paper_internationalization of philippine territory.question of boundaries

8/12/2019 Paper_Internationalization of Philippine Territory.question of Boundaries

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paperinternationalization-of-philippine-territoryquestion-of-boundaries 1/48

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF PHILIPPINE TERRITORY:THE QUESTION OF BOUNDARIES

By

M ERLIN M. M AGALLONA

I. A General Vie !" P#ili$$ine Terri%!ry in In%erna%i!nal La

II. B!&n'arie(: Le)al Li*i%( an' F&n+%i!n

III. B!&n'arie( !" P#ili$$ine Ar+#i$ela)! in %#e E,er+i(e !" U.S.S!-erei)n%y

IV. P#ili$$ine S%a%e#!!' an' %#e !n(%i%&%i!nali/a%i!n !"B!&n'arie(

V. In%erna%i!nal Re+!)ni%i!n !" P#ili$$ine Terri%!ry an' I%(B!&n'ary Deli*i%a%i!n

VI. In%erna%i!nali/a%i!n !" P#ili$$ine Terri%!ry: I*$a+% !" %#e UN!n-en%i!n !n %#e La !" %#e Sea

VII. !n+l&'in) S%a%e*en%: Eni)*a( an' ri(e(

1



INTERNATIONALIZATION OF PHILIPPINE TERRITORY:THE QUESTION OF BOUNDARIES

By

Merlin M. Ma)all!na

I. A GENERAL VIE0 OF PHILIPPINE TERRITORY ININTERNATIONAL LA0

1. The formation of the Philippine statehood under general international

law entails the transformative process by which the Philippines Islands,

together with it population and government in its revolutionary stage, at the

juncture of the 19 th and 2 th centuries, assumed independent status about fifty

years later. Ta!ing the legal framewor! of the "ontevideo #onvention of

the mid$twentieth century as the basis, the elements of state formation in

customary international law are formulated as follows%

The &tate as a person of international law should possess thefollowing 'ualifications% (a) a permanent population* (b) a definedterritory* (c) government* and (d) capacity to enter into relations withother &tates. 1

Independence of the state+s government is a central criterion of statehood. 2

Its territory, together with the population, was anne ed by the &panish

#rown under the 1- th century international law of #hristian nations/. The

elements towards the formation of the Philippine statehood were spread

through centuries, the gestation process mar!ed by the revolutionary war of

2



the 0ilipino nation and by the treaty of cession between two major powers,

and finally arriving at the grant of independence under general international

law of the fourth decade of the 2 th century.

2. It is the cession of the Philippine Islands under the treaty of

peace between the nited &tates and &pain, ending the &panish$ merican

3ar, that provides some ground for evaluating the status of Philippine

territory. 3ith respect to the Philippine Islands, the Treaty of Paris of 1

4ecember 1595 reads in rticle III%

&pain cedes to the nited &tates the archipelago !nown as thePhilippine Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within thefollowing lines%

which lines would represent the boundary lines of the Philippine

rchipelago, together with the boundaries set forth in the treaty between the

nited &tates and &pain on 6 7ovember 19 and the treaty between the

nited &tates and 8reat ritain on 2 :anuary 19; .

3ithin the same lines, the Treaty sets forth the technical definition of

the territorial boundaries of the Philippine rchipelago, as follows%

line running from west to east along or near the twentieth parallel of north latitude, and through the middle of the navigable channelof achi, from the one hundred and eighteenth (115 th) to the one hundred

;



and twenty seventh (126 th) degree meridian of longitude east of8reenwich, thence along the one hundred and twenty$seventh (126 th)degree meridian of longitude east of 8reenwich to the parallel of fourdegrees and forty five minutes (<=<>+) north latitude, thence along the

parallel of four degrees and forty five minutes (<=<>+) north latitude to its

intersection with the meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteendegrees and thirty five minutes (119=;>+) east of 8reenwich, thence alongthe meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty fiveminutes (119=;>+) east of 8reenwich to the parallel of latitude sevendegrees and forty (6=< +) north, thence along the parallel of latitude sevendegrees and forty minutes (6=< +) north to its intersection with the onehundred and si teenth (11- th) degree meridian of longitude east of8reenwich, thence by a direct line to the intersection of the tenth (1 th)degree parallel of north latitude with the one hundred and eighteenth(115 th) degree meridian of longitude east of 8reenwich, and thence alongthe one hundred and eighteenth (115 th) degree meridian east of 8reenwich

to the point of beginning.

The Philippine Islands is characteri?ed as an archipelago and thus is

essentially a body of water studded with islands/. ; In addition, by

comprehending the islands/, rticle III therefore contemplates one whole

territorial unit consisting of both islands and waters that later comprised a

state in one geographic and juridical unity.

y technical definition, rticle III of the Treaty of Paris as operative

international law identifies the territorial limits of the Philippines within

which the nited &tates e ercised sovereignty and jurisdiction as confirmed

by &pain* and within which the Philippines as a sovereign &tate was later to

succeed by the title of sovereignty upon recognition by the rest of the

international community.

<



;. The ac'uisition of Philippine Islands by the nited &tates from

&pain by cession may be surveyed from the perspective of general

international law, beginning with the legality of war by which the Philippine

Islands was ceded. t the time, a &tate may resort to war against any other

state without violating international law/ <* rather, in the settlement of

international disputes war was a normal e pression of state sovereignty. s

in the case of the belligerent states in the &panish$ merican 3ar, the state of

war was terminated by the Treaty of Paris. It is a treaty of peace that went

beyond the termination of the state of war* it dealt with the ac'uisition of

territories the validity of which is in accord with general international law at

the time.

<. s in the case of the Philippine Islands, the sphere of

sovereignty of the ntied &tates to which the rchipelago was ceded is

determined by the Treaty of Paris as a source of law* in particular, the

e clusive effectiveness of the sovereign authority of the nited &tates is

defined by the boundaries in the treaty of cession by which legal title was

ac'uired against &pain as the ceding state. s affirmed by @elsen,

>



In case a state confers upon another the right to e ercise permanently allfunctions of a &tate within a part of the former+s territory, including theright to transfer this right to others, we spea! of cession. >

>. It is to be assumed that the territory ceded by &pain under the

Treaty of Paris was by the principle of effectiveness in general international

law, subject to the e ercise of its sovereignty and jurisdiction within the

delimitation of the boundaries of the Philippine Archipelago, as established

in Article III of the said treaty.

t the time, general international law had no provision governing

archipelagos* hence, in supremacy was the particular international law

constituted in the treaty between states bound by the norm of pacta sunt

servanda , such as the Treaty of Paris of 1 4ecember 1595.

