Territorial baselines: Be quick but careful
God must really be keeping close watch over the Philippines and the Filipinos. Territorial baselines bills are pending in Congress—consolidated and passed in the House on second reading last December. But, as revealed by Rep. Antonio Cuenco, head of the House foreign relation committee, action on the bill has been stopped because the Department of Foreign Affairs had told Congress of China’s objections to the proposed law. He also recounted that a Chinese embassy official had informed him passage of the bill would be considered an unfriendly act by the People’s Republic of China.If the law had been enacted and not frozen for fear that China would take offense, we would have given up “an almost colossal” part of our territory. This is according to Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, who takes pride in being an expert in, among other things, international law, and is the Senate foreign relations committee chairwoman.
Santiago has warned that if the Philippines declares itself an archipelagic state, as the pending House bill does, the declaration would contradict the Treaty of Paris which sets the boundaries of our country. The national territory defined in the 1898 Treaty of Paris, she said, is vaster than what would end up as our territory under the archipelagic definition allowed by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Under the 1898 Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States. The Philippine baseline law – in Republic Act 3046 and RA 5446 – is based on the boundaries defined under that treaty. Senator Santiago contends that “the Treaty of Paris sets out the International Treaty Baselines of the Philippine territorial sea.” But “the bills pending in Congress will eliminate such limits and thus, the Philippines would lose its boundaries.”
Declaring the Philippines as an “archipelagic state” would be a grave error because under the UNCLOS, the Philippines would end up being entitled to only 12 nautical miles of the territorial sea. This is “an almost colossal reduction from the wider boundaries of the International Treaty Limits under the Treaty of Paris.”
As an “archipelagic state,” Santiago warned, “our zone of sovereignty would collapse. Our internal waters would become archipelagic waters where the ships of all states will enjoy the right of innocent passage. In addition, foreign states would have the right of so-called archipelagic sea lane passage. Ships of all states would have the right of passage and their aircraft would have the right of overflight.”
The Philippines must submit its UNCLOS claims before the UN’s May 2009 deadline—otherwise we lose any claim we have on the Spratlys. But Senator Santiago warns that wrong wordings in any new law could also undermine the established claim of the Philippines on Sabah.
What should the Philippines do now?
The consolidated bill passed in the House in December 2007 would redefine the baselines of the Philippine territory to include the Freedom (Kalayaan) Group and the Scarborough Shoal off Zambales, and extend its exclusive economic zone by 240 kilometers.
Sen. Santiago also warned that a Philippines that is self-declared to be an archipelagic state would suffer environmental and marine pollution from ships freely entering its archipelagic waters.
The Philippines would then have less powers to discipline foreign vessels polluting our seas than we have now as a nonarchipelagic state dealing with ships in its territory.
The Kalayaan Island Group could actually wind up being defined as another archipelago different from the main Philippine islands. Santiago said that under international law the Spratlys could be termed “other islands” (not a separate archipelago) that falls under Philippine sovereignty. Under the UNCLOS, the Philippines as an “archipelagic state” would have to be defined as having two archipelagos—the Kalayaan Group and the main Philippine group of islands.
The bills now in Congress that would include the Scarborough Shoal in Philippine territory could pose problems because international law does not recognize the drawing of archipelagic baselines as a method of claiming territorial sovereignty.”
How should we prove our claim to Scarborough Shoal then?
Use the principle of “effective occupation under international law,” the senator recommends. The military exercises, the construction and use of a lighthouse, enforcement of laws against foreign vessels and nationals that have illegally entered the area, and many other political and administrative acts are proofs that the Republic of the Philippines has been effectively exercising sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal.
