You are on page 1of 9

G.R No.

187167

August 16, 2011

PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, AKBAYAN PARTY-LIST REP. RISA ONTI!EROS, PROF. ARRY ". RO#$E, %R., AN& $NI!ERSITY OF T E P ILIPPINES "OLLEGE OF LA' ST$&ENTS, ALIT EA BARBARA A"AS, !OLTAIRE ALFERES, "(ARINA MAY ALTE(, FRAN"IS AL!IN ASILO, S ERYL BALOT, R$BY AMOR BARRA"A, %OSE %A!IER BA$TISTA, ROMINA BERNAR&O, !ALERIE PAGASA B$ENA!ENT$RA, E&AN MARRI "A)ETE, !ANN ALLEN &ELA "R$(, RENE &ELORINO, PA$LYN MAY &$MAN, S ARON ES"OTO, RO&RIGO FA%AR&O III, GIRLIE FERRER, RAO$LLE OSEN FERRER, "ARLA REGINA GREPO, ANNA MARIE "E"ILIA GO, IRIS KAY KALA', MARY ANN %OY LEE, MARIA L$ISA MANALAYSAY, MIG$EL RAFAEL M$SNGI, MI" AEL O"AMPO, %AKLYN ANNA PINE&A, 'ILLIAM RAGAMAT, MARI"AR RAMOS, ENRIK FORT RE!ILLAS, %AMES MARK TERRY RI&ON, %O ANN FRANT( RI!ERA I!, " RISTIAN RI!ERO, &IANNE MARIE ROA, NI" OLAS SANTI(O, MELISSA " RISTINA SANTOS, "RISTINE MAE TABING, !ANESSA ANNE TORNO, MARIA ESTER !ANG$AR&IA, *+, MAR"ELINO !ELOSO III, Petitioners, vs. ON. E&$AR&O ERMITA, IN IS "APA"ITY AS E-E"$TI!E SE"RETARY, ON. ALBERTO ROM$LO, IN IS "APA"ITY AS SE"RETARY OF T E &EPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, ON. ROLAN&O AN&AYA, IN IS "APA"ITY AS SE"RETARY OF T E &EPARTMENT OF B$&GET AN& MANAGEMENT, ON. &IONY !ENT$RA, IN IS "APA"ITY AS A&MINISTRATOR OF T E NATIONAL MAPPING . RESO$R"E INFORMATION A$T ORITY, *+, ON. ILARIO &A!I&E, %R., IN IS "APA"ITY AS REPRESENTATI!E OF T E PERMANENT MISSION OF T E REP$BLI" OF T E P ILIPPINES TO T E $NITE& NATIONS,Respondents. DECISION "ARPIO, J.: T/0 "*s0 This original action for the writs of certiorari and prohibition assails the constit tionalit! of Rep blic "ct No. #$%%&'R" #$%%( ad) sting the co ntr!*s archipelagic baselines and classif!ing the baseline regi+e of nearb! territories. T/0 A+t010,0+ts In &#,&, Congress passed Rep blic "ct No. -./, 'R" -./,( % de+arcating the +ariti+e baselines of the Philippines as an archipelagic State. - This law followed the fra+ing of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contig o s 0one in &#$1 '2NC3OS I(, / codif!ing, a+ong others, the sovereign right of States parties over their 4territorial sea,4 the breadth of which, however, was left ndeter+ined. "tte+pts to fill this void d ring the second ro nd of negotiations in 5eneva in &#,. '2NC3OS II( proved f tile. Th s, do+esticall!, R" -./, re+ained nchanged for nearl! five decades, save for legislation passed in &#,1 'Rep blic "ct No. $//, 6R" $//,7( correcting t!pographical errors and reserving the drawing of baselines aro nd Sabah in North 8orneo. In 9arch %..#, Congress a+ended R" -./, b! enacting R" #$%%, the stat te now nder scr tin!. The change was pro+pted b! the need to +a:e R" -./, co+pliant with the ter+s of the 2nited Nations Convention on the 3aw of the Sea '2NC3OS III(,$ which the Philippines ratified on %; <ebr ar! &#1/., "+ong others, 2NC3OS III prescribes the water=land ratio, length, and conto r of baselines of archipelagic States li:e the Philippines ; and sets the deadline for the filing of application for the e>tended continental shelf.1 Co+pl!ing with these re? ire+ents, R" #$%% shortened one