-. y the treaty of cession, the rights and obligations of the nited

&tates inherent in the ac'uisition of territory of the Philippine rchipelago

are directly derived from the binding character of the said treaty under

general international law and not by succession from &pain.

-



II. BOUNDARIES: LEGAL STATUS AND FUN TION

The term boundary/ in international law has been defined as a line

which determines the limit of the territorial sphere of jurisdiction of &tates or

other entities having an international status/. - oundaries are described as

permanent lines dividing sphere of de jure jurisdiction./ They are

imaginary lines on the surface of the earth which separate the land or

maritime territory A of one &tate from that of another./ 6

The Philippines, together with the boundaries forming part of its

territory, derives its international status from the fact and the law that it was

the object and purpose of the treaty as a source of law. The validity of the

Treaty of Paris is beyond 'uestion in establishing the rights and duties of the

two great powers at the time, gaining the general ac'uiescence of the

international community in the span of more than a century. Bther than by

treaty or other consensual arrangement, there appears to be no general norm

of international law governing the determination of boundaries.

The cession of the Philippines by the Treaty of Paris with respect to

the determination of boundaries under its rticle III was apparently left to

the inter se relations of the nited &tates and &pain, as dictated by the

results of the &panish$ merican 3ar. 3hile there appears to be no duty

under international law of the 19 th century prescribing as to how boundaries

6



were to be determined in the relevant circumstances, reasonably, there arises

the presumption that &pain+s cession of the Philippine Islands was on the

basis of the scope of its territorial sovereignty at the time, as delimited in

rticle III of the Treaty of Paris and as supplemented by the &pain$ nited

&tates Treaty of 6 7ovember 19 .

s the outer limit of territorial sovereignty, the boundaries serve to

maintain the consistency and stability of the &tate+s territory as an element

of statehood. s delimited by its boundaries the &tate+s jurisdiction is

applied with effectiveness and for the protection of all inhabitants, both

nationals and aliens. nd thus the boundaries of the Philippines as defined

by rticle III of the Treaty of Paris are interconnected with rticle IC which

allows &panish subjects who retained allegiance to the #rown of &pain to

remain in the Philippine Islands with all rights recogni?ed under the Treaty

subject to the jurisdiction in the change of sovereignty* under rticle CI of

the Treaty they shall be subject in matters civil as well as criminal/ to the

jurisdiction of the new sovereign.

In particular the waters of the Philippine rchipelago within the

definition of rticle III of the Treaty appears to be integral to maritime

jurisdiction such as that involved in rticle ID of the Treaty, by which the

5



nited &tates admits &panish ships and merchandise to the ports of the

Philippine Islands on the same terms as ships and merchandise of the nited

&tates/ for ten years from the date of the ratification of the Treaty.

It deserves notice that of all territories ceded or relin'uished by &pain

to the nited &tates under the Treaty of Paris, only the Philippine Islands

appears to be re'uiring technical description in the manner provided by

rticle III of the Treaty.

III. BOUNDARIES OF PHILIPPINE AR HIPELAGO IN THEPRA TI E OF U.S. SOVEREIGNTY

The territorial sovereignty of the nited &tates under the Treaty of

Paris was internali?ed in the :ones Eaw, enacted by the .&. #ongress as the

Philippine utonomy ct of 191-. The enabling clause of this ct reads%e enacted by the &enate and Fouse of Gepresentatives of the

nited &tates in #ongress assembled, That the provisions of this ct andthe name The Philippines/ shall apply to and include the PhilippineIslands ceded to the ntied &tates 8overnment by the treaty of peaceconcluded between the nited &tates and &pain on the eleventh day of

pril, eighteen hundred and nineteen$nine, the boundaries of which are set forth in Article III of said treaty , together with those islands embracedin the treaty between &pain and the nited &tates concluded at3ashington on the seventh of day of 7ovember, nineteen hundred.

0urther, the nited &tates #ongress enacted into law the Tydings$"c$

4uffie ct providing for complete independence/ of the Philippine Islands,

the adoption of its #onstitution as well as the 8overnment of the

9



#ommonwealth of the Philippines Islands, which shall exercise jurisdiction

over all territory ceded to the United States by the treaty of peace concluded

between the United States and Spain on the ! th day of "ecember #$#, the

boundaries of which are set forth in article III of said treaty , together with

those islands embraced in the treaty between &pain and the nited &tates

concluded at 3ashington on the 6 th day of 7ovember 19 A./ 5

n essential feature of the Tydings$"c4uffie ct is the succession

clause in &ection >. This provides%

ll the property and rights which may have been ac'uired in thePhilippine Islands by the nited &tates under the treaties mentioned in thefirst section of this ct, A are hereby granted to the government of the%ommonwealth of the Philippine Islands when constituted. 9

The succession contemplates in the first place rights pertaining to the

principle of sovereignty, the application of which is circumscribed by the

territorial boundaries.

It may be recalled that prior to the :ones Eaw, Public Eaw 7o. 2;> H

or the Philippine ill of 19 2 H was enacted by the .&. #ongress

providing for the creation of the Philippine #ommission to e ercise the

powers of government, to be administered for the benefit of the inhabitants

thereof/. The scope of those powers comprehends those within &ection 12%

1



Jll the property and rights which may have been ac'uired in the

Philippine Islands by the nited &tates under the treaty of peace with &pain,

signed 4ecember tenth, eighteen hundred and ninety$eighteen hundred and

ninety$eight./ This ct declares that those property and rights are hereby

placed under the control of the government of said islands./ The totality of

rights thus contemplates the determination by boundaries of the sphere of

jurisdiction.

In the dministrative #ode of 191- ( ct 7o. 2->6) and as revised by

the dministrative #ode of 1916 ( ct 7o. 2611), the provisions on

sovereignty are in terms of the distribution of powers of government/

within the territorial boundaries as spelled out in the aforesaid treaties.

