20

1989 Bar Exam

Archipelagic doctrine provides that if the state is composed of several

islands, those islands are interconnected with each other and is considered
as one state regardless of its breadth and dimension.

Yes, the archipelagic doctrine is embodied under our constitution.

The archipelagic doctrine can be found in the Article 1 of our 1987
Constitution.

The ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE emphasizes the unity of land and

waters by defining an archipelago either as a group of islands surrounded
by waters or a body of waters studded with islands. For this purpose, it
requires that baselines be drawn by connecting the appropriate points of
the "outermost islands to encircle the islands within the archipelago. The
waters on the landward side of the baselines regardless of breadth or
dimensions are merely internal waters.

Yes, the archipelagic doctrine is reflected in the 1987 Constitution.

Article I, Section 1 provides that the national territory of the Philippines
includes the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters
embraced therein; and 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.

VII
2013 Bar Exam
 No, the petition of Anak Ti Ilocos is not meritorious.
In a case decided by the Supreme Court, it was held that the passing
of the law in order to comply with the provision of UNCLOS does not
discarded the definition of our national territory. The law itself provides the
clear delineation of our territory.

In this situation, the passing of the RA 7711 does not discarded the
definition of our territory because we have our reservation when we signed
the UNCLOS.

No, the petition is not meritorious.

UNCLOS has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It

merely regulates sea-use rights over maritime zones, contiguous zones,
exclusive economic zones, and continental shelves which it delimits. The
Kalayaan Islands and the Scarborough Shoals are located at an
appreciable distance from the nearest shoreline of the Philippine
archipelago. A straight baseline loped around them from the nearest
baseline will violate Article 47(3) and Article 47(2) of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea III. Whether the bodies of water lying
landward of the baselines of the Philippines are internal waters or
archipelagic waters, the Philippines retains jurisdiction over them
(Magallona vs. Ermita, 655 SCRA 476).

No, the petition is not meritorious. UNCLOS has nothing to do with

the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a multilateral treaty regulating,
among others, sea-use rights among maritime zones and continental
shelves that UNCLOS III delimits.

The court finds RA No. 7711constitutional and is consistent with the

Philippines’ national interest. Aside from being the vital step in
safeguarding the country’s maritime zones, the law also allows an
internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippines’
maritime zones and continental shelf.

The court also finds that the conversion of internal waters to

archipelagic waters will not risk the Philippines as affirmed in the Article 49
of the UNCLOS III, an archipelagic state has sovereign power that extends
to the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines, regardless of their
depth or distance from the coast.

2004 Bar Exam

Contiguous zone is a zone which extends up to 24 nautical miles

from the territorial sea. The jurisdiction of the coastal state in this zone is
limited only to the prevention of the infringement and the actual
infringement of their custom, sanitary and fishery laws. Whereas, the
Exclusive Economic Zone of the state extends up to 200 nautical miles
from the coastline of a state. The coastal state has the right to exploit all
the natural and marine resources of the zone, to the exclusion of the other
state.

CONTIGUOUS ZONE is a zone contiguous to the territorial sea and

extends up to 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea and over which the
coastal state may exercise control necessary to prevent infringement of its
customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its
territory or territorial sea. (Article 33 of the Convention on the Law of the
Sea.)
The EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE is a zone extending up to 200
nautical miles from the baselines of a state over which the coastal state has
sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and
managing the natural resources, whether living or nonliving, of the waters
superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and subsoil, and with regard
to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone.
(Articles 56 and 57 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.)
 1994 Bar Exam
XI
(1)

No, the agreement between the President and Thai Fishermen is not
valid.

Under the International Law, the right of exploitation of the exclusive

economic zone exclusively belongs to the coastal state.

Here, the agreement between the President and Thai fishermen will
violate the international law. The agreement will give the right to the Thai
fishermen to exploit our economic zone, an area which is reserve to the
Philippine State. Hence, the agreement is not valid.

No. the President cannot authorize the Bureau of Fisheries to enter into a
memorandum of agreement allowing Thai fishermen to fish within the
exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because the Constitution
reserves to Filipino citizens the use and enjoyment of the exclusive
economic zone of the Philippines.

Section 2. Article XII of the Constitution provides: “The State shall

protect the nation's marine part in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea,
and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment to
Filipino citizens."

Section 7, Article XIII of the Constitution provides: "The State shall

protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities,
to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both
inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen through
appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production, and
marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also protect,
develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to
offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion.
Fish workers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of
marine and fishing resources.

1996 Bar
VIII

No, the law is invalid.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court it provides that, the creation

of regions creating an independent state is unconstitutional. It contradicts
the provision of the Constitution that only administrative regions can be
created pursuant to constitution.

Here, the regions created is not one of the administrative regions

mentioned under the Constitution, it is different from the administrative
regions. Hence, the law should be declared invalid.

The law dividing the Philippines into three regions, each constituting
an independent state and vesting in a central government matters of
foreign relations, national defense, and national taxation, is
unconstitutional.

First, it violates Article I, which guarantees the integrity of the national

territory of the Philippines because it divided the Philippines into three
states.
Second, it violates Section 1, Article II of the Constitution, which provides
for the establishment of democratic and republic States by replacing it with
three States organized as a confederation.

Third, it violates Section 22, Article II of the Constitution, which, while

recognizing and promoting the rights of indigenous cultural communities,
provides for national unity and development.

Fourth, it violates Section 15, Article X of the Constitution, which, provides

for autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras within
the framework of national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the
Republic of the Philippines.

Fifth, it violates the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines.

2004 Bar Exam

Territorial sea is a part of the sea which extends up to 12 nautical

miles from the shoreline. It is zone where the state can exercise jurisdiction
because it is still part of its territory. On the other hand, internal waters are
bodies of waters located within the territorial sea of the state or waters that
connects the islands of an archipelagic state.

TERRITORIAL SEA is an adjacent belt of sea with a breadth of 12

nautical miles measured from the baselines of a state and over which the
state has sovereignty. (Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention on the Law of the
Sea.) Ship of all states enjoy the right of innocent passage through the
territorial sea. (Article 14 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.)
 Under Section 1, Article I of the 1987 Constitution, the INTERNAL
WATERS of the Philippines consist of the waters around, between and
connecting the islands of the Philippine Archipelago, regardless of their
breadth and dimensions, including the waters in bays, rivers and lakes. No
right of innocent passage for foreign vessels exists in the case of internal
waters. (Harris, Cases and Materials on International Law, 5th ed., 1998, p.
407.) Internal waters are the waters on the landward side of baselines from
which the breadth of the territorial sea is calculated. (Brownlie, Principles of
Public International Law, 4th ed., 1990, p. 120.)