baseline, opti+i@ed the location of so+e basepoints aro nd the Philippine archipelago and classified ad)acent territories, na+el!, the Aala!aan Island 5ro p 'AI5( and the Scarboro gh Shoal, as 4regi+es of islands4 whose islands generate their own applicable +ariti+e @ones. Petitioners, professors of law, law st dents and a legislator, in their respective capacities as 4citi@ens, ta>pa!ers or > > > legislators,4# as the case +a! be, assail the constit tionalit! of R" #$%% on two principal gro nds, na+el!B '&( R" #$%% red ces Philippine +ariti+e territor!, and logicall!, the reach of the Philippine state*s sovereign power, in violation of "rticle & of the &#1; Constit tion,&. e+bod!ing the ter+s of the Treat! of Paris&& and ancillar! treaties,&% and '%( R" #$%% opens the co ntr!*s waters landward of the baselines to +ariti+e passage b! all vessels and aircrafts, nder+ining Philippine sovereignt! and national sec rit!, contravening the co ntr!*s n clear=free polic!, and da+aging +arine reso rces, in violation of relevant constit tional provisions.&In addition, petitioners contend that R" #$%%*s treat+ent of the AI5 as 4regi+e of islands4 not onl! res lts in the loss of a large +ariti+e area b t also pre) dices the livelihood of s bsistence fisher+en.&/ To b ttress their arg +ent of territorial di+in tion, petitioners faciall! attac: R" #$%% for what it e>cl ded and incl ded C its fail re to reference either the Treat! of Paris or Sabah and its se of 2NC3OS III*s fra+ewor: of regi+e of islands to deter+ine the +ariti+e @ones of the AI5 and the Scarboro gh Shoal. Co++enting on the petition, respondent officials raised threshold iss es ? estioning '&( the petition*s co+pliance with the case or controvers! re? ire+ent for ) dicial review gro nded on petitioners* alleged lac: of locus standiand '%( the propriet! of the writs of certiorari and prohibition to assail the constit tionalit! of R" #$%%. On the +erits, respondents defended R" #$%% as the co ntr!*s co+pliance with the ter+s of 2NC3OS III, preserving Philippine territor! over the AI5 or Scarboro gh Shoal. Respondents add that R" #$%% does not nder+ine the co ntr!*s sec rit!, environ+ent and econo+ic interests or relin? ish the Philippines* clai+ over Sabah. Respondents also ? estion the nor+ative force, nder international law, of petitioners* assertion that what Spain ceded to the 2nited States nder the Treat! of Paris were the islands and all the waters fo nd within the bo ndaries of the rectang lar area drawn nder the Treat! of Paris. De left nacted petitioners* pra!er for an in) nctive writ. T/0 Issu0s The petition raises the following iss esB &. Preli+inaril! C &. Dhether petitioners possess locus standi to bring this s itE and %. Dhether the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper re+edies to assail the constit tionalit! of R" #$%%. %. On the +erits, whether R" #$%% is nconstit tional. T/0 Ru23+g o4 t/0 "ou5t