&ection 1- of the Gevised dministrative #ode of 1916 states%

&erritorial jurisdiction and distribution of powers of Philippine'overnment . K The territory over which the 8overnment of the PhilippineIslands e ercises jurisdiction consists of the entire Philippine

Archipelago and is comprised in the limits defined by treaties between theUnited States and Spain respectively signed in the #ity of Paris on thetenth day of 4ecember, eighteen hundred and ninety$eight and in the #ityof 3ashington on the seventh day of 7ovember nineteen hundred. 1

In 19;2, the Philippine #ommission enacted ct 7o. < ; to amend

and compile the laws relating to fish and other a'uatic resources of the

Philippine Islands/. It occasioned the definition of Philippine waters or

11



territorial waters of the Philippines/* section - of the ct construes this to

mean

all waters pertaining to the Philippine Archipelago as defined in thetreaties between the nited &tates and &pain, dated respectively the tenthof 4ecember, eighteen hundred and ninety$eight, and the seventh of

7ovember, nineteen hundred. 11

The clause aJll waters pertaining to the Philippine rchipelago as defined

in the saidJ treaties/ includes the following%

1. ll waters forming part of the archipelago !nown as thePhilippine Islands.

2. ll waters within the line set forth in rticle III of the Treaty ofParis.

;. ll waters within the jurisdiction of the islands relin'uished by

&pain to the nited &tates under the treaty concluded on 7ovember 6, 19

at 3ashington.

<. ll waters within the boundaries drawn by the treaty concluded by

the nited &tates and 8reat ritain on :anuary 2, 19; , between the

Philippine rchipelago and the &tate of 7orth orneo.

The foregoing considerations should dispel the objection of the

nited &tates 8overnment that the limits set by the Treaty of Paris are

boundary lines. It e pressed the view that they constitute only a delimitation

12



of geographical area within which the land area belongs to the Philippines. 12

In a protest to the 4eclaration which the Philippine 4elegation made when it

signed and ratified the 7#EB&, the nited &tates stated that neither the

treaties nor practice has conferred upon the nited &tates, nor upon the

Gepublic of the Philippines as successor to the nited &tates, greater rights

in the waters surrounding the Philippine Islands than are otherwise

recogni?ed in customary international law./ 1;

IV. STATEHOOD AND THE ONSTITUTIONALIZATION OFBOUNDARIES

The Philippines as a &tate is a territorial unit in the international legal

system* its sovereignty is circumscribed by boundaries in which it possesses

the e clusive right to display the activities of a &tate/. 1< The "ontevideo

#onvention on the Gights and 4uties of &tates mentioned earlier, provides

in rticle I that as a person of international law/, the &tate among other

'ualifications, should possess a defined territory/.

3hile possession of a defined territory is a basic criterion of

statehood, the International #ourt of :ustice has e pressed the view that

there is no rule that the land frontiers of a &tate must be fully delimited and

1;



defined./ 1> Luite apart from this situation, the case of the Philippines has

the benefit of delimitation by boundaries of precise technical description.

The real function of the boundaries as drawn in rticle III of the

Treaty of Paris, together with the supplementary agreements, has been

historically shown by application on the part of the nited &tates and by the

Philippine 8overnment as successor$in$interest. This continuity in

succession assumed some 'ualitative change when towards its independence

the Philippines achieved the constitutionali?ation of the boundaries set forth

in the international agreements. It deserves emphasis that this fundamental

law was approved by the President of the nited &tates, pursuant to the

Tydings$"c4uffie ct.

s transformed into &ection 1, rticle I of the 19;> #onstitution, the

definition of territory spelled out in the said treaties reads%

The Philippines comprises all the territory ceded to the nited&tates by the Treaty of Paris concluded between the nited &tates and&pain on the tenth day of 4ecember, eighteen hundred and ninety$eight,the limits of which are set forth in Article III of the said treaty, togetherwith all the island in the treaty concluded at 3ashington between the

nited &tates and &pain on the seventh day of 7ovember, nineteenhundred, and the treaty concluded between the nited &tates and 8reat

ritain on the second day of :anuary, nineteen hundred and thirty, and all

territory over which he present 8overnment of the Philippine Islandse ercises jurisdiction.

s an element of statehood, territory as defined primarily in rticle III

of the Treaty of Paris thus assumed the character of a constitutional

1<



principle, recogni?ing the roots of title to that territory in the international

law of treaties. In this sense, the defined territory/ of statehood maintains

continuity through changes in the fundamental law of the Philippines as an

independent &tate.

Bf paramount importance in the nature of Philippine territory is the

geographical fact that it is an archipelago, combined with jurisdictional

competence within the sphere of its boundaries. Gepresented in maps by

International Treaty Eimits/ (ITE) enclosing the Philippine rchipelago,

the boundaries appear as the outer limit of territorial sovereignty, the

elimination of which, as e plained below, destroys the character of the

Philippines as a unity of land and water in the archipelago, as a result of the

internationali?ation of its waters around, between, and connecting the

islands of the archipelago/, which the present #onstitution e pressly

characteri?es as internal waters*. 1- The vital center of the Philippine

rchipelago as a &tate lies in the nature of these internal waters as integral

part of its territorial sovereignty in the inter$connecting islands.

The Philippine &tate as an archipelago comprised in the 19;>

#onstitution has maintained the same basic constituent geographic and

1>



juridical features as e isting at the time of cession, as affirmed by the long

established practice of sovereignty and jurisdiction. The scope of Philippine

territory as a &tate is formally legislated in Gepublic ct 7o. ; <-, the

aseline Eaw of 19-1 as amended by Gepublic ct 7o. ><<-, in its

preambular paragraphs, as follows%

3hereas, the #onstitution of the Philippines describes the nationalterritory as comprising all the territory ceded to the nited &tates by theTreaty of Paris concluded between the nited &tates and &pain on4ecember 1 , 1595, the limits of which are set forth in rticle III of saidtreaty, together with all the islands embraced in the treaty concluded at3ashington, between the nited &tates and &pain on 7ovember 6, 19and in the treaty concluded between the nited &tates and 8reat ritain on:anuary 2, 19; , and all the territory over which the 8overnment of thePhilippine Islands e ercised jurisdiction at the time of the adoption of the#onstitution*

3hereas, all the waters within the limits set forth in the above(mentioned treaties have always been regarded as part of the territory ofthe Philippines Islands) *

3hereas, all the waters around, between and connecting thevarious islands of the Philippine archipelago, irrespective of their widthor dimension, have always been considered as necessary appurtenancesof the land territory, forming part of the inland or internal waters of the

Philippines) #

3hereas, all the waters beyond the outermost islands of thearchipelago but within the limits of the boundaries set forth in theabovementioned treaties comprise the territorial sea of the Philippines) $

3hereas, the baselines from which the territorial sea of thePhilippines is determined consist of straight lines joining appropriate

points of the outermost islands of the archipelago* A.J

The foregoing te t is of vital importance for the following reasons%

1-



(1) It provides the definition of Philippine territory as contained in the

19;> #onstitution and in the pertinent treaties as source of international law.

