Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R No.

187167 August 16, 2011

In (%.(, Con"ress passed Republic Act No. /01. )RA /01.* ' de-arcatin" the -ariti-e baselines of the Philippines as an archipela"ic State. / !his la# follo#ed the fra-in" of the Convention on the !erritorial Sea and the Conti"uous 2one in (%&3 )4NC5 S I*, 1 codif$in", a-on" others, the soverei"n ri"ht of States parties over their 6territorial sea,6 the breadth of #hich, ho#ever, #as left undeter-ined. Atte-pts to fill this void durin" the second round of ne"otiations in 7eneva in (%.0 )4NC5 S II* proved futile. !hus, do-esticall$, RA /01. re-ained unchan"ed for nearl$ five decades, save for le"islation passed in (%.3 )Republic Act No. &11. 8RA &11.9* correctin" t$po"raphical errors and reservin" the dra#in" of baselines around Sabah in North Borneo. In March '00%, Con"ress a-ended RA /01. b$ enactin" RA %&'', the statute no# under scrutin$. !he chan"e #as pro-pted b$ the need to -a:e RA /01. co-pliant #ith the ter-s of the 4nited Nations Convention on the 5a# of the Sea )4NC5 S III*, & #hich the Philippines ratified on '; <ebruar$ (%31. . A-on" others, 4NC5 S III prescribes the #ater= land ratio, len"th, and contour of baselines of archipela"ic States li:e the Philippines ; and sets the deadline for the filin" of application for the e>tended continental shelf.3 Co-pl$in" #ith these re?uire-ents, RA %&'' shortened one baseline, opti-i@ed the location of so-e basepoints around the Philippine archipela"o and classified ad+acent territories, na-el$, the Aala$aan Island 7roup )AI7* and the Scarborou"h Shoal, as 6re"i-es of islands6 #hose islands "enerate their o#n applicable -ariti-e @ones. Petitioners, professors of la#, la# students and a le"islator, in their respective capacities as 6citi@ens, ta>pa$ers or > > > le"islators,6 % as the case -a$ be, assail the constitutionalit$ of RA %&'' on t#o principal "rounds, na-el$B )(* RA %&'' reduces Philippine -ariti-e territor$, and lo"icall$, the reach of the Philippine state,s soverei"n po#er, in violation of Article ( of the (%3; Constitution, (0 e-bod$in" the ter-s of the !reat$ of Paris(( and ancillar$ treaties,(' and )'* RA %&'' opens the countr$,s #aters land#ard of the baselines to -ariti-e passa"e b$ all vessels and aircrafts, under-inin" Philippine soverei"nt$ and national securit$, contravenin" the countr$,s nuclear=free polic$, and da-a"in" -arine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions. (/ In addition, petitioners contend that RA %&'',s treat-ent of the AI7 as 6re"i-e of islands6 not onl$ results in the loss of a lar"e -ariti-e area but also pre+udices the livelihood of subsistence fisher-en.(1 !o buttress their ar"u-ent of territorial di-inution, petitioners faciall$ attac: RA %&'' for #hat it e>cluded and included C its failure to reference either the !reat$ of Paris or Sabah and its use of 4NC5 S III,s fra-e#or: of re"i-e of islands to deter-ine the -ariti-e @ones of the AI7 and the Scarborou"h Shoal. Co--entin" on the petition, respondent officials raised threshold issues ?uestionin" )(* the petition,s co-pliance #ith the case or controvers$ re?uire-ent for +udicial revie# "rounded on petitioners, alle"ed lac: of locus standiand )'* the propriet$ of the #rits of certiorari and prohibition to assail the constitutionalit$ of RA %&''. n the -erits, respondents defended RA %&'' as the countr$,s co-pliance #ith the ter-s of 4NC5 S III, preservin" Philippine territor$ over the AI7 or Scarborou"h Shoal. Respondents add that RA %&'' does not under-ine the countr$,s securit$, environ-ent and econo-ic interests or relin?uish the Philippines, clai- over Sabah.

PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, AKBA AN PART !LIST REP. RISA "ONTI#EROS, PROF. "ARR C. RO$UE, %R., AN& UNI#ERSIT OF T"E P"ILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LA' STU&ENTS, ALIT"EA BARBARA ACAS, #OLTAIRE ALFERES, C(ARINA MA ALTE(, FRANCIS AL#IN ASILO, S"ER L BALOT, RUB AMOR BARRACA, %OSE %A#IER BAUTISTA, ROMINA BERNAR&O, #ALERIE PAGASA BUENA#ENTURA, E&AN MARRI CA)ETE, #ANN ALLEN &ELA CRU(, RENE &ELORINO, PAUL N MA &UMAN, S"ARON ESCOTO, RO&RIGO FA%AR&O III, GIRLIE FERRER, RAOULLE OSEN FERRER, CARLA REGINA GREPO, ANNA MARIE CECILIA GO, IRIS" KA KALA', MAR ANN %O LEE, MARIA LUISA MANALA SA , MIGUEL RAFAEL MUSNGI, MIC"AEL OCAMPO, %AKL N "ANNA PINE&A, 'ILLIAM RAGAMAT, MARICAR RAMOS, ENRIK FORT RE#ILLAS, %AMES MARK TERR RI&ON, %O"ANN FRANT( RI#ERA I#, C"RISTIAN RI#ERO, &IANNE MARIE ROA, NIC"OLAS SANTI(O, MELISSA C"RISTINA SANTOS, CRISTINE MAE TABING, #ANESSA ANNE TORNO, MARIA ESTER #ANGUAR&IA, *+, MARCELINO #ELOSO III, Petitioners, vs. "ON. E&UAR&O ERMITA, IN "IS CAPACIT AS E-ECUTI#E SECRETAR , "ON. ALBERTO ROMULO, IN "IS CAPACIT AS SECRETAR OF T"E &EPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, "ON. ROLAN&O AN&A A, IN "IS CAPACIT AS SECRETAR OF T"E &EPARTMENT OF BU&GET AN& MANAGEMENT, "ON. &ION #ENTURA, IN "IS CAPACIT AS A&MINISTRATOR OF T"E NATIONAL MAPPING . RESOURCE INFORMATION AUT"ORIT , *+, "ON. "ILARIO &A#I&E, %R., IN "IS CAPACIT AS REPRESENTATI#E OF T"E PERMANENT MISSION OF T"E REPUBLIC OF T"E P"ILIPPINES TO T"E UNITE& NATIONS,Respondents. DECISI CARPIO, J.: T/0 C*s0 !his ori"inal action for the #rits of certiorari and prohibition assails the constitutionalit$ of Republic Act No. %&'' ()RA %&''* ad+ustin" the countr$,s archipela"ic baselines and classif$in" the baseline re"i-e of nearb$ territories. T/0 A+t010,0+ts N

Respondents also ?uestion the nor-ative force, under international la#, of petitioners, assertion that #hat Spain ceded to the 4nited States under the !reat$ of Paris #ere the islands and all the waters found #ithin the boundaries of the rectan"ular area dra#n under the !reat$ of Paris. De left unacted petitioners, pra$er for an in+unctive #rit. T/0 Issu0s !he petition raises the follo#in" issuesB (. Preli-inaril$ C (. Dhether petitioners possess locus standi to brin" this suitE and '. Dhether the #rits of certiorari and prohibition are the proper re-edies to assail the constitutionalit$ of RA %&''. '. n the -erits, #hether RA %&'' is unconstitutional.

