Republic Act No.

9522
New Baseline Law
of the
Philippines

Prepared by:

Mr Jerry Yrin Deguit Jr

Scope of Presentation

• Background
• Legal Framework/References
• UNCLOS – Definition/Provisions
• Criteria for Choosing the Best Option in Defining the Baselines
• RA 9522 – The New Baselines Law
• Petitions Against the New Baselines Law (RA 9522)
• Conclusion
Background
The Philippines is a signatory the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone (UNCLOS I)

• In 1984, the Philippines ratified UNCLOS III, which, among others, “prescribes the water-land ratio, length,
and contour of baselines of archipelagic States like Philippines. The Establishment of archipelagic baselines
will meet requirements of statehood; fulfill Philippine treaty obligations under UNCLOS and; and clearly
define Philippine maritime zones under UNCLOS including the ECS claim

• Prior to RA 9522, Philippine baselines law (RA 3046 of 1961 as amended by RA 5446) is not compliant
with UNCLOS. So the ccongress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522 which would make RA 3046 “compliant”
with the provisions of UNCLOS III insofar as the determination of water-land ratio, length, and contour of baselines of
our archipelago is concerned.

RA 9522 - Enclosing Main Archipelago and classifying the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and Scarborough
Shoal as “”regime of islands” whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones. This is compliant
to UNCLOS; - signed into law RA 9522 last March 10, 2009.
Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone
(UNCLOS)
- codified, among others, “the sovereign rights of States parties over their territorial sea, the breath of which,
however, was left undetermined“,

- serves as basis for the passage in 1961 by Congress of RA 3046 “demarcating the maritime baselines of the
Philippines as an archipelagic State.

- remained unchanged for nearly five decades, save for legislation passed in 1968 (RA 5446) correcting
typographical errors and reserving the drawing of baselines around Sabah in North Bormeo.

-The Philippines is a signatory of such agreement.

Article 47, UNCLOS III
• archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost points of the
outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago provided that within such baselines are included the
main islands and an area in which the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land, including atolls, is
between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1

• length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, except that up to 3 percent of the total
number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length, up to a maximum length of 125
nautical miles;

• drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration
of the archipelago;

• Such baselines shall not be drawn to and from low-tide elevations, unless lighthouses or similar
installations which are permanently above sea level have been built on them or where a low-tide elevation is
situated wholly or partly at a distance not exceeding the breadth of the territorial sea from the nearest island
Article 47, UNCLOS cont…
• The system of such baselines shall not be applied by an archipelagic State in such a manner as to cut off
from the high seas or the exclusive economic zone the territorial sea of another State;

• If a part of the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State lies between two parts of an immediately
adjacent neighbouring State, existing rights and all other legitimate interests which the latter State has
traditionally exercised in such waters and all rights stipulated by agreement between those States shall
continue and be respected;

• For the purpose of computing the ratio of water to land under paragraph 1, land areas may include waters
lying within the fringing reefs of islands and atolls, including that part of a steep-sided oceanic plateau which
is enclosed or nearly enclosed by a chain of limestone islands and drying reefs lying on the perimeter of the
plateau;

• The baselines drawn in accordance with this article shall be shown on charts of a scale or scales
adequate for ascertaining their position.
Article 121, UNCLOS
• with respect to the “other islands” which do not geographically form an integral part of
the archipelago, Regime of Islands principle allows a different legal treatment for the
purpose of the baselines.

The “regime of islands” as defined by the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea in
Article 121 are islands that are naturally formed areas of land, surrounded by water, which are
above water at high tide. Furthermore, this principle recognizes that each island has its own
territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf.

“Regime of islands” principle forces claimant states to maintain peace in the area, because no one
country can claim exclusive ownership of any of these islands.
The “Extended” Continental Shelf – Article 77
• A coastal state fully enjoys its rights in the juridical continental shelf up to a distance of 200 nm from the
baselines and needs no proclamation.

• In situation wherein the continental margin extends beyond 200 nm, a coastal state must submit a claim
to an “extended” continental shelf with the commission on the limits of the continental shelf (CLCS).

• Failure to make a submission forecloses state’s claim to an “extended” continental shelf, and their
juridical continental shelf of 200 nm would now mark the limits of the international seabed area which is
the “common heritage of mankind”.

• Such delimitation shall be final and perpetually binding.

- Article 77, UNCLOS
Criteria for Choosing the Best Option in Defining the Baselines
• Consistent with UNCLOS and international law
• Upholds national interests
• Acceptable to international community

Option 1
Enclosing Main Archipelago
and Scarborough Shoal; Option 2
Enclosing Main Archipelago only;
KIG as Regime of Islands
• Maximizes area KIG and Scarborough as Regime of
• UNCLOS compliant Islands
• UNCLOS compliant
• Preserves diplomatic relations
Option 3
Enclosing Main Archipelago and KIG;

BEST OPTION Scarborough as Regime of Islands

• Not UNCLOS-compliant Option 4
RA 9522: New Philippine Baselines Law • Violates commitment under the Enclosing Main Archipelago, KIG and Scarborough
ASEAN Declaration of Conduct of Shoal;
• Technical adjustments to baselines/basepoints Parties in the South China Sea in
under RA 3046 (1961) / RA 5446 (1968) • Not UNCLOS compliant
2002 • Violates commitment under ASEAN
• Section 2: Treatment of KIG and Scarborough
Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the
Shoal (Bajo de Masinloc) as “regime of islands”
South China Sea
RA 9522 – The New Baselines Law
- enacted by Philippines as UNCLOS III States parties to mark-out specific basepoints along their
coasts from which baselines are drawn, either straight or contoured, to serve as geographic
starting points to measure the breadth of the maritime zones and continental shelf.