(2) It is a synthesis of the dimension of Philippine territory as

communicated to the nited 7ations and to the international community by

the Philippine 8overnment twice in formal note verbale.

(;) It was initiated by the Philippine 4elegation to the &econd 7

#onference on the Eaw of the &ea of 19- as a protective measure vis$M$vis

the trends in the conference proceedings that my lead to adoption of

doctrines inimical to the established definition of Philippine territory.

(<) It embodies the position of the Philippine 4elegation throughout

the proceedings of the Third 7 #onference of the &ea that adopted the

7#EB&, in particular the affirmation of sovereignty over land area as

e tended to all the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of

the archipelago/H the principle that precludes the introduction of

archipelagic waters/.

V. In%erna%i!nal Re+!)ni%i!n !" P#ili$$ine Terri%!ry an' I%(

B!&n'ary Deli*i%a%i!n(

t the time the treaties concerning the Philippine rchipelago were

concluded, no objective standards e isted under international law governing

16



archipelagos, particularly mid$ocean archipelagos in statehood. Indeed not

until the 0irst 7 #onference on the Eaw of the &ea in 19>5 did the legal

status of archipelagos came into diplomatic deliberations. nd not until the

adoption of the 7 #onvention on the Eaw of the &ea in 1952 ( 7#EB&)

was the international law of the archipelagic states formally constituted. The

International Treaty Eimits/ of the Philippine rchipelago was left to be

determined, as it was, to the relations of the &tate Parties primarily of the

Treaty of Paris, with the recognition of the international community* the

unity of its land areas and their connecting waters was integral to its internal

sovereignty in statehood as thus established.

t the time of the three 7 conferences on the law of the sea, the

defined territory/ of the Philippines as an independent state was already

well$established.

Bn the day its independence was proclaimed on :uly <, 19<-, the nited

&tates concluded the Treaty of 8eneral Gelations with the new republic in

which it is provided in rticle DII that

The Gepublic of the Philippines agrees to assume all continuingobligations assumed by the nited &tates of merica under the Treaty ofParis between the nited &tates of merica and &pain concluded at Parison the 1 th day of 4ecember 1595, by which the Philippine Islands were

15



ceded to nited &tates of merica, and under the Treaty between thenited &tates of merica concluded at 3ashington on the 6 th day of

7ovember 19 .

Bf special significance to the scope of territorial sovereignty under this

succession clause are the obligations arising from the aforementioned rticle

III of the Treaty of Paris, as affirmed by practice in terms of acts of

jurisdiction.

Inevitably, when the nited &tates invited the 8overnments with

which it had diplomatic relations to recogni?e the Gepublic of the

Philippines as a member of the family of nations/, it involved the

recognition of its territorial boundaries as set forth in treaties as a source of

international law. This invitation is set forth in rticle II of the Provisional

greement between the nited &tates of merica and the Gepublic of the

Philippines #oncerning 0riendly Gelations and 4iplomatic and #onsular

Gelations, signed at "anila, :uly <, 19<-. This provision reads%

The 8overnment of the nited &tates of merica will notify the8overnments with which it has diplomatic relations of the independenceof the Gepublic of the Philippines and will invite these 8overnments torecogni?e the Gepublic of the Philippines as a member of the family ofnations.

#ommunicated to the 7 &ecretary$8eneral in a formal note verbale

of 2 :anuary 19>-, was the response of the Permanent Gepresentative of the

19



Philippines to the nited 7ations to the report of the International Eaw

#ommission on its draft articles on the high seas and on the territorial sea.

mong the !ey elements of the territory emphasi?ed in the note verbale is

the character of the waters around, between and connecting the islands of the

Philippine rchipelago%

1J ll waters around, between and connecting different islands belongingto the Philippine rchipelago, irrespective of their width or dimensions,are necessary appurtenances of its land territory, forming an integral partof the national or inland waters subject to the e clusive sovereignty of thePhilippines. AJ

2J ll other water areas embraced within the lines described in theTreaty of Paris of 1 4ecember 1595, the Treaty concluded at3ashington, 4.#., between the nited &tates and &pain on 6 7ovember19 , the greement between the nited &tates and the nited @ingdomof 2 :anuary 19; . AJ

The proceedings on the breadth of the territorial sea in the 19- 7

Eaw of the &ea #onference elicited 'uestions as to the peculiarities of the

legal regime of the waters within the territorial boundaries of the Philippine

rchipelago. In response to these 'uestions, the Philippine 4elegation held

on to the following position%

. . . .J The title of Philippines to a wider e tent than twelve milesof territorial sea, therefore, has both a legal and historic basis. &uch titlecannot and should not be affected adversely by any new rule on the

breadth of territorial sea that may be adopted in this conference. . . . .J

N N N

The territorial sea of the Philippines, A over which mycountry e ercises sovereignty and jurisdiction by virtue of a legal andhistoric title, is therefore, comprised of all the waters beyond the

2



outermost islands of the archipelago but within the boundaries set forth inthe Treaty of Paris. The case of the Philippines is thus sui generis , andcannot be covered by a general rule that may not be formulated by the

breadth of the territorial sea. It is and will remain an e ception, and, it isour hope that this conference can loo! with sympathetic consideration

towards embodying a saving clause in any rule we may adopt on the breadth of the territorial sea, which would e pressly recogni?e e istingestablished rights which would include that of my country. In view of theuni'ue position of the Philippines, we have no direct interest in the

breadth of the territorial sea which may be finally decided upon in thisconference. . . .J

The legal and historic title/ communicated and affirmed by the

Philippine 8overnment in the foregoing statements primarily refer to the

treaties as sources of international law governing the Philippine

rchipelago* they define the rights and obligations of the &tates parties of

those treaties, together with their binding status on the international

community at the time. The legal regime created by this treaties has been

internali?ed into the constitutional system of the Philippine &tate through the

19;> #onstitution and is perpetuated through charges in its fundamental law.