In pra$in" for the dis-issal of the petition on preli-inar$ "rounds, respondents see: a strict observance of the offices of the #rits of certiorari and prohibition, notin" that the #rits cannot issue absent an$ sho#in" of "rave abuse of discretion in the e>ercise of +udicial, ?uasi=+udicial or -inisterial po#ers on the part of respondents and resultin" pre+udice on the part of petitioners. (3 Respondents, sub-ission holds true in ordinar$ civil proceedin"s. Dhen this Court e>ercises its constitutional po#er of +udicial revie#, ho#ever, #e have, b$ tradition, vie#ed the #rits of certiorari and prohibition as proper re-edial vehicles to test the constitutionalit$ of statutes, (% and indeed, of acts of other branches of "overn-ent.'0Issues of constitutional i-port are so-eti-es crafted out of statutes #hich, #hile havin" no bearin" on the personal interests of the petitioners, carr$ such relevance in the life of this nation that the Court inevitabl$ finds itself constrained to ta:e co"ni@ance of the case and pass upon the issues raised, non=co-pliance #ith the letter of procedural rules not#ithstandin". !he statute sou"ht to be revie#ed here is one such la#. RA "#$$ is RA "#$$ is to 'e arcate )ariti e *ones Shelf &nder &%CLOS 'elineate Philippine Territor! %ot a &nconstitutional Statutor! Tool the Countr!(s and Continental III+ not to

T/0 Ru23+g o4 t/0 Cou5t n the threshold issues, #e hold that )(* petitioners possess locus standi to brin" this suit as citi@ens and )'* the #rits of certiorari and prohibition are proper re-edies to test the constitutionalit$ of RA %&''. n the -erits, #e find no basis to declare RA %&'' unconstitutional. On Petitioners Standi as Citizens the Threshold Possess Issues Locus Petitioners sub-it that RA %&'' 6dis-e-bers a lar"e portion of the national territor$6'( because it discards the pre=4NC5 S III de-arcation of Philippine territor$ under the !reat$ of Paris and related treaties, successivel$ encoded in the definition of national territor$ under the (%/&, (%;/ and (%3; Constitutions. Petitioners theori@e that this constitutional definition tru-ps an$ treat$ or statutor$ provision den$in" the Philippines soverei"n control over #aters, be$ond the territorial sea reco"ni@ed at the ti-e of the !reat$ of Paris, that Spain supposedl$ ceded to the 4nited States. Petitioners ar"ue that fro- the !reat$ of Paris, technical description, Philippine soverei"nt$ over territorial #aters e>tends hundreds of nautical -iles around the Philippine archipela"o, e-bracin" the rectan"ular area delineated in the !reat$ of Paris. '' Petitioners, theor$ fails to persuade us. 4NC5 S III has nothin" to do #ith the ac?uisition )or loss* of territor$. It is a -ultilateral treat$ re"ulatin", a-on" others, sea=use ri"hts over -ariti-e @ones ) i.e., the territorial #aters 8(' nautical -iles fro- the baselines9, conti"uous @one 8'1 nautical -iles fro- the baselines9, e>clusive econo-ic @one 8'00 nautical -iles fro- the baselines9*, and continental shelves that 4NC5 S III deli-its. '/ 4NC5 S III #as the cul-ination of decades= lon" ne"otiations a-on" 4nited Nations -e-bers to codif$ nor-s re"ulatin" the conduct of States in the #orld,s oceans and sub-arine areas, reco"ni@in" coastal and archipela"ic States, "raduated authorit$ over a li-ited span of #aters and sub-arine lands alon" their coasts.

