CASE 2011-0180: PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, AKBAYAN PARTY-LIST REP. RISA HONTIVEROS, PROF. HARRY C. ROQUE, JR.

, AN UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LA! STU ENTS, ALITHEA BARBARA ACAS, VOLTAIRE ALFERES, C"ARINA MAY ALTE", FRANCIS ALVIN ASILO, SHERYL BALOT, RUBY AMOR BARRACA, JOSE JAVIER BAUTISTA, ROMINA BERNAR O, VALERIE PAGASA BUENAVENTURA, E AN MARRI CA#ETE, VANN ALLEN ELA CRU", RENE ELORINO, PAULYN MAY UMAN, SHARON, ESCOTO, RO RIGO FAJAR O III, GIRLIE FERRER, RAOULLE OSEN FERRER, CARLA REGINA GREPO, ANNA MARIE CECILIA GO, IRISH KAY KALA!, MARY ANN JOY LEE, MARIA LUISA MANALAYSAY, MIGUEL RAFAEL MUSNGI, MICHAEL OCAMPO, JAKLYN HANNA PINE A, !ILLIAM RAGAMAT, MARICAR RAMOS, ENRIK FORT REVILLAS, JAMES MARK TERRY RI ON, JOHANN FRANT" RIVERA IV, CHRISTIAN RIVERO, IANNE MARIE ROA, NICHOLAS SANTI"O, MELISSA CHRISTINA SANTOS, CRISTINE MAE TABING, VANESSA ANNE TORNO,MARIA ESTER VANGUAR IA, $%& MARCELINO VELOSO III, VS. HON. E UAR O ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS E'ECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. ALBERTO ROMULO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE EPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HON. ROLAN O AN AYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE EPARTMENT OF BU GET AN MANAGEMENT, HON. IONY VENTURA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS A MINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL MAPPING ( RESOURCE INFORMATION AUTHORITY, $%& HON. HILARIO AVI E, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PERMANENT MISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES TO THE UNITE NATIONS )G.R. NO. 18*1+*, 1+ JULY 2011, CARPIO, J., SUBJECT: PHILIPPINE TERRITORY )BRIEF TITLE: MAGALLONA VS. ERMITA,. --------------------------SUBJECT. OCTRINE. IGEST O PETITIONERS !HO ARE A LA! PROFESSOR, STU ENTS AN CONGRESSMAN HAVE LEGAL STAN ING IN FILING THIS CASE/ A

public funds,16 occasioned by the passage and implementation of RA 9522 !onetheless, "e recogni#e petitioners$ locus standi as citi#ens "ith constitutionally sufficient interest in the resolution of the merits of the case "hich undoubtedly raises issues of national significance necessitating urgent resolution %ndeed, o"ing to the peculiar nature of RA 9522, it is understandably difficult to find other litigants possessing &a more direct and specific interest' to bring the suit, thus satisfying one of the re(uirements for granting citi#enship standing 1) '''''''''''''' RESPON ENTS ASK THAT THE CASE !HICH SEEK FOR !RITS OF CERTIORARI AN PROHIBITION BE ISMISSE ABSENT ANY SHO!ING OF GRAVE ABUSE OF ISCRETION. IS THEIR CONTENTION CORRECT/ IN ORDINARY CIVIL CASES, YES. BUT IN THIS CASE. WHEN THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISES ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW, HOWEVER, THEY HAVE BY TRADITION, VIEWED THE WRITS OF CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION AS PROPER REMEDIAL VEHICLES TO TEST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTES. %n praying for the dismissal of the petition on preliminary grounds, respondents see* a strict observance of the offices of the "rits of certiorari and prohibition, noting that the "rits cannot issue absent any sho"ing of grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of +udicial, (uasi, +udicial or ministerial po"ers on the part of respondents and resulting pre+udice on the part of petitioners 1Respondents$ submission holds true in ordinary civil proceedings .hen this /ourt exercises its constitutional po"er of +udicial revie", ho"ever, "e have, by tradition, vie"ed the "rits of certiorari and prohibition as proper remedial vehicles to test the constitutionality of statutes,19 and indeed, of acts of other branches of government 20 %ssues of constitutional import are sometimes crafted out of statutes "hich, "hile having no bearing on the personal interests of the petitioners, carry such relevance in the life of this nation that the /ourt inevitably finds itself constrained to ta*e cogni#ance of the case and pass upon the issues raised, non,compliance "ith the letter of procedural rules not"ithstanding 1he statute sought to be revie"ed here is one such la" ''''''''''''''''' PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT RA 01122 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT ISMEMBERS A LARGE PORTION OF THE NATIONAL TERRITORY. IS THEIR ARGUMENT CORRECT/