The survey presented above in Part I on the 8eneral Diew of Philippine

Territory in International Eaw/ substantiates the legal and historic title

creative of territorial sovereignty, the ac'uisition and possession of which

not contrary to general norms of international law have become an integral

element of Philippine statehood.

21



VI. INTERNATIONALIZATION OF PHILIPPINE TERRITORY:IMPA T OF THE UN ONVENTION ON THE LA0 OF THESEA 1UN LOS2

0or purposes of the present discussion, by the term

internationali?ation/ is meant the conditions of Philippine territory by

which the international community of &tates as a whole, in particular the

&tate Parties to the 7#EB&, have ac'uired rights in Philippine territory.

nd it becomes a matter of international obligation on the part of the

Philippines as a &tate Party to the 7#EB&, to comply with the binding

force of these underta!ings.

Internationali?ation of Philippine territory means that what the

#onstitution describes as 7ational Territory/ has become the object of therights of every &tate Party or of their nationals, e ercisable by them without

the re'uirement of e press consent or prior authori?ation on the part of the

Philippine government in every instance.

3ithin the 7#EB& framewor!, the most disastrous terms of

internationali?ation that impact on Philippine territory consist of the rules

governing rchipelagic &tates in Part ID of the 7#EB&. These special

rules have the effect of e cluding the Philippines as an archipelagic &tate

22



from the application of the fundamental principle in general international

law codified in rticle 2 of the 7#EB&, which reads%

The sovereignty of a coastal &tate e tends beyond its land territoryand internal waters and, and in case of archipelagic &tate, its archipelagicwaters, to an adjacent belt of sea, described as the territorial sea. 2

This provision means that in general coastal &tates have sovereignty

over their land territory and internal waters, which sovereignty e tends to

other areas. This general norm, however, cannot apply to the Philippines as

an archipelagic state because the category of internal waters mentioned in

the aforesaid provision refer to waters landward of the normal or straight

baseline as established in rticles 6 or 5 of the 7#EB&. The Philippines

does not possess internal waters of that category* what it has landward of its

archipelagic baseline under the 7#EB& are archipelagic waters , which

are subject to the right of innocent passage by ships of all &tates. The so$

called internal waters of the Philippines under the 7#EB& are those

referred to in rticle > , consisting of waters in mouth of rivers (in rticle

9), in bays (in rticle 1 ) and in harbor wor!s in ( rticle 11).

The special rules consigning the Philippine territory to

internationali?ation as an archipelagic state spells the diminution or

derogation of territorial sovereignty in the impact of archipelagic waters* it

2;



has the effect of brea!ing up the unitary character of the Philippine

statehood as an archipelago, which is consolidated by a continuum of land

and waters in sovereignty. This is the core element in the territory of the

Philippine &tate as established by the #onstitution when it ordains in rticle

I that tJhe 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,/ and therefore these waters are integral

part of territorial sovereignty. The same premise underlies the general norm

reflected in rticle 2 of the 7#EB&, mentioned above. ll throughout the

proceedings of the Third 7 #onference on the Eaw of the &ea which

adopted the 7#EB&, the Philippine 4elegation consistently adhered to the

same principled position H the position written into the premises of the old

aseline Eaw of Gepublic ct 7o. ; <-, thus%

3hereas, all the waters around, between and connecting thevarious islands of the Philippine archipelago, irrespective of their width ordimension, have always been considered as necessary appurtenances ofthe land territory forming part of the inland or internal waters of thePhilippines* A.J

The internationali?ation of the Philippine territory through the

7#EB& has the effect of eliminating the legal status of the territorial

boundaries of the Philippines as established by the Treaty of Paris of 1

4ecember 1595, together with two related agreements mentioned above.

2<



of industry. 22 Internal waters are in law part of state territory such that other

states may only use them for navigation or for other purposes with the

agreement of the territorial sovereign/. 2; In other words, s a general rule,

there is no right of navigation for foreign ships through internal waters/. 2<

The 7#EB& does not recogni?e internal waters as !nown in the

#onstitution in the case of the Philippines as an archipelagic state. Instead,

it has replaced internal waters of such category with archipelagic waters.

Dirtually of the same dimension as the #onstitutional internal waters, rticle

<9 of the 7#EB& goes on to provide that archipelagic waters e tends to

the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines A regardless of their depth

or distance from the coast./

fter declaring that the archipelagic state has sovereignty over

archipelagic waters in rticles 2 and <9, 7#EB& stipulates the limitation

to that sovereignty* it provides in rticle <9(;) that This sovereignty is

e ercised subject to this Part/, which pertains in particular to rticle >2 in

providing that ships of all &tates enjoy the right of innocent passage

through archipelagic waters./ In the case of the Philippines, this right of

2-



innocent passage is e ercisable as a matter of objective right in the waters

around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago/.

In this vast e panse of waters characteri?ed by the #onstitution as

internal waters, what categories of ships of all &tates are entitled to e ercise

the right of innocent passage under the 7#EB&O 8enerally, ships that

may e ercise the right of innocent passage in the territorial sea are entitled to

such passage in the archipelagic waters. The following categories of foreign

ships are so entitled%

(1) 3arships, pursuant to rticles 29 and ; of the 7#EB&*

(2) &ubmarines and other underwater vehicles, under rticle 2 *

(;) &hips carrying nuclear materials or substances, under rticle

22(2)*

(<) &hips carrying other inherently dangerous or no ious materials or

substances, under rticle 22(2)*

(>) Tan!ers, under rticle 22(2)*

(-) 7uclear$powered ships, under rticle 22(2)* and

(6) Bther government ship operated for non$commercial purposes,

under rticle ;1.

26



#onsidering that entitlement to navigation is e ercisable without need

of e press permission or clearance, it is not easy to dispel the ris! of some

environmental disasters, especially in the light of past e periences.

Ba(eline( an' Ar+#i$ela)i+ 0a%er(

0or purposes of the present discussion, the 7#EB& identifies two

categories of baselines, namely%

(1) the normal baseline and the straight baseline provided

respectively in rticles 6 and 5 of the 7#EB&, which apply to all coastal

&tates* and

(2) the archipelagic baseline in rticle <6 of the 7#EB&, which

specially applies only to archipelagic states, such as the Philippines.

The distinction between these two categories of baselines lies in the

legal status of waters enclosed by, or landward of , the baseline. s regards

the normal or straight baseline, these waters are characteri?ed as internal

waters. Thus, rticle 5 provides%

A wJaters on the landward side of the baseline of the territorial sea form

part of the internal waters of the &tate.