Petitioners the-selves under-ine their assertion of locus standi as le"islators and ta>pa$ers because the petition alle"es neither infrin"e-ent of le"islative prero"ative (& nor -isuse of public funds,(. occasioned b$ the passa"e and i-ple-entation of RA %&''. Nonetheless, #e reco"ni@e petitioners, locus standi as citi@ens #ith constitutionall$ sufficient interest in the resolution of the -erits of the case #hich undoubtedl$ raises issues of national si"nificance necessitatin" ur"ent resolution. Indeed, o#in" to the peculiar nature of RA %&'', it is understandabl$ difficult to find other liti"ants possessin" 6a -ore direct and specific interest6 to brin" the suit, thus satisf$in" one of the re?uire-ents for "rantin" citi@enship standin".(; The Writs of Are Proper the Constitutionalit! of Statutes Certiorari Re edies and to Prohibition Test

n the other hand, baselines la#s such as RA %&'' are enacted b$ 4NC5 S III States parties to -ar:=out specific basepoints alon" their coasts fro- #hich baselines are dra#n, either strai"ht or contoured, to serve as "eo"raphic startin" points to -easure the breadth of the -ariti-e @ones and continental shelf. Article 13 of 4NC5 S III on archipela"ic States li:e ours could not be an$ clearerB Article 13. Measurement of the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf . C !he breadth of the territorial sea, the conti"uous @one, the e>clusive econo-ic @one and the continental shelf s/*22 60 70*su50, 45o7 *51/3802*g31 6*s023+0s dra#n in accordance #ith article 1;. )E-phasis supplied* !hus, baselines la#s are nothin" but statutor$ -echanis-s for 4NC5 S III States parties to deli-it #ith precision the e>tent of their -ariti-e @ones and continental shelves. In turn, this "ives notice to the rest of the international co--unit$ of the scope of the -ariti-e space and sub-arine areas #ithin #hich States parties e>ercise treat$=based ri"hts, na-el$, the e>ercise of soverei"nt$ over territorial #aters )Article '*, the +urisdiction to enforce custo-s, fiscal, i--i"ration, and sanitation la#s in the conti"uous @one )Article //*, and the ri"ht to e>ploit the livin" and non=livin" resources in the e>clusive econo-ic @one )Article &.* and continental shelf )Article ;;*. Even under petitioners, theor$ that the Philippine territor$ e-braces the islands and all the waters #ithin the rectan"ular area deli-ited in the !reat$ of Paris, the baselines of the Philippines #ould still have to be dra#n in accordance #ith RA %&'' because this is the onl$ #a$ to dra# the baselines in confor-it$ #ith 4NC5 S III. !he baselines cannot be dra#n fro- the boundaries or other portions of the rectan"ular area delineated in the !reat$ of Paris, but fro- the 6outer-ost islands and dr$in" reefs of the archipela"o.6 '1 4NC5 S III and its ancillar$ baselines la#s pla$ no role in the ac?uisition, enlar"e-ent or, as petitioners clai-, di-inution of territor$. 4nder traditional international la# t$polo"$, States ac?uire )or conversel$, lose* territor$ throu"h occupation, accretion, cession and prescription,'& not b$ e>ecutin" -ultilateral treaties on the re"ulations of sea=use ri"hts or enactin" statutes to co-pl$ #ith the treat$,s ter-s to deli-it -ariti-e @ones and continental shelves. !erritorial clai-s to land features are outside 4NC5 S III, and are instead "overned b$ the rules on "eneral international la#. '. 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 sub-it that RA %&'',s use of 4NC5 S III,s re"i-e of islands fra-e#or: to dra# the baselines, and to -easure the breadth of the applicable -ariti-e @ones of the AI7, 6#ea:ens our territorial clai-6 over that area. '; Petitioners add that the AI7,s )and