YES. PETITIONERS HAVE LOCUS STANDI AS CITIZENS WITH CONSTITUTIONALLY SUFFICIENT INTEREST IN THE RESOLUTION OF THE MERITS OF THE CASE WHICH UNDOUBTEDLY RAISES ISSUES OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE NECESSITATING URGENT RESOLUTION. Petitioners themselves undermine their assertion of locus standi as legislators and taxpayers because the petition alleges neither infringement of legislative prerogative 15 nor misuse of

NO. RA 9522 ONLY DEMARCATE THE COUNTRYS MARITIME ZONE AND CONTINENTAL SHELF UNDER UNCLOS III. IT DOES NOT DELINEATE PHIPPINE TERRITORY. Petitioners submit that RA 9522 &dismembers a large portion of the national territory'21 because it discards the pre,2!/345 %%% demarcation of Philippine territory under the 1reaty of Paris and related treaties, successively encoded in the definition of national territory under the 1965, 19)6 and 19-) /onstitutions Petitioners theori#e that this constitutional definition trumps any treaty or statutory provision denying the Philippines sovereign control over "aters, beyond the territorial sea recogni#ed at the time of the 1reaty of Paris, that 5pain supposedly ceded to the 2nited 5tates Petitioners argue that from the 1reaty of Paris$ technical description, Philippine sovereignty over territorial "aters extends hundreds of nautical miles around the Philippine archipelago, embracing the rectangular area delineated in the 1reaty of Paris 22 Petitioners$ theory fails to persuade us 2!/345 %%% has nothing to do "ith the ac(uisition 7or loss8 of territory %t is a multilateral treaty regulating, among others, sea,use rights over maritime #ones 7 i.e , the territorial "aters 912 nautical miles from the baselines:, contiguous #one 92; nautical miles from the baselines:, exclusive economic #one 9200 nautical miles from the baselines:8, and continental shelves that 2!/345 %%% delimits 26 2!/345 %%% "as the culmination of decades,long negotiations among 2nited !ations members to codify norms regulating the conduct of 5tates in the "orld$s oceans and submarine areas, recogni#ing coastal and archipelagic 5tates$ graduated authority over a limited span of "aters and submarine lands along their coasts 4n the other hand, baselines la"s such as RA 9522 are enacted by 2!/345 %%% 5tates parties to mar*,out specific basepoints along their coasts from "hich baselines are dra"n, either straight or contoured, to serve as geographic starting points to measure the breadth of the maritime #ones and continental shelf Article ;- of 2!/345 %%% on archipelagic 5tates li*e ours could not be any clearer< Article ;- Measurement of the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf = 1he breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous #one, the exclusive economic #one and the continental shelf 23$44 56 76$2896& :9;7 $9<3=>64$?=< 5$264=%62 dra"n in accordance "ith article ;) 7>mphasis supplied8 1hus, baselines la"s are nothing but statutory mechanisms for 2!/345 %%% 5tates parties to delimit "ith precision the extent of their maritime #ones and continental shelves %n turn, this gives notice to the rest of the international community of the scope of the maritime space and submarine areas "ithin "hich 5tates parties exercise treaty,based rights, namely, the exercise of sovereignty over territorial "aters 7Article 28, the +urisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitation la"s in the contiguous #one 7Article 668, and the right to