25



ut with respect to archipelagic baseline, the waters landward or

within the baseline are archipelagic waters. rticle <9 of the 7#EB&

provides%

A TJhe waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines areJ described asarchipelagic waters , regardless of their depth or distance from the coast.

Bn one hand, the status of internal waters in regard to coastal states in

general is un'ualified as forming part of the sovereignty over land territory.

pressing the general norm of international law, rticle 2(1) of the

7#EB& reads%

The sovereignty of a coastal &tate e tends beyond its land territoryand internal waters and, A to an adjacent belt of sea, described asterritorial sea.

Bn the other hand, with respect to archipelagic states, while the

7#EB& describes archipelagic waters as area of sovereignty in rticles 2

and <9, this sovereignty is subject to rticle >2 which provides that

A &Jhips of all &tates enjoy the right of innocent passage througharchipelagic waters, in accordance with Part III, section ;.

Geference to Part III, section of the 7#EB&, pertains to innocent passage

in the territorial sea.

29



s a conse'uence, in the case of the Philippines as an archipelagic

&tate, the right of innocent passage in the archipelagic waters is in continuity

with the right of innocent passage in the territorial sea.

#oastal states under the general norm of international law have the

benefit of sovereignty over their internal waters landward of the baseline, by

prohibiting navigation by foreign ships of all states without e press

permission. ut by special rules governing archipelagic states, what is

defined as internal waters in general international law H and under its own

#onstitution in the Philippine case H are subject to the right of innocent

passage of ships of all &tates/ under the 7#EB&. The only internal

waters left to the Philippines under the 7#EB& are waters in mouths of

rivers, in bays and in permanent harbor wor!s identified in respectively

rticles 9, 1 and 11, pursuant to rticle > .

Ri)#% !" Inn!+en% Pa((a)e

3hen the baseline under rticle 6 or 5 of the 7#EB&, reflecting

general international law, is drawn across bodies of water, it becomes a

dividing line between territorial sea subject to innocent passage of foreign

ships, and internal waters landward of the baseline as un'ualified area of

state sovereignty.

;



ut with respect to the Philippines, as subject to special rules

governing archipelagic states, the baseline ceases to be a demarcation line

between territorial sea and waters landward of the Philippine archipelagic

baseline, because the right of innocent passage may be e ercised in

continuity from the territorial sea into the archipelagic waters, both regimes

being of the same character, as indicated in rticle >2 of the 7#EB&

which provides that innocent passage in archipelagic waters is to be

e ercised in accordance with innocent passage in the territorial sea.

eside this common character of innocent passage in both regimes,

there are differences between them which are of crucial disadvantage to the

Philippines as an archipelagic state. In rticle 15(2)(a), 7#EB& defines

passage to be characteri?ed as innocent as meaning navigation through the

territorial sea for the purpose of A traversing that sea without entering

internal waters or calling of a roadstead or port facility outside the internal

waters ./ 3ith respect to the Philippines, the right of innocent passage in the

territorial sea has suffered a change adversed to the Philippines in its

e ercise* for the reason that the 'ualification without entering internal

waters/ rticle 15(2)(a) ceases to be prohibitive or becomes inapplicable in

the absence of internal waters landward of the archipelagic baselines of the

Philippines, internal waters having been replaced by archipelagic waters. In

;1



effect, in place of this prohibitive 'ualification there is installed the right of

innocent passage in the archipelagic waters. Thus, that 'ualification has

become meaningless.

In another respect, the right of innocent passage in the archipelagic

waters as applied to the disadvantage of the Philippines differs from

innocent passage in the territorial sea, as shown in reference to rticle 19(2)

of the 7#EB&. &pelling out the meaning of innocent passage/, it

enumerates activities of foreign ships which are considered to be

prejudicial to peace, good order or security of the coastal &tate./ mong

these activities identified in rticle 19(2)(e) and (f) are the launching,

landing or ta!ing on board of any aircraft/ and the launching, landing or

ta!ing on board of any military device./

3hat is prejudicial to coastal states in general may be prove to a

normal activity as regards the Philippines as an archipelagic state, when

foreign warships e ercise the archipelagic sea lane passage. s provided in

rticle >; of the 7#EB&, this passage combines the right of navigation of

foreign with the right of overflight of foreign aircraft. In particular, the

passage of aircraft carrier through the Philippine archipelagic sea lane

;2



passage is li!ely to involve in normal operation the landing or ta!ing off of

aircraft while in transit, or ta!ing on board a military device.

"oreover, the following acts considered to be prejudicial to peace or

security of the coastal states/ under rticle 19(2) of the 7#EB& may be

reduced to futility in the undetected passage of submarines in the

archipelagic sea lanes in their submerged or normal mode, as allowed under

>;(;) of the 7#EB&%

(b) any e ercise or practice of weapons of any !ind*

(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defenseor security of the coastal state*

N N N

(h) any act of willful pollution contrary to this #onvention*

N N N

(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities

(!) any act aimed at interfering with any system of communication or anyother facilities or installations of the coastal &tate* A.

Ar+#i$ela)i+ Sea lane Pa((a)e

rchipelagic sea lane passage under the 7#EB& combines the right

of navigation of all foreign ships and the right of overflight of all foreign

aircraft, as provided in rticle >; (1) and (2). It is an independent legal

regime from, and is an addition to, the right of innocent passage in the

;;



territorial sea and in the archipelagic waters. 7o less then > nautical miles

wide, archipelagic sea lanes and air routes, as rticle >;(<) of the 7#EB&

prescribes, shall traverse the archipelagic waters and the adjacent territorial

sea and shall include all normal passage routes used as routes for

international navigation or overflight through or over archipelagic waters./

Gestriction to territorial sovereignty may be more e tensive by the

designation of more than one archipelagic sea lanes and air routes.

"oreover, 7#EB& does not set a limit as to the !ind of ships or aircraft

which can pass through the archipelagic sea lanes, implying that warships

and military aircraft as well as nuclear$powered ships or those carrying

nuclear or other inherently dangerous or no ious substances.

#ustomary international law does not allow overflight over the

territorial sea nor over archipelagic or internal waters. #odifying general

international law, rticle 1 of the #hicago #onvention on International

#ivil viation mandates that every &tate has complete and e clusive

sovereignty over the airspace above its territory./ In rticle ;, the

#onvention prohibits every &tate aircraft to fly over the territory of another

&tate or land thereon without authori?ation by special agreement or

otherwise and in accordance with the terms thereon/.