Scarborou"h Shoal,s* e>clusion fro- the Philippine archipela"ic baselines results in the loss of 6about (&,000 s?uare nautical -iles of territorial #aters,6 pre+udicin" the livelihood of subsistence fisher-en.'3 A co-parison of the confi"uration of the baselines dra#n under RA /01. and RA %&'' and the e>tent of -ariti-e space enco-passed b$ each la#, coupled #ith a readin" of the te>t of RA %&'' and its con"ressional deliberations, vis-vis the Philippines, obli"ations under 4NC5 S III, belie this vie#. 1avvphi1 !he confi"uration of the baselines dra#n under RA /01. and RA %&'' sho#s that RA %&'' -erel$ follo#ed the basepoints -apped b$ RA /01., save for at least nine basepoints that RA %&'' s:ipped to opti-i@e the location of basepoints and ad+ust the len"th of one baseline )and thus co-pl$ #ith 4NC5 S III,s li-itation on the -a>i-u- len"th of baselines*. 4nder RA /01., as under RA %&'', the AI7 and the Scarborou"h Shoal lie outside of the baselines dra#n around the Philippine archipela"o. !his undeniable carto"raphic fact ta:es the #ind out of petitioners, ar"u-ent brandin" RA %&'' as a statutor$ renunciation of the Philippines, clai- over the AI7, assu-in" that baselines are relevant for this purpose. Petitioners, assertion of loss of 6about (&,000 s?uare nautical -iles of territorial #aters6 under RA %&'' is si-ilarl$ unfounded both in fact and la#. n the contrar$, RA %&'', b$ opti-i@in" the location of basepoints, increased the Philippines, total -ariti-e space )coverin" its internal #aters, territorial sea and e>clusive econo-ic @one* b$ (1&,'(. s?uare nautical -iles, as sho#n in the table belo#B '%

E>tent of -ariti-e area usin" RA /01., as a-ended, ta:in" into account the !reat$ of Paris, deli-itation )in s?uare nautical -iles* Internal archipela"ic #aters !erritorial Sea E>clusive Econo-ic 2one TOTAL 990,::9 or (..,3&3 ';1,(/.

E>tent of -ariti-e area usin" RA %&'', ta:in" into account 4NC5 S III )in s?uare nautical -iles*

(;(,1/& /',(0. /3',..% ;86,210

!hus, as the -ap belo# sho#s, the reach of the e>clusive econo-ic @one dra#n under RA %&'' even e>tends #a$ be$ond the #aters covered b$ the rectan"ular de-arcation under

the !reat$ of Paris. f course, #here there are overlappin" e>clusive econo-ic @ones of opposite or ad+acent States, there #ill have to be a delineation of -ariti-e boundaries in accordance #ith 4NC5 S III./0

<urther, petitioners, ar"u-ent that the AI7 no# lies outside Philippine territor$ because the baselines that RA %&'' dra#s do not enclose the AI7 is ne"ated b$ RA %&'' itself. Section ' of the la# co--its to te>t the Philippines, continued clai- of soverei"nt$ and +urisdiction over the AI7 and the Scarborou"h ShoalB SEC. '. !he baselines in the follo#in" areas o<05 =/31/ t/0 P/323883+0s 23>0=3s0 0?0513s0s so<0503g+t@ *+, Au53s,31t3o+ shall be deter-ined as 6Re"i-e of Islands6 under the Republic of the Philippines consistent #ith Article ('( of the 4nited Nations Convention on the 5a# of the Sea )4NC5 S*B a* !he Aala$aan Island 7roup as constituted under Presidential Decree No. (&%. and b* Ba+o de Masinloc, also :no#n as Scarborou"h Shoal. )E-phasis supplied* Fad Con"ress in RA %&'' enclosed the AI7 and the Scarborou"h Shoal as part of the Philippine archipela"o, adverse le"al effects #ould have ensued. !he Philippines #ould have co--itted a breach of t#o provisions of 4NC5 S III. <irst, Article 1; )/* of 4NC5 S III re?uires that 68t9he dra#in" of such baselines shall not depart to an$ appreciable e>tent fro- the "eneral confi"uration of the archipela"o.6 Second, Article 1; )'* of 4NC5 S III re?uires that 6the len"th of the baselines shall not e>ceed (00 nautical -iles,6 save for three per cent )/G* of the total nu-ber of baselines #hich can reach up to ('& nautical -iles./( Althou"h the Philippines has consistentl$ clai-ed soverei"nt$ over the AI7 /' and the Scarborou"h Shoal for several decades, these outl$in" areas are located at an appreciable distance fro- the nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipela"o, // such that an$ strai"ht baseline loped around the- fro- the nearest basepoint #ill inevitabl$ 6depart to an appreciable e>tent fro- the "eneral confi"uration of the archipela"o.6 !he principal sponsor of RA %&'' in the Senate, Senator Miria- Defensor=Santia"o, too: pains to e-phasi@e the fore"oin" durin" the Senate deliberationsB Dhat #e call the Aala$aan Island 7roup or #hat the rest of the #orld call89 the Spratl$s and the Scarborou"h Shoal are outside our archipela"ic baseline because 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. $ahil mala!o ang "carborough "hoal, hindi natin masasabing malapit sila sa atin although we are still allowed b! international law to claim them as our own. !his is called contested islands outside our confi"uration. De see that our archipela"o is defined b$ the oran"e line #hich 8#e9 call89 archipela"ic baseline. N"a$on, tin"nan nin$o an" -aliit na circle doon sa itaas, that is Scarborou"h Shoal, iton" -ala:in" circle sa