exploit the living and non,living resources in the exclusive economic #one 7Article 568 and continental shelf 7Article ))8 >ven under petitioners$ theory that the Philippine territory embraces the islands and all the waters"ithin the rectangular area delimited in the 1reaty of Paris, the baselines of the Philippines "ould still have to be dra"n in accordance "ith RA 9522 because this is the only "ay to dra" the baselines in conformity "ith 2!/345 %%% 1he baselines cannot be dra"n from the boundaries or other portions of the rectangular area delineated in the 1reaty of Paris, but from the &outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago ' 2; '''''''''''''''' !HAT IS THE NATURE OF RA 0122/ IT IS A BASELINES LAW. AS SUCH IT PLAYS NO ROLE IN THE AC UISITION, ENLARGEMENT OR DIMINUTION OF TERRITORY. '''''''''''''''' HO! OES THE STATE ACQUIRE OR LOSE TERRITORY/ BY OCCUPATION, ACCRETION, CESSION AND PRESCRIPTION,25 NOT BY EXECUTING MULTILATERAL TREATIES ON THE REGULATIONS OF SEA!USE RIGHTS OR ENACTING STATUTES TO COMPLY WITH THE TREATYS TERMS TO DELIMIT MARITIME ZONES AND CONTINENTAL SHELVES. TERRITORIAL CLAIMS TO LAND FEATURES ARE OUTSIDE UNCLOS III, AND ARE INSTEAD GOVERNED BY THE RULES ON GENERAL INTERNATIONAL LAW.2" 2!/345 %%% and its ancillary baselines la"s play no role in the ac(uisition, enlargement or, as petitioners claim, diminution of territory 2nder traditional international la" typology, 5tates ac(uire 7or conversely, lose8 territory through occupation, accretion, cession and prescription,25 not by executing multilateral treaties on the regulations of sea,use rights or enacting statutes to comply "ith the treaty$s terms to delimit maritime #ones and continental shelves 1erritorial claims to land features are outside 2!/345 %%%, and are instead governed by the rules on general international la" 26 '''''''''''''''

PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT RA 0122 !EAKENS OUR CLAIM OVER THE KALAYAAN ISLAN GROUP.

NO AS SHOWN BELOW. Petitioners next submit that RA 9522$s use of 2!/345 %%%$s regime of islands frame"or* to dra" the baselines, and to measure the breadth of the applicable maritime #ones of the ?%@, &"ea*ens our territorial claim' over that area 2) Petitioners add that the ?%@$s 7and 5carborough 5hoal$s8 exclusion from the Philippine archipelagic baselines results in the loss of &about 15,000 s(uare nautical miles of territorial "aters,' pre+udicing the livelihood of subsistence fishermen 2- A comparison of the configuration of the baselines dra"n under RA 60;6 and RA 9522 and the extent of maritime space encompassed by each la", coupled "ith a reading of the text of RA 9522 and its congressional deliberations, vis--vis the Philippines$ obligations under 2!/345 %%%, belie this vie" 1he configuration of the baselines dra"n under RA 60;6 and RA 9522 sho"s that RA 9522 merely follo"ed the basepoints mapped by RA 60;6, save for at least nine basepoints that RA 9522 s*ipped to optimi#e the location of basepoints and ad+ust the length of one baseline 7and thus comply "ith 2!/345 %%%$s limitation on the maximum length of baselines8 2nder RA 60;6, as under RA 9522, the ?%@ and the 5carborough 5hoal lie outside of the baselines dra"n around the Philippine archipelago 1his undeniable cartographic fact ta*es the "ind out of petitioners$ argument branding RA 9522 as a statutory renunciation of thePhilippines$ claim over the ?%@, assuming that baselines are relevant for this purpose ''''''''''''''' PETITIONERS ASSERT THAT !E !OUL LOSE 11,000 SQUARE NAUTICAL MILES OF TERRITORIAL !ATERS UN ER RA 0122. IS THIS CONTENTION CORRECT/ NO. OUR TOTAL MARITIME SPACE IS EVEN INCREASED BY #$5,2#" S UARE NAUTICAL MILES AS SHOWN BELOW. Petitioners$ assertion of loss of &about 15,000 s(uare nautical miles of territorial "aters' under RA 9522 is similarly unfounded both in fact and la" 4n the contrary, RA 9522, by optimi#ing the location of basepoints, %&'()*+), the Philippines$ total maritime space 7covering its internal "aters, territorial sea and exclusive economic #one8 by 1;5,216 s(uare nautical miles, as sho"n in the table belo"< 29

,nternal or archi-elagic .aters Territorial+ea Exclusi2e Economic 3one TOTAL

/66,0$0 %14,/36

/1/,43$ 3%,/06 30%,66#

440,994

586,210

1hus, as the map belo" sho"s, the reach of the exclusive economic #one dra"n under RA 9522 even extends "ay beyond the "aters covered by the rectangular demarcation under the 1reaty of Paris 4f course, "here there are overlapping exclusive economic #ones of opposite or ad+acent 5tates, there "ill have to be a delineation of maritime boundaries in accordance "ith 2!/345 %%% 60 ''''''''''''''

PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT KIG NO! LIES OUTSI E PHILIPPINE TERRITORY BECAUSE THE BASELINES THAT RA 0122 RA!S O NOT ENCLOSE THE KIG. IS THIS ARGUMENT CORRECT/ NO. RA 9522 EXPRESSLY STATES OUR CLAIM OF SOVEREIGNTY AND JURISDICTION OVER THE -ALAYAAN ISLAND GROUP AND SCARBOROUGH SHOAL. Aurther, petitioners$ argument that the ?%@ no" lies outside Philippine territory because the baselines that RA 9522 dra"s do not enclose the ?%@ is negated by RA 9522 itself 5ection 2 of the la" commits to text thePhilippines$ continued claim of sovereignty and +urisdiction over the ?%@ and the 5carborough 5hoal< 5>/ 2 1he baselines in the follo"ing areas ;@69 A3=<3 B36 P3=4=>>=%62 4=C6A=26 6D69<=262 2;@696=?%BE $%& F89=2&=<B=;% shall be determined as &Regime of %slands' under the Republic of the Philippines consistent "ith Article 121 of the 2nited !ations /onvention on the 3a" of the 5ea 72!/3458< a8 1he ?alayaan %sland @roup as constituted under Presidential Becree !o 1596 and b8 Ca+o de Dasinloc, also *no"n as 5carborough 5hoal 7>mphasis supplied8

Extent of maritime area Extent of maritime using RA 3046, as amended, area using RA #$%%, taking into account the taking into account Treaty of Paris delimitation &'()*+ ,,, in in s!uare nautical miles" s!uare nautical miles"

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE !HY I CONGRESS IN RA 0122 NOT ENCLOSE THE KIG AN SHOAL/

THE SCARBOROUGH

BECAUSE THEY WOULD COMMIT A BREACH OF THE PROVISIONS OF UNCLOS III AS SHOWN BELOW. Fad /ongress in RA 9522 enclosed the ?%@ and the 5carborough 5hoal as part of the Philippine archipelago, adverse legal effects "ould have ensued 1he Philippines"ould have committed a breach of t"o provisions of 2!/345 %%% Airst, Article ;) 768 of 2!/345 %%% re(uires that &9t:he dra"ing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago ' 5econd, Article ;) 728 of 2!/345 %%% re(uires that &the length of the baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles,' save for three per cent 76G8 of the total number of baselines "hich can reach up to 125 nautical miles 61 Although the Philippines has consistently claimed sovereignty over the ?%@ 62 and the 5carborough 5hoal for several decades, these outlying areas are located at an appreciable distance from the nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipelago, 66 such that any straight baseline loped around them from the nearest basepoint "ill inevitably &depart to an appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago ' 1he principal sponsor of RA 9522 in the 5enate, 5enator Diriam Befensor,5antiago, too* pains to emphasi#e the foregoing during the 5enate deliberations< .hat "e call the ?alayaan %sland @roup or "hat the rest of the "orld call9: the 5pratlys and the 5carborough 5hoal are outside our archipelagic baseline because if we put them inside our baselines we might be accused of violating the provision of international law which states: The 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. $ahil mala o ang "carborough "hoal, hindi natin masasabing malapit sila sa atin although we are still allowed b international law to claim them as our own. 1his is called contested islands outside our configuration .e see that our archipelago is defined by the orange line "hich 9"e: call9: archipelagic baseline !gayon, tingnan ninyo ang maliit na circle doon sa itaas, that is 5carborough 5hoal, itong mala*ing circle sa ibaba, that is ?alayaan @roup or the 5pratlys Mala o na sila sa ating archipelago #a a #ung ilihis pa natin ang dating archipelagic baselines para lamang masama itong dalawang circles, hindi na sila mag#alapit at ba#a hindi na tatanggapin ng %nited &ations because of the rule that it should follow the natural configuration of the archipelago 6; 7>mphasis supplied8 5imilarly, the length of one baseline that RA 60;6 dre" exceeded 2!/345 %%%$s limits 1he need to shorten this baseline, and in addition, to optimi#e the location of basepoints using current maps, became imperative as discussed by respondents<