;<



In instituting the archipelagic sea lane passage and overflight for

archipelagic states, including the Philippines, 7#EB& sets aside these

norms of general international law by providing the right of overflight across

the territorial sea and archipelagic waters.

0oremost in the function of the archipelagic sea lane passage is the

military$strategic interest. :udge &higeru Bda of the International #ourt of

:ustice has summari?ed this rationale as follows%

A TJhe new regime on the passage through straits and archipelagic waterswas introduced A in particular, to maintain uninterrupted navigation ofwarships H including submarines H and the free navigation of militaryaircraft A. The .&. 7avy would only accept the archipelagic concept onthe condition that the undetected and uninterrupted passage of submarineswould be guaranteed throughout archipelagic waters. 2>

Bn overflight over archipelagic sea lanes, @wiat!ows!a e plains that

The re'uirement that air routes must be above archipelagic sealanes was dictated not by need of civil air navigation but by necessity to

provide maneuvering possibilities for military aircraft while the naval forces of a particular fleet are passing through the sea lanes. 2-

The military$security dimension of the archipelagic sea lane passage

is 'ualitatively magnified because of nuclear$armed submarines and the

undersea deployment or emplacement of nuclear$weapon deterrent systems.

The strategic importance of this factor to the major military powers should

drive home the awareness as to how the archipelagic sea lane passage could

bring the Philippines to the brin! of disaster.

;>



The military$strategic motive power that propelled the archipelagic

sea lanes passage into the mainstream of international law of the sea carries

serious implications on the security and integrity of the national community.

In conte t, it is most pertinent to in'uire why the Philippines must pay such

a heavy price in the interest of the major military powers, such as the nited

&tates and #hina, which might be brought to a sharper military competition

sooner than in the coming decade. Gecently, by the time that a bill

establishing the archipelagic sea lane was filed in #ongress, #hina

announced the launching of its first aircraft carrier.

s to submarines, an anomaly in the 7#EB& arises from the fact

that in rticle 2 it re'uires submarines in the territorial sea to navigate on

the surface and to show their flag/, but in archipelagic sea lane they are

allowed passage in their submerged state or in the normal mode/ under

rticle >;(;). nd thus @wiat!ows!a is of the view that archipelagic sea

lane passage is necessary to enable a submerged navigation of submarine

and maneuvering of a military aircraft which are not permissible under the

innocent passage regime./ 26 Earson even thin!s that the major naval powers

may send the && 7s nuclear ballistic missile submarinesJ or attac!

submarines through archipelagic waters in their normal mode of

;-



operation./ 25 These security concerns may find justification in the nited

7ations study that

The sea has now become the operational environment of ballistic missilesubmarines each of which has been estimated to be carrying the e'uivalentof more e plosive power than was used by all the combatants in the&econd 3orld 3ar. 29

report of the 7 4epartment of 4isarmament ffairs says that a

great number of the I# "s is sea$borne and more than 6, strategic

nuclear warheads are carried by submarines of A nuclear weapons status. ;

nd yet with respect to passage through archipelagic sea lanes, 7#EB&

does not re'uire prior authori?ation H or even just notification H for the

passage of submarines or warships carrying nuclear weapons or other

dangerous or no ious cargoes. In a move described by the state media as

unprecedented and necessary to show other countries #hina+s stri!ing

capability as territorial tensions mount, Agence +rance Presse reported from

eijing two wee!s ago that #hina had put its nuclear$powered submarine

fleet on public display. ;1

Bf urgent relevance is the analysis of #hurchill and Eowe as regards

marine pollution from ships in their innocent passage through waters

interconnecting the islands of the archipelagic state. The 7#EB&,

according to them,

;6



A in its provisions on pollution gives the coastal &tate additionalenforcement jurisdiction in respect of pollution over foreign vessels in itsterritorial sea A. This additional jurisdiction does not apply inarchipelagic waters. The result, therefore, is that in its archipelagic watersan archipelagic &tate has less enforcement jurisdiction over foreign vessels

in matters of pollution than a non$archipelagic &tate in its territorial seaA. ;2

VII. ON LUDING STATEMENT: ENIGMAS AND RISES

S+#i/!$#reni+ P!(%&re !" %#e P#ili$$ine Dele)a%i!n

Throughout the official proceedings of the Third 7 #onference on

the Eaw of the &ea that adopted the 7#EB&, the Philippine 4elegation

consistently emphasi?ed its position on the dominion and sovereignty of the

archipelagic state within the baselines, which were so drawn as to preserve

the territorial integrity of the archipelago by the inseparable unity of the land

and water./;;

Qet the 4elegation went on and signed the 7#EB& which

contradicted H and in effect nullified H that position by its provision on

archipelago waters.

Eater, in the face of that contradiction, the 4elegation proceeded to

have the 7#EB& ratified, which was done to e press the consent of the

Philippines to be bound by the 7#EB&.

;5



nigmatic is the fact that when it signed the 7#EB& on 1

4ecember 1952, the 4elegation submitted a 4eclaration which manifests

that in signing the 1952 nited 7ations #onvention on the Eaw of the &ea it

does so with the understandings embodied in this declaration./

pparently the paragraph 1 of the 4eclaration intends to return to the

effectivity of the #onstitution in defining internal waters and thus precludes

the application of the 7#EB& provision on archipelagic waters. This

paragraph emphasi?es the position of the 4elegation on the sovereignty of

the Philippines with respect to waters landward of the baselines. This

paragraph reads%

1. The signing of the #onvention by the 8overnment of theGepublic of the Philippines shall not in any manner impair or prejudice thesovereign rights of the Gepublic of the Philippines under and arising fromthe #onstitution of the Philippines.

Paragraph 2 of the 4eclaration appears to be of the necessary

implication that the entire Philippine territory, as presented in the foregoing

discussion, is to be e cluded from the application of the 7#EB& and to

restore the regime of the Treaty of Paris as governing the definition of

Philippine territory H certainly a heretical view of a 4elegation which had

just signed the 7#EB&.

;9



This paragraph stipulates as follows%

2. &uch signing shall not in any manner affect thesovereign rights of the Gepublic of the Philippines as successor ofthe nited &tates of merica under and arising out of the Treaty ofParis between &pain and the nited &tates of merica of4ecember 1 , 1595, and the Treaty of 3ashington between the

nited &tates of merica and 8reat ritain of :anuary 2, 19; .