ibaba, that is Aala$aan 7roup or the Spratl$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./1 )E-phasis supplied* Si-ilarl$, the len"th of one baseline that RA /01. dre# e>ceeded 4NC5 S III,s li-its.1avvphi1 !he need to shorten this baseline, and in addition, to opti-i@e the location of basepoints usin" current -aps, beca-e i-perative as discussed b$ respondentsB 8!9he a-end-ent of the baselines la# #as necessar$ to enable the Philippines to dra# the outer li-its of its -ariti-e @ones includin" the e>tended continental shelf in the -anner provided b$ Article 1; of 84NC5 S III9. As defined b$ R.A. /01., as a-ended b$ R.A. &11., the baselines suffer fro- so-e technical deficiencies, to #itB (. !he len"th of the baseline across Moro 7ulf )fro- Middle of / Roc: A#ash to !on"?uil Point* is (10.0. nautical -iles > > >. !his e>ceeds the -a>i-u- len"th allo#ed under Article 1;)'* of the 84NC5 S III9, #hich states that 6!he len"th of such baselines shall not e>ceed (00 nautical -iles, e>cept that up to / per cent of the total nu-ber of baselines enclosin" an$ archipela"o -a$ e>ceed that len"th, up to a -a>i-u- len"th of ('& nautical -iles.6 '. !he selection of basepoints is not opti-al. At least % basepoints can be s:ipped or deleted fro- the baselines s$ste-. !his #ill enclose an additional ',(%& nautical -iles of #ater. /. <inall$, the basepoints #ere dra#n fro- -aps e>istin" in (%.3, and not established b$ "eodetic surve$ -ethods. Accordin"l$, so-e of the points, particularl$ alon" the #est coasts of 5u@on do#n to Pala#an #ere later found to be located either inland or on #ater, not on lo#=#ater line and dr$in" reefs as prescribed b$ Article 1;./& Fence, far fro- surrenderin" the Philippines, clai- over the AI7 and the Scarborou"h Shoal, Con"ress, decision to classif$ the AI7 and the Scarborou"h Shoal as 6HRe"i-e8s9 of Islands, under the Republic of the Philippines consistent #ith Article ('(6 /. of 4NC5 S III -anifests the Philippine State,s responsible observance of its pacta sunt servanda obli"ation under 4NC5 S III. 4nder Article ('( of 4NC5 S III, an$ 6naturall$ for-ed area of land, surrounded b$ #ater, #hich is above #ater at hi"h tide,6 such as portions of the AI7, ?ualifies under the cate"or$ of 6re"i-e of islands,6 #hose islands "enerate their o#n applicable -ariti-e @ones./; Statutor! RA #334 Retained Clai O2er Sabah under