On the threshold iss es, we hold that '&( petitioners possess locus standi to bring this s it as citi@ens and '%( the writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper re+edies to test the constit tionalit! of R" #$%%. On the +erits, we find no basis to declare R" #$%% nconstit tional. On the Threshold Issues Petitioners Possess Locus Standi as Citizens Petitioners the+selves nder+ine their assertion of locus standi as legislators and ta>pa!ers beca se the petition alleges neither infringe+ent of legislative prerogative &$ nor +is se of p blic f nds,&, occasioned b! the passage and i+ple+entation of R" #$%%. Nonetheless, we recogni@e petitioners* locus standi as citi@ens with constit tionall! s fficient interest in the resol tion of the +erits of the case which ndo btedl! raises iss es of national significance necessitating rgent resol tion. Indeed, owing to the pec liar nat re of R" #$%%, it is nderstandabl! diffic lt to find other litigants possessing 4a +ore direct and specific interest4 to bring the s it, th s satisf!ing one of the re? ire+ents for granting citi@enship standing. &; The Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition Are Proper Re edies to Test the Constitutionalit! of Statutes In pra!ing for the dis+issal of the petition on preli+inar! gro nds, respondents see: a strict observance of the offices of the writs of certiorari and prohibition, noting that the writs cannot iss e absent an! showing of grave ab se of discretion in the e>ercise of ) dicial, ? asi=) dicial or +inisterial powers on the part of respondents and res lting pre) dice on the part of petitioners. &1 Respondents* s b+ission holds tr e in ordinar! civil proceedings. Dhen this Co rt e>ercises its constit tional power of ) dicial review, however, we have, b! tradition, viewed the writs of certiorari and prohibition as proper re+edial vehicles to test the constit tionalit! of stat tes, &# and indeed, of acts of other branches of govern+ent.%.Iss es of constit tional i+port are so+eti+es crafted o t of stat tes which, while having no bearing on the personal interests of the petitioners, carr! s ch relevance in the life of this nation that the Co rt inevitabl! finds itself constrained to ta:e cogni@ance of the case and pass pon the iss es raised, non=co+pliance with the letter of proced ral r les notwithstanding. The stat te so ght to be reviewed here is one s ch law. RA "#$$ is %ot &nconstitutional RA "#$$ is a Statutor! Tool to 'e arcate the Countr!(s )ariti e *ones and Continental Shelf &nder &%CLOS III+ not to 'elineate Philippine Territor! Petitioners s b+it that R" #$%% 4dis+e+bers a large portion of the national territor!4 %& beca se it discards the pre=2NC3OS III de+arcation of Philippine territor! nder the Treat! of Paris and related treaties, s ccessivel! encoded in the definition of national territor! nder the &#-$, &#;- and &#1; Constit tions. Petitioners theori@e that this constit tional definition tr +ps an! treat! or stat tor! provision den!ing the Philippines sovereign control over waters, be!ond the territorial sea recogni@ed at the ti+e of the Treat! of Paris, that Spain s pposedl! ceded to the 2nited States. Petitioners arg e that fro+ the Treat! of Paris* technical description, Philippine sovereignt! over territorial waters e>tends h ndreds of na tical +iles aro nd the Philippine archipelago, e+bracing the rectang lar area delineated in the Treat! of Paris. %%