91:he amendment of the baselines la" "as necessary to enable the Philippines to dra" the outer limits of its maritime #ones including the extended continental shelf in the manner provided by Article ;) of 92!/345 %%%: As defined by R A 60;6, as amended by R A 5;;6, the baselines suffer from some technical deficiencies, to "it< 1 1he length of the baseline acrossDoro @ulf7from Diddle of 6 Roc* A"ash to 1ong(uil Point8 is 1;0 06 nautical miles x x x 1his exceeds the maximum length allo"ed under Article ;)728 of the 92!/345 %%%:, "hich states that &1he length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, except that up to 6 per cent of the total number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length, up to a maximum length of 125 nautical miles ' 2 1he selection of basepoints is not optimal At least 9 basepoints can be s*ipped or deleted from the baselines system 1his "ill enclose an additional 2,195 nautical miles of "ater 6 Ainally, the basepoints "ere dra"n from maps existing in 196-, and not established by geodetic survey methods Accordingly, some of the points, particularly along the "est coasts of 3u#on do"n to Pala"an "ere later found to be located either inland or on "ater, not on lo","ater line and drying reefs as prescribed by Article ;) 65 Fence, far from surrendering the Philippines$ claim over the ?%@ and the 5carborough 5hoal, /ongress$ decision to classify the ?%@ and the 5carborough 5hoal as &HRegime9s: of %slands$ under the Republic of the Philippines consistent "ith Article 121' 66 of 2!/345 %%% manifests the Philippine 5tate$s responsible observance of its pacta sunt servanda obligation under 2!/345 %%% 2nder Article 121 of 2!/345 %%%, any &naturally formed area of land, surrounded by "ater, "hich is above "ater at high tide,' such as portions of the ?%@, (ualifies under the category of &regime of islands,' "hose islands generate their o"n applicable maritime #ones 6) EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE IS OUR STATUTORY CLAIM OVER SABAH UN ER RA 0122 RETAINE / YES. OUR CLAIM OVER SABAH IS UNDER RA 5$$" WHICH RA 9522 DID NOT REPEAL. Petitioners$ argument for the invalidity of RA 9522 for its failure to textuali#e thePhilippines$ claim over 5abah in!orth Corneois also untenable 5ection 2 of RA 5;;6, "hich RA 9522 did not repeal, *eeps open the door for dra"ing the baselines of5abah< 5ection 2 1he definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Act =2 A=B3;8B >96F8&=<6 B; B36 &64=%6$B=;% ;: B36 5$264=%62 ;: B36 B699=B;9=$4 26$ $9;8%& B36 B699=B;9E ;: S$5$3, 2=B8$B6& =% N;9B3 B;9%6;, ;@69 A3=<3 B36

R6>854=< ;: B36 P3=4=>>=%62 3$2 $<G8=96& &;7=%=;% $%& 2;@696=?%BE 7>mphasis supplied8 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT RA 0122 CONVERTS INTERNAL !ATERS INTO ARCHIPELAGIC !ATERS HENCE SUBJECTING INTERNAL !ATERS TO RIGHT OF INNOCENT AN SEA LANES PASSAGE. IT THIS ARGUMENT CORRECT/ NO. PHILIPPINES STILL EXERCISES SOVEREIGNTY OVER THESE WATERS UNDER UNCLOS III.THE POLITICAL BRANCHES OF THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT, IN THE COMPETENT DISCHARGE OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS, MAY PASS LEGISLATION DESIGNATING ROUTES WITHIN THE ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS TO REGULATE INNOCENT AND SEA LANES PASSAGE.$. As their final argument against the validity of RA 9522, petitioners contend that the la" unconstitutionally &converts' internal "aters into archipelagic "aters, hence sub+ecting these "aters to the right of innocent and sea lanes passage under 2!/345 %%%, including overflight Petitioners extrapolate that these passage rights indubitably expose Philippine internal "aters to nuclear and maritime pollution ha#ards, in violation of the /onstitution 6.hether referred to as Philippine &internal "aters' under Article % of the /onstitution 69 or as &archipelagic "aters' under 2!/345 %%% 7Article ;9 91:8, thePhilippines exercises sovereignty over the body of "ater lying land"ard of the baselines, including the air space over it and the submarine areas underneath 2!/345 %%% affirms this< Article ;9 'egal status of archipelagic waters, of the air space over archipelagic waters and of their bed and subsoil = 1 1he 2;@696=?%BE ;: $% $9<3=>64$?=< SB$B6 6DB6%&2 B; B36 A$B692 6%<4;26& 5E B36 $9<3=>64$?=< 5$264=%62 dra"n in accordance "ith article ;), described as archipelagic "aters, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast 2 T3=2 2;@696=?%BE 6DB6%&2 B; B36 $=9 2>$<6 ;@69 B36 $9<3=>64$?=< A$B692, $2 A644 $2 B; B36=9 56& $%& 2852;=4, $%& B36 962;89<62 <;%B$=%6& B3696=% xxxx ; 1he regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage established in this Part 23$44 %;B =% ;B369 962>6<B2 $::6<B B36 2B$B82 ;: B36 $9<3=>64$?=< A$B692, including the sea lanes, ;9 B36 6D69<=26 5E B36 $9<3=>64$?=< SB$B6 ;: =B2 2;@696=?%BE ;@69 28<3 A$B692 $%& B36=9 $=9 2>$<6, 56& $%& 2852;=4, $%& B36 962;89<62 <;%B$=%6& B3696=% 7>mphasis supplied8 1he fact of sovereignty, ho"ever, does not preclude the operation of municipal and international la" norms sub+ecting the territorial sea or archipelagic "aters to necessary, if not marginal, burdens in the interest of maintaining unimpeded, expeditious international navigation, consistent "ith the international la" principle of freedom of navigation 1hus,