Petitioners, ar"u-ent for the invalidit$ of RA %&'' for its failure to te>tuali@e the Philippines, clai- over Sabah in North Borneo is also untenable. Section ' of RA &11., #hich RA %&'' did not repeal, :eeps open the door for dra#in" the baselines of SabahB Section '. !he definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipela"o as provided in this Act3s =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 supplied* &%CLOS III and Inco patible -ith 'elineation of Internal Waters RA the "#$$ not Constitution(s

As their final ar"u-ent a"ainst the validit$ of RA %&'', petitioners contend that the la# unconstitutionall$ 6converts6 internal #aters into archipela"ic #aters, hence sub+ectin" these #aters to the ri"ht of innocent and sea lanes passa"e under 4NC5 S III, includin" overfli"ht. Petitioners e>trapolate that these passa"e ri"hts indubitabl$ e>pose Philippine internal #aters to nuclear and -ariti-e pollution ha@ards, in violation of the Constitution./3 Dhether referred to as Philippine 6internal #aters6 under Article I of the Constitution /% or as 6archipela"ic #aters6 under 4NC5 S III )Article 1% 8(9*, the Philippines e>ercises soverei"nt$ over the bod$ of #ater l$in" land#ard of the baselines, includin" the air space over it and the sub-arine areas underneath. 4NC5 S III affir-s thisB Article 1%. 'egal status of archipelagic waters, of the air space over archipelagic waters and of their bed and subsoil. C (. !he 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 dra#n in accordance #ith article 1;, described as archipela"ic #aters, re"ardless 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+. >>>> 1. !he re"i-e of archipela"ic sea lanes passa"e established in this Part s/*22 +ot 3+ ot/05 50s801ts *4401t t/0 st*tus o4 t/0 *51/3802*g31 =*t05s, includin" 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 supplied*

!he fact of soverei"nt$, ho#ever, does not preclude the operation of -unicipal and international la# nor-s sub+ectin" the territorial sea or archipela"ic #aters to necessar$, if not -ar"inal, burdens in the interest of -aintainin" uni-peded, e>peditious international navi"ation, consistent #ith the international la# principle of freedo- of navi"ation. !hus, do-esticall$, the political branches of the Philippine "overn-ent, in the co-petent dischar"e of their constitutional po#ers, -a$ pass le"islation desi"natin" routes #ithin the archipela"ic #aters to re"ulate innocent and sea lanes passa"e.10 Indeed, bills dra#in" nautical hi"h#a$s for sea lanes passa"e are no# pendin" in Con"ress.1( In the absence of -unicipal le"islation, international la# nor-s, no# codified in 4NC5 S III, operate to "rant innocent passa"e ri"hts over the territorial sea or archipela"ic #aters, sub+ect to the treat$,s li-itations and conditions for their e>ercise. 1' Si"nificantl$, the ri"ht of innocent passa"e is a custo-ar$ international la#, 1/ thus auto-aticall$ incorporated in the corpus of Philippine la#. 11 No -odern State can validl$ invo:e its soverei"nt$ to absolutel$ forbid innocent passa"e that is e>ercised in accordance #ith custo-ar$ international la# #ithout ris:in" retaliator$ -easures fro- the international co--unit$. !he fact that for archipela"ic States, their archipela"ic #aters are sub+ect to both the ri"ht of innocent passa"e and sea lanes passa"e 1& does not place the- in lesser footin" vis-vis continental coastal States #hich are sub+ect, in their territorial sea, to the ri"ht of innocent passa"e and the ri"ht of transit passa"e throu"h international straits. !he i-position of these passa"e ri"hts throu"h archipela"ic #aters under 4NC5 S III #as a concession b$ archipela"ic States, in e>chan"e for their ri"ht to clai- all the #aters land#ard of their baselines, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast , as archipela"ic #aters sub+ect to their territorial sovereignt!. More i-portantl$, the reco"nition of archipela"ic States, archipela"o and the #aters enclosed b$ their baselines as one cohesive entit$ prevents the treat-ent of their islands as separate islands under 4NC5 S III.1. Separate islands "enerate their o#n -ariti-e @ones, placin" the #aters bet#een islands separated b$ -ore than '1 nautical -iles be$ond the States, territorial soverei"nt$, sub+ectin" these #aters to the ri"hts of other States under 4NC5 S III. 1; Petitioners, invocation of non=e>ecutor$ constitutional provisions in Article II )Declaration of Principles and State Policies* 13 -ust also fail. ur present state of +urisprudence considers the provisions in Article II as -ere le"islative "uides, #hich, absent enablin" le"islation, 6do not e-bod$ +udiciall$ enforceable constitutional ri"hts > > >.6 1% Article II provisions serve as "uides in for-ulatin" and interpretin" i-ple-entin" le"islation, as #ell as in interpretin" e>ecutor$ provisions of the Constitution. Althou"h (posa v. )actoran&0 treated the ri"ht to a healthful and balanced ecolo"$ under Section (. of Article II as an e>ception, the present petition lac:s factual basis to substantiate the clai-ed constitutional violation. !he other provisions petitioners cite, relatin" to the protection of -arine #ealth )Article III, Section ', para"raph ' &( * and subsistence fisher-en )Article IIII, Section ;&' *, are not violated b$ RA %&''. In fact, the de-arcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to deli-it its e>clusive econo-ic @one, reservin" solel$ to the Philippines the e>ploitation of all livin" and non=