Petitioners* theor! fails to pers ade s. 2NC3OS III has nothing to do with the ac? isition 'or loss( of territor!. It is a + ltilateral treat! reg lating, a+ong others, sea= se rights over +ariti+e @ones 'i.e., the territorial waters 6&% na tical +iles fro+ the baselines7, contig o s @one 6%/ na tical +iles fro+ the baselines7, e>cl sive econo+ic @one 6%.. na tical +iles fro+ the baselines7(, and continental shelves that 2NC3OS III deli+its.%- 2NC3OS III was the c l+ination of decades=long negotiations a+ong 2nited Nations +e+bers to codif! nor+s reg lating the cond ct of States in the world*s oceans and s b+arine areas, recogni@ing coastal and archipelagic States* grad ated a thorit! over a li+ited span of waters and s b+arine lands along their coasts. On the other hand, baselines laws s ch as R" #$%% are enacted b! 2NC3OS III States parties to +ar:=o t specific basepoints along their coasts fro+ which baselines are drawn, either straight or conto red, to serve as geographic starting points to +eas re the breadth of the +ariti+e @ones and continental shelf. "rticle /1 of 2NC3OS III on archipelagic States li:e o rs co ld not be an! clearerB "rticle /1. Measurement of the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. C The breadth of the territorial sea, the contig o s @one, the e>cl sive econo+ic @one and the continental shelf s/*22 60 70*su50, 45o7 *51/3802*g31 6*s023+0s drawn in accordance with article /;. 'E+phasis s pplied( Th s, baselines laws are nothing b t stat tor! +echanis+s for 2NC3OS III States parties to deli+it with precision the e>tent of their +ariti+e @ones and continental shelves. In t rn, this gives notice to the rest of the international co++ nit! of the scope of the +ariti+e space and s b+arine areas within which States parties e>ercise treat!=based rights, na+el!, the e>ercise of sovereignt! over territorial waters '"rticle %(, the ) risdiction to enforce c sto+s, fiscal, i++igration, and sanitation laws in the contig o s @one '"rticle --(, and the right to e>ploit the living and non=living reso rces in the e>cl sive econo+ic @one '"rticle $,( and continental shelf '"rticle ;;(. Even nder petitioners* theor! that the Philippine territor! e+braces the islands and all the waters within the rectang lar area deli+ited in the Treat! of Paris, the baselines of the Philippines wo ld still have to be drawn in accordance with R" #$%% beca se this is the onl! wa! to draw the baselines in confor+it! with 2NC3OS III. The baselines cannot be drawn fro+ the bo ndaries or other portions of the rectang lar area delineated in the Treat! of Paris, b t fro+ the 4o ter+ost islands and dr!ing reefs of the archipelago.4%/ 2NC3OS III and its ancillar! baselines laws pla! no role in the ac? isition, enlarge+ent or, as petitioners clai+, di+in tion of territor!. 2nder traditional international law t!polog!, States ac? ire 'or conversel!, lose( territor! thro gh occ pation, accretion, cession and prescription, %$ not b! e>ec ting + ltilateral treaties on the reg lations of sea= se rights or enacting stat tes to co+pl! with the treat!*s ter+s to deli+it +ariti+e @ones and continental shelves. Territorial clai+s to land feat res are o tside 2NC3OS III, and are instead governed b! the r les on general international law.%, RA "#$$(s &se of the ,ra e-or. of Re/i e of Islands to 'eter ine the )ariti e *ones of the 0I1 and the Scarborou/h Shoal+ not Inconsistent -ith the Philippines( Clai of So2erei/nt! O2er these Areas

Petitioners ne>t s b+it that R" #$%%*s se of 2NC3OS III*s regi+e of islands fra+ewor: to draw the baselines, and to +eas re the breadth of the applicable +ariti+e @ones of the AI5, 4wea:ens o r territorial clai+4 over that area. %; Petitioners add that the AI5*s 'and Scarboro gh Shoal*s( e>cl sion fro+ the Philippine archipelagic baselines res lts in the loss of 4abo t &$,... s? are na tical +iles of territorial waters,4 pre) dicing the livelihood of s bsistence fisher+en. %1 " co+parison of the config ration of the baselines drawn nder R" -./, and R" #$%% and the e>tent of +ariti+e space enco+passed b! each law, co pled with a reading of the te>t of R" #$%% and its congressional deliberations, vis--vis the Philippines* obligations nder 2NC3OS III, belie this view.
1avvphi1

