(1) A bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in order to

implement faithfully the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS) to which the Philippines is a signatory. Congressman Pat
Rio Tek questioned the constitutionality of the bill on the ground that the
provisions of UN CLOS are violative of the provisions of the Constitution defining
the Philippine internal waters and territorial sea. Do you agree or not with the
said objection?
Explain. (3%)
(2) Describe the following maritime regimes under UNCLOS (4%)
(a) Territorial sea
(b) Contiguous zone
(c) Exclusive economic zone
( d) Continental shelf

ANSWER:

(1) I do not agree.

“The UNCLOS is a product of international negotiation that seeks to balance

State sovereignity (mare clausum) and the p[rinciple of freedom of the high seas
(mare liberum) . The freedom to use the world’s marine waters is one of the
oldest customary principles of international law. The UNCLOS gives to the
coastal State sovereign rights in varying degrees over the different zones of the
sea which are: 1) internal waters, 2) territorial sea, 3) contiguous zone, 4)
exclusive economic zone, and 5) the high seas. It also gives coastal States more
or less jurisdiction over foreign vessels depending on where the vessel is
located. Insofar as the internal waters and territorial sea is concerned, the
Coastal State exercises sovereignty, subject to the UNCLOS and other rules of
international law. Such sovereignty extends to the air space over the territorial
sea as well as t=o its bed and subsoil.” (Arigo v. Swift, G.R. No. 206510,
September 16, 2014)

UNCLOS III does not define the internal and territorial waters of states but merely
“prescribes the water-land ration, length and contour of n=baselines of
archipelagic States like the Philippines.”

“UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory,” It is a
multilateral treaty regulating, among others, sea-use rights over maritime zones
(i.e., the territorial waters [12 nautical miles from the baselines], exclusive
economic zone [200 nautical miles from the baselines]), and continental shelves
that UNCLOS III delimits.”

“UNCLOS III ans its ancillary baselines laws play no role in the acquisition,
enlargement or, as petitioners claim, diminution of territory. Under traditional
international law typology, States acquire (or conversely, lose) territory through
occupation, accretion, cession and 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.” (Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167,
August 16, 2011, 655 SCRA 476)

(2) Under the provisions of UNCLOS III-

(a) The territorial waters of an archipelagic state shall extend up to 12 nautical

miles from its baselines;

(b) Its contiguous zone shall extend up to 24 nautical miles from its baselines;
(c) Its exclusive economic zone shall extend up to 200 nautical miles from its
baselines; (Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 20-11, 655 SCRA
476) while

(d) Its continental shelf “comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine
areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of
its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of
200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea
is measured where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up
to that distance.’ (UNCLOS III, Article 77)

(2013) Congress passed Republic Act No. 7711 to comply with the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

In a petition filed with the Supreme Court, Anak Ti Ilocos, an association of

Ilocano professionals, argued that Republic Act No. 7711 discarded the definition
of the Philippine territory under the Treaty of Paris and in related treaties;
excluded the Kalayaan Islands and the Scarborough Shoals from the Philippine
Archipelagic baselines; and converted internal waters into archipelagic waters.

Is the petition meritorious? (6%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the petition is not meritorious. The United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea 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 Philippines= 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 v.
Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, July 16, 2011, 655 SCRA 476).