domestically, the political branches of the Philippine government, in the competent discharge of their constitutional po"ers, may pass legislation designating routes "ithin the archipelagic "aters to regulate innocent and sea lanes passage ;0 %ndeed, bills dra"ing nautical high"ays for sea lanes passage are no" pending in /ongress ;1 ''''''''''''' SUPPOSE THERE IS NO MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION, !HAT !ILL GOVERN INNOCENT PASSAGE RIGHTS/ INTERNATIONAL LAW, CODIFIED IN UNCLOS III, GOVERNS INNOCENT PASSAGE RIGHTS OVER THE TERRITORIAL SEA OR ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS, SUBJECT TO THE TREATYS LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS FOR THEIR EXERCISE. $2 %n the absence of municipal legislation, international la" norms, no" codified in 2!/345 %%%, operate to grant innocent passage rights over the territorial sea or archipelagic "aters, sub+ect to the treaty$s limitations and conditions for their exercise ;2 5ignificantly, the right of innocent passage is a customary international la", ;6 thus automatically incorporated in the corpus of Philippine la" ;; !o modern 5tate can validly invo*e its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent passage that is exercised in accordance "ith customary international la" "ithout ris*ing retaliatory measures from the international community 1he fact that for archipelagic 5tates, their archipelagic "aters are sub+ect to both the right of innocent passage and sea lanes passage;5 does not place them in lesser footing vis-viscontinental coastal 5tates "hich are sub+ect, in their territorial sea, to the right of innocent passage and the right of transit passage through international straits 1he imposition of these passage rights through archipelagic "aters under 2!/345 %%% "as a concession by archipelagic 5tates, in exchange for their right to claim all the "aters land"ard of their baselines, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast , as archipelagic "aters sub+ect to their territorial sovereignt Dore importantly, the recognition of archipelagic 5tates$ archipelago and the "aters enclosed by their baselines as one cohesive entity prevents the treatment of their islands as separate islands under 2!/345 %%% ;65eparate islands generate their o"n maritime #ones, placing the "aters bet"een islands separated by more than 2; nautical miles beyond the 5tates$ territorial sovereignty, sub+ecting these "aters to the rights of other 5tates under 2!/345 %%% ;) '''''''''''''' PETITIONER CITES ART. II OF THE CONSTITUTION. SECTION * OF ART II PROVI ES: THE STATE SHALL PURSUE AN IN EPEN ENT FOREIGN POLICY. IN ITS RELATIONS !ITH OTHER STATES THE PARAMOUNT CONSI ERATION SHALL BE NATIONAL

