987 has, more or less, the same provisions.

The Archipelago Doctrine on territorial limits of countries further states that the baselines from which the territorial sea of the archipelago is to be determined consist of the straight lines connection the outermost portions of the islands. Waters within the baselines are Philippine internal waters and waters outside the baselines but within the extent of the international treaty limits, comprise the countrys territorial sea. This doctrine means, therefore, that our country, with its thousands of islands and many seas, should be considered as a political unit for reasons of history, law, geography, economics, and security. Also, when questions involving territorial conflicts arise, the Philippines has this doctrine to support its claims. (http://www.philippinealmanac.com)

Justify the Philippine Claim to the Kalayaan Group of Islands and Sabah. The Spratlys is a claim of more than 100 islands, cays, reefs, and shoals in the South China Sea. There are five countries, aside from the Philippines, who are actively contesting sovereignty and ownership of these islands. These are China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, and Japan. Japan is not an active claimant to the islands at present. Nevertheless, its previous claim, its behaviour relative to the islands, and other evidence of its relations with the same appear to be critical factors in assessing the various claims of the present active disputants. China, Taiwan, and Vietnam claim all the islands in the Spratlys. The Philippines claims only a group of 50 to 60 islands, islets, shoal, cays, and reefs on the western section of the Spratlys which it calls the Kalayaan Group of Islands (KGI). Taking the evidence offered by the parties and the basic principles of territorial acquisition, the following observations are be made: 1. While Chinese interest in the territory can be traced back to antiquity, old Chinese historical records do not indicate any effective assertion of sovereignty over the islands. The sighting of the territory by Chinese navigators and its inclusion in books and maps by Chinese scholars do not evince the exercise of effective physical possession. 2. The use of. the islands as shelter and even the protracted stay there by Chinese fishermen and guano collectors do not appear to have been intentionally made with authority of the Chinese state to impose sovereignty over the territory. 3. The treaty of delimitation between China and Tonkin of 1887 is binding only as between the parties and cannot override superior valid claims of other states which might establish title. 4. The possession of the islands by Chinese troops upon the withdrawal of Japan and the provision in the bilateral treaty of peace between Japan and China regarding the territory become ambiguous when taken together with the circumstances of the possession of the islands and the repudiation by Japan. 5. The strongest evidence that Viet-Nam can cite in support of its. Claim is the French expedition of 1933 which was a clear effort to establish sovereignty over the islands. Since these islands appear to fall within the concept of "uninhabited islands" as this is used in the Clipperton Island case, the French expedition satisfied the requirement of effective occupation required by international law for such territory. On the other hand, it is to be noted that this assertion of sovereignty did not go unchallenged. China claimed earlier sovereignty. Japan, on the other hand, claimed solemn occupation of the territory by Japanese subjects with the authorization of the Imperial Government. H either claim of sovereignty were valid, France, and therefore, Viet-Nam would be in the same position as Mexico in the Clipperton Island case. 6. Japan's title at some time would hinge upon a demonstration of its actual occupation of the islands with the intention of establishing Japanese sovereignty.

7. If indeed title to the territory were located in Japan at some point of time, the territory in dispute became territorium nullius (territorium nullius is territory over which there exists no effective sovereignty and which is therefore, subject to acquisition by occupation) at the time that Japan lost or relinquished title to the territory. 8. While chronologically the Philippines is the latest of the active claimants which base their claim upon occupation, it appears to be the first to make an assertion of title after Japan's renunciation to title. It is true that no state can be compelled to assume responsibility for sovereignty over territory claimed by a subject or national, but here all manifestations show an active interest in acquiring ownership and sovereignty. 9. None of the parties claiming title can satisfy the requirements of acquisition by prescription. 10. The critical date or the date on which the issues between the parties were crystallized was May 15, 1956 when Tomas Cloma issued his proclamation. 11. Malaysia's claim is based upon the right of the coastal state to continental shelf. Obviously, this cannot prevail as against a superior title previously acquired. Legal Grounds for Philippine Claim Examined Presidential Decree No. 1596 cites the following legal grounds as base for the Philippine claim to the Spratly Island Group: (1) the islands are part of the continental margin of the Philippine archipelago; (2) the islands do not belong to any state, and by reason of history, indispensable need and effective occupation, the territory belongs to the Philippines; and (3) claims by other states had lapsed by reason of abandonment and cannot prevail over that of the Philippines on legal, historical and equitable grounds. (a) The Contiguity or Propinquity Theory The first ground invoked by the decree appears to be the old theory that a state is entitled to ownership of territory by virtue of physical adjacency, i.e., the state that is closest to the territory shall have ownership of the same. While this principle had been applied in some instances in the past, it has not at present been looked upon with favour as basis for acquisition of title in international law. (b) Historic title As noted above, the Philippines is the latest among active claimants which base their title upon occupation. Therefore, if the "reason of history" is the equivalent of the legal concept of historic title, the same may not likewise be invoked to support the claim based on occupation. However, the hinterlands theory when re-examined might provide a support for this theory.

(c) Abandonment and occupation Persuasive arguments in favor of the Philippine claim are the related notions of abandonment, territorium nullius and effective occupation. The effects of the Japanese renunciation both in the Treaty of Peace with the Allies in 1951 and the Bilateral Treaty of Peace with the Republic of China add strength to the argument that the territory was territorium nullius. (http://law.upd.edu.ph) Mentioned above are the legal grounds of the Philippines in claiming the KGI. We have also our reservations in the Law of the Sea in 1982, which also serves as our legal bases for our claim on the Spratlys. The KGI is very much closer to the Philippines compared to other countries. The Philippine claim on Sabah has a long historical basis compared to its claim on the Spratlys. A history which I will no longer discuss. The Philippine government has the following grounds for claiming Sabah. These are: 1. The Sultan of Sulu acquired sovereignty over Sabah in 1704 from the Sultan of Brunei and leased Sabah to the British North Borneo Company in 1878 up to 1946 and received an annual payment of $5,000 Malaysian dollars which was increased to $5,300 in 1903. 2. The British North Borneo Company expressly recognized the Sultan of Sulu as a sovereignty in Sabah when it asked the Sultan to execute a deed to confirm the contract of 1878. 3. British sources showed that the British North Borneo Company did not acquire Sabah to the British crown, for, when Spain and Netherlands raised objections to the activities of the British North Borneo Company, the British Foreign Minister explained that the British government assumed no domination or sovereign rights in Borneo which was occupied by the company. 4. The annexation of Sabah by Britain in 1946 was illegal because it had no sovereign right over it and therefore, Britain had no sovereign right to turn-over Sabah to Malaysia in 1963.