The 4eclaration in paragraph > prescribes that the 7#EB& shall not

have the effect of amending Philippine laws, apparently with respect to

territory. 7#EB& therefore is reduced to irrelevance as to the legal status

of Philippine territory, in particular as concerning the changes contemplated

under Part ID of the 7#EB& governing the Philippines as an archipelagic

state. This paragraph provides in part%

The #onvention shall not be construed as amending in any mannerany pertinent laws and Presidential 4ecrees or Proclamations of theGepublic of the Philippines* A.

The Philippine 4elegation justifies this 4eclaration under rticle ;1

of the 7#EB& as a way of harmoni?ation of its laws and regulations with

the provisions of this #onvention/. This justification fails because, contrary

to rticle ;1 , the 4eclaration purport sJ to e clude or to modify the legal

effect of the provisions of this #onvention in their application/ to the

Philippines.

<



number of &tates Parties objected to the Philippine 4eclaration on

the ground that it is in the nature of reservation, which 7#EB& e pressly

prohibits in rticle ; 9.

2. 3as the 4eclaration intended to prepare the way for the

concurrence of the 7#EB& by the atasang Pambansa, in anticipation of

constitutional objections that may be raisedO

If that were so, the sense of the 4eclaration as addressed to the

atasan for purposes of concurrence on the 7#EB& may be interpreted as

an assurance to the atasan that the 7#EB& would not be inimical to the

Philippines because

(a) it would not impair the sovereign rights of the Philippines under

the #onstitution*

(b) it would not affect the territorial rights of the Philippines as

derived from the Treaty of Paris and related treaties* and

(c) it would not be amending laws apparently in regard to the defined

territory of the Philippines.

<1



Fowever, all these underta!ings under the 4eclaration have no legal

ground under the 7#EB& and the entire 4eclaration stands as a violation

of the 7#EB&. In other words, the Philippine 4eclaration is not binding

on any &tate Party of the 7#EB&. 3ith respect to the impact of the

7#EB& on Philippine territory, these underta!ings would prove to be

false.

t any rate, by Gesolution 7o. 121, the atasan e pressed its

concurrence in the 7#EB& on 22 0ebruary 195<. It reads%

Gesolved by the atasang Pambansa, To concur, as it herebyconcurs, in the nited 7ations #onvention on the Eaw of the &ea enteredinto and signed by the Gepresentative of the Gepublic of the Philippines on4ecember 1 , 1952 at "ontego ay, :amaica, with the understandingembodied in the "eclaration filed on behalf of the Gepublic of thePhilippines by the head of the Philippine delegation when he signed thesaid #onvention, H copy of which is attached as annex A-. /

3hile the 4eclaration has no legal standing in the international plane

and is not binding in the relation between the Philippines and the other

&tates Parties, in domestic law, having been made an integral part of

Gesolution 7o. 121, as its nne , it is an enactment of the atasang

Pambansa within its constitutional authority. Its legal significance lies in its

disclosure of the fuller legislative intent as to the limitations that will control

the implementation or operation of the 7#EB& in Philippine jurisdiction.

<2



arlier, it is e plained that the scope of Philippine territorial

sovereignty is written into the Bld aseline Eaw in Gepublic ct 7o. ; <-

as its preambular paragraphs. The status of these paragraphs remains a

mystifying enigma. G 9>22 provides in &ection 1 that it is an amendment

to G ; <-, and &ection 5 reads as follows%

The provisions of Gepublic ct 7o. ; <-, as amended by Gepublicct 7o. ><<-, and all other laws, decrees, e ecutive orders, rules and

issuances inconsistent with this ct are hereby amended or modifiedaccordingly.

Fow does G 9>22 affect the legal status of Philippine territory as

defined in the preambular paragraphs of G ; <-. In particular, how does

&ection 5 of the new law amend or modify, if at all, the comple of

territorial rights comprehended by the preamble of G ; <-, as follows%

(a) those that are integral to the Treaty of Paris, together with the two

supplementary agreements, which at time of the enactment of G ; <- in

19-1 were provided in the definition of 7ational Territory set forth in the

$ 0 %onstitution)

(b) those pertaining to all the waters within the boundaries

established by these treaties* and

(c) those rights pertaining to all the waters around, between and

connecting the various islands of the Philippine archipelago/.

<<



Te tually, it is not clear whether G 9>22 was enacted in

implementation of the 7#EB&, e cept that the manner by which it is

entitled may suggest the intent to that effect. Thus%

n ct to mend #ertain Provisions of Gepublic ct 7o. ; <-, asmended by Gepublic ct 7o. ><<-, to "efine the Archipelagic 1aseline

of the Philippines and 0or Bther Purposes ;>

The term archipelagic baseline/ may have been derived from rticle <6 of

the 7#EB&. This provides in part that The archipelagic &tate may draw

straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost points of the outermostislands and drying reefs of the archipelago A./

ut it is the ponencia of the &upreme #ourt in 2agallona vs. 3rmita 4

which clearly indicates the decisive premise in our discussion that the 7ew

aseline Eaw is the legislated implementation of the 7#EB&, or its

application, in the case of the Philippines as an archipelagic state. The entire

ponencia in fact is devoted to the constitutionality of G 9>22 on the basis

of the #ourt+s application of the pertinent provision of Part ID of the

7#EB& which are specially constituted to govern archipelagic states.

Bn the basis of the foregoing premise in regard to the status of the

7ew aseline Eaw under the 7#EB& as applied to Philippine territory, the

following implications are submitted%

<>



(a) the 7ew aseline Eaw represents the entry point of the

Philippines into the special rules of the 7#EB& governing archipelagic

states, signifying the status of the Philippines as an archipelagic state*

(b) the application of the archipelagic baselines under rticle <6 of

the 7#EB& implies necessarily the application of the other elements or

features of the archipelagic state provided in Part ID of the 7#EB&,

namely, the archipelagic waters and archipelagic sea lane passage*

(c) as a conse'uence of the totali?ing coverage of the 7#EB&, the

entire Philippine territory is reorgani?ed along the characteri?ation e plained

in our earlier discussion, including the elimination of its boundaries

established by the Treaty of Paris and related international agreements.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

<-



N O T E S

<6

paper_internationalization of philippine territory.question of boundaries

Documents