SOVEREIGNTY, TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, NATIONAL INTEREST, AN THE RIGHT TO SELF- ETERMINATION. OES RA 0122 VIOLATES SUCH PROVISION/ NO. JURISPRUDENCE CONSIDERS THE PROVISIONS IN ARTICLE II AS MERE LEGISLATIVE GUIDES, WHICH, ABSENT ENABLING LEGISLATION, /DO NOT EMBODY JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS X X X.0$9 ARTICLE II PROVISIONS SERVE AS GUIDES IN FORMULATING AND INTERPRETING IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION, AS WELL AS IN INTERPRETING EXECUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION. Petitioners$ invocation of non,executory constitutional provisions in Article %% 7Beclaration of Principles and 5tate Policies8;- must also fail 4ur present state of +urisprudence considers the provisions in Article %% as mere legislative guides, "hich, absent enabling legislation, &do not embody +udicially enforceable constitutional rights x x x ' ;9 Article %% provisions serve as guides in formulating and interpreting implementing legislation, as "ell as in interpreting executory provisions of the /onstitution Although (posa v. )actoran50 treated the right to a healthful and balanced ecology under 5ection 16 of Article %% as an exception, the present petition lac*s factual basis to substantiate the claimed constitutional violation 1he other provisions petitioners cite, relating to the protection of marine "ealth 7Article E%%, 5ection 2, paragraph 2518 and subsistence fishermen 7Article E%%%, 5ection ) 528, are not violated by RA 9522 %n fact, the demarcation of the baselines enables thePhilippinesto delimit its exclusive economic #one, reserving solely to thePhilippinesthe exploitation of all living and non,living resources "ithin such #one 5uch a maritime delineation binds the international community since the delineation is in strict observance of 2!/345 %%% %f the maritime delineation is contrary to 2!/345 %%%, the international community "ill of course re+ect it and "ill refuse to be bound by it '''''''''''''''' !HAT IS THE A VANTAGE OF UNCLOS III/ UNCLOS III GRANTS NEW RIGHTS TO COASTAL STATES TO EXCLUSIVELY EXPLOIT THE RESOURCES FOUND WITHIN THIS ZONE UP TO 2.. NAUTICAL MILES.51 UNCLOS III, HOWEVER, PRESERVES THE TRADITIONAL FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION OF OTHER STATES THAT ATTACHED TO THIS ZONE BEYOND THE TERRITORIAL SEA BEFORE UNCLOS III. 2!/345 %%% favors 5tates "ith a long coastline li*e the Philippines 2!/345 %%% creates a sui generismaritime space = the exclusive economic #one = in "aters previously part of the high

seas 2!/345 %%% grants ne" rights to coastal 5tates to exclusively exploit the resources found "ithin this #one up to 200 nautical miles 56 2!/345 %%%, ho"ever, preserves the traditional freedom of navigation of other 5tates that attached to this #one beyond the territorial sea before 2!/345 %%% '''''''''''''''' !HAT ARE THE ISA VANTAGE IF CONGRESS I NOT PASS RA 0122/

FIRST, IT SENDS AN OPEN INVITATION TO THE SEAFARING POWERS TO FREELY ENTER AND EXPLOIT THE RESOURCES IN THE WATERS AND SUBMARINE AREAS AROUND OUR ARCHIPELAGO2 AND SECOND, IT WEA-ENS THE COUNTRYS CASE IN ANY INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE OVER PHILIPPINE MARITIME SPACE. THESE ARE CONSE UENCES CONGRESS WISELY AVOIDED. Petitioners hold the vie" that, based on the permissive text of 2!/345 %%%, /ongress "as not bound to pass RA 9522 5; .e have loo*ed at the relevant provision of 2!/345 %%% 55 and "e find petitioners$ reading plausible !evertheless, the prerogative of choosing this option belongs to /ongress, not to this /ourt Doreover, the luxury of choosing this option comes at a very steep price Absent an 2!/345 %%% compliant baselines la", an archipelagic 5tate li*e the Philippines "ill find itself devoid of internationally acceptable baselines from "here the breadth of its maritime #ones and continental shelf is measured 1his is recipe for a t"o, fronted disaster< first, it sends an open invitation to the seafaring po"ers to freely enter and exploit the resources in the "aters and submarine areas around our archipelagoI and second, it "ea*ens the country$s case in any international dispute over Philippine maritime space 1hese are conse(uences /ongress "isely avoided 1he enactment of 2!/345 %%% compliant baselines la" for the Philippine archipelago and ad+acent areas, as embodied in RA 9522, allo"s an internationally,recogni#ed delimitation of the breadth of thePhilippines$ maritime #ones and continental shelf RA 9522 is therefore a most vital step on the part of thePhilippinesin safeguarding its maritime #ones, consistent "ith the /onstitution and our national interest