livin" resources #ithin such @one. Such a -ariti-e delineation binds the international co--unit$ since the delineation is in strict observance of 4NC5 S III. If the -ariti-e delineation is contrar$ to 4NC5 S III, the international co--unit$ #ill of course re+ect it and #ill refuse to be bound b$ it. 4NC5 S III favors States #ith a lon" coastline li:e the Philippines. 4NC5 S III creates a sui generis -ariti-e space C the e>clusive econo-ic @one C in #aters previousl$ part of the hi"h seas. 4NC5 S III "rants ne# ri"hts to coastal States to e>clusivel$ e>ploit the resources found #ithin this @one up to '00 nautical -iles. &/ 4NC5 S III, ho#ever, preserves the traditional freedo- of navi"ation of other States that attached to this @one be$ond the territorial sea before 4NC5 S III. RA "#$$ and the Philippines( )ariti e *ones

Petitioners hold the vie# that, based on the per-issive te>t of 4NC5 S III, Con"ress #as not bound to pass RA %&''. &1 De have loo:ed at the relevant provision of 4NC5 S III && and #e find petitioners, readin" plausible. Nevertheless, the prero"ative of choosin" this option belon"s to Con"ress, not to this Court. Moreover, the lu>ur$ of choosin" this option co-es at a ver$ steep price. Absent an 4NC5 S III co-pliant baselines la#, an archipela"ic State li:e the Philippines #ill find itself devoid of internationall$ acceptable baselines fro- #here the breadth of its -ariti-e @ones and continental shelf is -easured. !his is recipe for a t#o=fronted disasterB first, it sends an open invitation to the seafarin" po#ers to freel$ enter and e>ploit the resources in the #aters and sub-arine areas around our archipela"oE and second, it #ea:ens the countr$,s case in an$ international dispute over Philippine -ariti-e space. !hese are conse?uences Con"ress #isel$ avoided. !he enact-ent of 4NC5 S III co-pliant baselines la# for the Philippine archipela"o and ad+acent areas, as e-bodied in RA %&'', allo#s an internationall$=reco"ni@ed deli-itation of the breadth of the Philippines, -ariti-e @ones and continental shelf. RA %&'' is therefore a -ost vital step on the part of the Philippines in safe"uardin" its -ariti-e @ones, consistent #ith the Constitution and our national interest. '"EREFORE, #e &ISMISS the petition. S A B RDERED.