The config ration of the baselines drawn nder R" -./, and R" #$%% shows that R" #$%% +erel! followed the basepoints +apped b! R" -./,, save for at least nine basepoints that R" #$%% s:ipped to opti+i@e the location of basepoints and ad) st the length of one baseline 'and th s co+pl! with 2NC3OS III*s li+itation on the +a>i+ + length of baselines(. 2nder R" -./,, as nder R" #$%%, the AI5 and the Scarboro gh Shoal lie o tside of the baselines drawn aro nd the Philippine archipelago. This ndeniable cartographic fact ta:es the wind o t of petitioners* arg +ent branding R" #$%% as a stat tor! ren nciation of the Philippines* clai+ over the AI5, ass +ing that baselines are relevant for this p rpose. Petitioners* assertion of loss of 4abo t &$,... s? are na tical +iles of territorial waters4 nder R" #$%% is si+ilarl! nfo nded both in fact and law. On the contrar!, R" #$%%, b! opti+i@ing the location of basepoints, increased the Philippines* total +ariti+e space 'covering its internal waters, territorial sea and e>cl sive econo+ic @one( b! &/$,%&, s? are na tical +iles, as shown in the table belowB%# E>tent of +ariti+e area sing R" -./,, as a+ended, ta:ing into acco nt the Treat! of Paris* deli+itation 'in s? are na tical +iles( Internal or archipelagic waters Territorial Sea E>cl sive Econo+ic 0one TOTAL 990,::9

E>tent of +ariti+e area sing R" #$%%, ta:ing into acco nt 2NC3OS III 'in s? are na tical +iles(

&,,,1$1 %;/,&-,

&;&,/-$ -%,&., -1%,,,# ;86,210

Th s, as the +ap below shows, the reach of the e>cl sive econo+ic @one drawn nder R" #$%% even e>tends wa! be!ond the waters covered b! the rectang lar de+arcation nder the Treat! of Paris. Of co rse, where there are overlapping e>cl sive econo+ic @ones of opposite or ad)acent States, there will have to be a delineation of +ariti+e bo ndaries in accordance with 2NC3OS III. -. < rther, petitioners* arg +ent that the AI5 now lies o tside Philippine territor! beca se the baselines that R" #$%% draws do not enclose the AI5 is negated b! R" #$%% itself. Section % of the law co++its to te>t the Philippines* contin ed clai+ of sovereignt! and ) risdiction over the AI5 and the Scarboro gh ShoalB

SEC. %. The baselines in the following areas o<05 =/31/ t/0 P/323883+0s 23>0=3s0 0?0513s0s so<0503g+t@ *+, Au53s,31t3o+ shall be deter+ined as 4Regi+e of Islands4 nder the Rep blic of the Philippines consistent with "rticle &%& of the 2nited Nations Convention on the 3aw of the Sea '2NC3OS(B a( The Aala!aan Island 5ro p as constit ted nder Presidential Decree No. &$#, and b( 8a)o de 9asinloc, also :nown as Scarboro gh Shoal. 'E+phasis s pplied( Fad Congress in R" #$%% enclosed the AI5 and the Scarboro gh Shoal as part of the Philippine archipelago, adverse legal effects wo ld have ens ed. The Philippines wo ld have co++itted a breach of two provisions of 2NC3OS III. <irst, "rticle /; '-( of 2NC3OS III re? ires that 46t7he drawing of s ch baselines shall not depart to an! appreciable e>tent fro+ the general config ration of the archipelago.4 Second, "rticle /; '%( of 2NC3OS III re? ires that 4the length of the baselines shall not e>ceed &.. na tical +iles,4 save for three per cent '-G( of the total n +ber of baselines which can reach p to &%$ na tical +iles.-& "ltho gh the Philippines has consistentl! clai+ed sovereignt! over the AI5 -% and the Scarboro gh Shoal for several decades, these o tl!ing areas are located at an appreciable distance fro+ the nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipelago, -- s ch that an! straight baseline loped aro nd the+ fro+ the nearest basepoint will inevitabl! 4depart to an appreciable e>tent fro+ the general config ration of the archipelago.4 The principal sponsor of R" #$%% in the Senate, Senator 9iria+ Defensor=Santiago, too: pains to e+phasi@e the foregoing d ring the Senate deliberationsB Dhat we call the Aala!aan Island 5ro p or what the rest of the world call67 the Spratl!s and the Scarboro gh Shoal are o tside o r archipelagic baseline beca se if we put them inside our baselines we might be accused of violating the provision of international law which states: " he drawing of such baseline shall not depart to an! appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago." "o sa loob ng ating baseline, dapat mag#alapit ang mga islands. $ahil mala!o ang "carborough "hoal, hindi natin masasabing malapit sila sa atin although we are still allowed b! international law to claim them as our own. This is called contested islands o tside o r config ration. De see that o r archipelago is defined b! the orange line which 6we7 call67 archipelagic baseline. Nga!on, tingnan nin!o ang +aliit na circle doon sa itaas, that is Scarboro gh Shoal, itong +ala:ing circle sa ibaba, that is Aala!aan 5ro p or the Spratl!s. Mala!o na sila sa ating archipelago #a!a #ung ilihis pa natin ang dating archipelagic baselines para lamang masama itong dalawang circles, hindi na sila mag#alapit at ba#a hindi na tatanggapin ng %nited &ations because of the rule that it should follow the natural configuration of the archipelago.-/ 'E+phasis s pplied( Si+ilarl!, the length of one baseline that R" -./, drew e>ceeded 2NC3OS III*s li+its. The need to shorten this baseline, and in addition, to opti+i@e the location of basepoints sing c rrent +aps, beca+e i+perative as disc ssed b! respondentsB
1avvphi1