- Baseline laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III States parties to delimit with
precision the extent of their maritime zones and continental shelves. This gives notice to the rest of
the international community of the scope of the maritime space and submarine areas within which
States parties exercise treaty-based rights

- Article 48, UNCLOS III provides that the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive
economic zone and the continental shelf shall be measured from archipelagic baselines drawn in
accordance with Article 47
Petitions Against the New Baselines Law (RA 9522)
(Magalona vs Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011)

Two (2) principal grounds during the petition on the constitutionality of the law:

(1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory,

and logically, the reach of the Philippine state’s sovereign power,
in violation of Article 1, 1987 Constitution, embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties.

(2) RA 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts,
undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security,
contravening the country’s nuclear-free policy,
and damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions.

Petitioner’s contention:

RA 9522’s treatment of the KIG as “regime of islands”

- results in the lost of large maritime area
- prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen
- territorial diminution, RA 9522’s failure to reference either the Treaty of Paris or Sabah and its use of UNCLOS III’s
framework of regime of islands to determine the maritime zones of the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal.
Petitions Against the New Baselines Law (RA 9522)
(Magalona vs Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011)

1st principal grounds:

(1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the reach of the Philippine state’s sovereign power,
in violation of Article 1, 1987 Constitution, embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties.

- SC rejected this ground. 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 and continental shelves that UNCLOS III delimits. UNCLOS III
was the culmination of decades-long negotiations among UN members to codify norms regulating the conduct of States in the
world’s oceans and submarine areas, recognizing coastal and archipelagic States’ graduated authority over a limited span of waters
and submarine lands along their coasts.
UNCLOS III and its ancillary baselines laws play no role in the acquisition, enlargement or diminution of territory. Under
traditional international law typology, States acquire or 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.
Petitions Against the New Baselines Law (RA 9522)
(Magalona vs Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011)

2nd principal grounds:

(2) RA 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts,
undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security, contravening the country’s nuclear-free policy, and damaging
marine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions.

- REJECTED by SC. Archipelagic waters are subject to both the right of innocent passage, sea lanes passage, and the
right of transit passage through international straits. The imposition of these passage rights through archipelagic waters under
UNCLOS III was a concession by archipelagic States, in exchange for their right to claim all the waters landward of their baselines,
regardless of their depth or distance from the coast, as archipelagic waters subject to their territorial sovereignty. More importantly,
the recognition of archipelagic States’ archipelago and the waters enclosed by their baselines as one cohesive entity prevents the
treatment of their islands as separate islands under UNCLOS III.

Significantly, the right of innocent passage is a customary international law, thus automatically incorporated in the corpus of
Philippine law. No modern State can validly invoke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent passage that is exercised in
accordance with customary international law without risking retaliatory measures from the international community.
RA 9522, by optimizing the location of basepoints, increased the Philippines’ total maritime
space (covering its internal waters, territorial sea and exclusive economic zone) by 145,216
square nautical miles, as shown in the table below:

Extent of maritime area using RA 3046, as Extent of maritime area using RA 9522, taking
  amended, taking into account the Treaty of Paris’ into account UNCLOS III (in square nautical
delimitation (in square nautical miles) miles)

Internal or archipelagic
waters 166,858 171,435
Territorial Sea 274,136 32,106
Exclusive Economic Zone   382,669
TOTAL 440,994 586,210
The map shows, the reach of the EEZ drawn
under RA 9522 even extends way beyond the
waters covered by the rectangular demarcation
under the Treaty of Paris.

Of course, where there are overlapping EEZ of

opposite or adjacent States, there will have to be
a delineation of maritime boundaries in
accordance with UNCLOS III.
Conclusion
• UNCLOS III favors States with a long coastline like Philippines. UNCLOS III creates a sui generis maritime space – the exclusive
economic zone – in waters previously part of the high seas. UNCLOS III grants new rights to coastal States to exclusively exploit the
resources found within this zone up to 200 nautical miles. UNCLOS III, however, preserves the traditional freedom of navigation of
other States that attached to this zone beyond the territorial sea before UNCLOS III.

• Absent an UNCLOS III compliant baselines law, an archipelagic State like the Philippines will find itself devoid of internationally
acceptable baselines from where the breadth of its maritime zones and continental shelf is measured. This is recipe for a two-fronted
disaster: first, it sends an open invitation to the seafaring powers to freely enter and exploit the resources in the waters and submarine
areas around our archipelago; and second, it weakens the country’s case in any international dispute over Philippine maritime space.
These are consequences Congress wisely avoided.

• The enactment of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for the Philippine archipelago and adjacent areas, as embodied in RA 9522,
allows an internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippines’ maritime zones and continental shelf. RA 9522 is
therefore a most vital step on the part of the Philippines in safeguarding its maritime zones, consistent with the Constitution and our
national interest.
THAT ENDS MY PRESENTATION

THANK YOU!!!