6T7he a+end+ent of the baselines law was necessar! to enable the Philippines to draw the o ter li+its of its +ariti+e @ones incl ding the e>tended continental shelf in the +anner provided b! "rticle /; of 62NC3OS III7. "s defined b! R.". -./,, as a+ended b! R.". $//,, the baselines s ffer fro+ so+e technical deficiencies, to witB

&. The length of the baseline across 9oro 5 lf 'fro+ 9iddle of - Roc: "wash to Tong? il Point( is &/..., na tical +iles > > >. This e>ceeds the +a>i+ + length allowed nder "rticle /;'%( of the 62NC3OS III7, which states that 4The length of s ch baselines shall not e>ceed &.. na tical +iles, e>cept that p to - per cent of the total n +ber of baselines enclosing an! archipelago +a! e>ceed that length, p to a +a>i+ + length of &%$ na tical +iles.4 %. The selection of basepoints is not opti+al. "t least # basepoints can be s:ipped or deleted fro+ the baselines s!ste+. This will enclose an additional %,&#$ na tical +iles of water. -. <inall!, the basepoints were drawn fro+ +aps e>isting in &#,1, and not established b! geodetic s rve! +ethods. "ccordingl!, so+e of the points, partic larl! along the west coasts of 3 @on down to Palawan were later fo nd to be located either inland or on water, not on low=water line and dr!ing reefs as prescribed b! "rticle /;. -$ Fence, far fro+ s rrendering the Philippines* clai+ over the AI5 and the Scarboro gh Shoal, Congress* decision to classif! the AI5 and the Scarboro gh Shoal as 4HRegi+e6s7 of Islands* nder the Rep blic of the Philippines consistent with "rticle &%&4 -, of 2NC3OS III +anifests the Philippine State*s responsible observance of its pacta sunt servanda obligation nder 2NC3OS III. 2nder "rticle &%& of 2NC3OS III, an! 4nat rall! for+ed area of land, s rro nded b! water, which is above water at high tide,4 s ch as portions of the AI5, ? alifies nder the categor! of 4regi+e of islands,4 whose islands generate their own applicable +ariti+e @ones. -; Statutor! Clai O2er Sabah under RA #334 Retained Petitioners* arg +ent for the invalidit! of R" #$%% for its fail re to te>t ali@e the Philippines* clai+ over Sabah in North 8orneo is also ntenable. Section % of R" $//,, which R" #$%% did not repeal, :eeps open the door for drawing the baselines of SabahB Section %. The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine "rchipelago as provided in this "ct3s =3t/out 850Au,310 to t/0 ,023+0*t3o+ o4 t/0 6*s023+0s o4 t/0 t0553to53*2 s0* *5ou+, t/0 t0553to5@ o4 S*6*/, s3tu*t0, 3+ No5t/ Bo5+0o, o<05 =/31/ t/0 R08u6231 o4 t/0 P/323883+0s /*s *1Bu350, ,o73+3o+ *+, so<0503g+t@. 'E+phasis s pplied( &%CLOS III and RA "#$$ not Inco patible -ith the Constitution(s 'elineation of Internal Waters "s their final arg +ent against the validit! of R" #$%%, petitioners contend that the law nconstit tionall! 4converts4 internal waters into archipelagic waters, hence s b)ecting these waters to the right of innocent and sea lanes passage nder 2NC3OS III, incl ding overflight. Petitioners e>trapolate that these passage rights ind bitabl! e>pose Philippine internal waters to n clear and +ariti+e poll tion ha@ards, in violation of the Constit tion. -1 Dhether referred to as Philippine 4internal waters4 nder "rticle I of the Constit tion -# or as 4archipelagic waters4 nder 2NC3OS III '"rticle /# 6&7(, the Philippines e>ercises sovereignt! over the bod! of water l!ing landward of the baselines, incl ding the air space over it and the s b+arine areas nderneath. 2NC3OS III affir+s thisB "rticle /#. 'egal status of archipelagic waters, of the air space over archipelagic waters and of their bed and subsoil. C

&. The so<0503g+t@ o4 *+ *51/3802*g31 St*t0 0?t0+,s to t/0 =*t05s 0+12os0, 6@ t/0 *51/3802*g31 6*s023+0s drawn in accordance with article /;, described as archipelagic waters, regardless of their depth or distance fro+ the coast. %. T/3s so<0503g+t@ 0?t0+,s to t/0 *35 s8*10 o<05 t/0 *51/3802*g31 =*t05s, *s =022 *s to t/035 60, *+, su6so32, *+, t/0 50sou510s 1o+t*3+0, t/0503+. >>>> /. The regi+e of archipelagic sea lanes passage established in this Part s/*22 +ot 3+ ot/05 50s801ts *4401t t/0 st*tus o4 t/0 *51/3802*g31 =*t05s, incl ding the sea lanes, o5 t/0 0?0513s0 6@ t/0 *51/3802*g31 St*t0 o4 3ts so<0503g+t@ o<05 su1/ =*t05s *+, t/035 *35 s8*10, 60, *+, su6so32, *+, t/0 50sou510s 1o+t*3+0, t/0503+ . 'E+phasis s pplied( The fact of sovereignt!, however, does not precl de the operation of + nicipal and international law nor+s s b)ecting the territorial sea or archipelagic waters to necessar!, if not +arginal, b rdens in the interest of +aintaining ni+peded, e>peditio s international navigation, consistent with the international law principle of freedo+ of navigation. Th s, do+esticall!, the political branches of the Philippine govern+ent, in the co+petent discharge of their constit tional powers, +a! pass legislation designating ro tes within the archipelagic waters to reg late innocent and sea lanes passage./. Indeed, bills drawing na tical highwa!s for sea lanes passage are now pending in Congress./& In the absence of + nicipal legislation, international law nor+s, now codified in 2NC3OS III, operate to grant innocent passage rights over the territorial sea or archipelagic waters, s b)ect to the treat!*s li+itations and conditions for their e>ercise./% Significantl!, the right of innocent passage is a c sto+ar! international law,/- th s a to+aticall! incorporated in the corp s of Philippine law. // No +odern State can validl! invo:e its sovereignt! to absol tel! forbid innocent passage that is e>ercised in accordance with c sto+ar! international law witho t ris:ing retaliator! +eas res fro+ the international co++ nit!. The fact that for archipelagic States, their archipelagic waters are s b)ect to both the right of innocent passage and sea lanes passage/$ does not place the+ in lesser footing vis-vis continental coastal States which are s b)ect, in their territorial sea, to the right of innocent passage and the right of transit passage thro gh international straits. The i+position of these passage rights thro gh archipelagic waters nder 2NC3OS III was a concession b! archipelagic States, in e>change for their right to clai+ all the waters landward of their baselines, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast, as archipelagic waters s b)ect to their territorial sovereignt!. 9ore i+portantl!, the recognition of archipelagic States* archipelago and the waters enclosed b! their baselines as one cohesive entit! prevents the treat+ent of their islands as separate islands nder 2NC3OS III./, Separate islands generate their own +ariti+e @ones, placing the waters between islands separated b! +ore than %/ na tical +iles be!ond the States* territorial sovereignt!, s b)ecting these waters to the rights of other States nder 2NC3OS III. /; Petitioners* invocation of non=e>ec tor! constit tional provisions in "rticle II 'Declaration of Principles and State Policies(/1 + st also fail. O r present state of ) rispr dence considers the provisions in "rticle II as +ere legislative g ides, which, absent enabling legislation, 4do not e+bod! ) diciall! enforceable constit tional rights > > >.4/# "rticle II provisions serve as g ides in for+ lating and interpreting i+ple+enting legislation, as well as in interpreting e>ec tor! provisions of the Constit tion. "ltho gh (posa v. )actoran$. treated the right to a healthf l and balanced ecolog! nder Section &, of "rticle II as an e>ception, the present petition lac:s fact al basis to s bstantiate the clai+ed constit tional violation. The other provisions petitioners cite, relating to the protection of

+arine wealth '"rticle III, Section %, paragraph %$& ( and s bsistence fisher+en '"rticle IIII, Section ;$% (, are not violated b! R" #$%%. In fact, the de+arcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to deli+it its e>cl sive econo+ic @one, reserving solel! to the Philippines the e>ploitation of all living and non=living reso rces within s ch @one. S ch a +ariti+e delineation binds the international co++ nit! since the delineation is in strict observance of 2NC3OS III. If the +ariti+e delineation is contrar! to 2NC3OS III, the international co++ nit! will of co rse re)ect it and will ref se to be bo nd b! it. 2NC3OS III favors States with a long coastline li:e the Philippines. 2NC3OS III creates a sui generis +ariti+e space C the e>cl sive econo+ic @one C in waters previo sl! part of the high seas. 2NC3OS III grants new rights to coastal States to e>cl sivel! e>ploit the reso rces fo nd within this @one p to %.. na tical +iles.$- 2NC3OS III, however, preserves the traditional freedo+ of navigation of other States that attached to this @one be!ond the territorial sea before 2NC3OS III. RA "#$$ and the Philippines( )ariti e *ones Petitioners hold the view that, based on the per+issive te>t of 2NC3OS III, Congress was not bo nd to pass R" #$%%.$/ De have loo:ed at the relevant provision of 2NC3OS III$$ and we find petitioners* reading pla sible. Nevertheless, the prerogative of choosing this option belongs to Congress, not to this Co rt. 9oreover, the l > r! of choosing this option co+es at a ver! steep price. "bsent an 2NC3OS III co+pliant baselines law, an archipelagic State li:e the Philippines will find itself devoid of internationall! acceptable baselines fro+ where the breadth of its +ariti+e @ones and continental shelf is +eas red. This is recipe for a two=fronted disasterB first, it sends an open invitation to the seafaring powers to freel! enter and e>ploit the reso rces in the waters and s b+arine areas aro nd o r archipelagoE and second, it wea:ens the co ntr!*s case in an! international disp te over Philippine +ariti+e space. These are conse? ences Congress wisel! avoided. The enact+ent of 2NC3OS III co+pliant baselines law for the Philippine archipelago and ad)acent areas, as e+bodied in R" #$%%, allows an internationall!=recogni@ed deli+itation of the breadth of the Philippines* +ariti+e @ones and continental shelf. R" #$%% is therefore a +ost vital step on the part of the Philippines in safeg arding its +ariti+e @ones, consistent with the Constit tion and o r national interest. ' EREFORE, we &ISMISS the petition. SO ORDERED. ANTONIO T. "ARPIO "ssociate J stice DE CONC2RB

You might also like