Article 47, UNCLOS

archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost points of the
outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago provided that within such baselines are included
the main islands and an area in which the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land, including
atolls, is between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1
length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, except that up to 3 per cent of the total
number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length, up to a maximum length of 125
nautical miles;
drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of
the archipelago;
Such baselines shall not be drawn to and from low-tide elevations, unless lighthouses or similar
installations which are permanently above sea level have been built on them or where a low-tide
elevation is situated wholly or partly at a distance not exceeding the breadth of the territorial sea from
the nearest island Article 47,
UNCLOS cont..
(5) The system of such baselines shall not be applied by an archipelagic State in such a manner as to
cut off from the high seas or the exclusive economic zone the territorial sea of another State;
(6) If a part of the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State lies between two parts of an
immediately adjacent neighbouring State, existing rights and all other legitimate interests which the
latter State has traditionally exercised in such waters and all rights stipulated by agreement between
those States shall continue and be respected;
(7) For the purpose of computing the ratio of water to land under paragraph 1, land areas may include
waters lying within the fringing reefs of islands and atolls, including that part of a steep-sided oceanic
plateau which is enclosed or nearly enclosed by a chain of limestone islands and drying reefs lying on the
perimeter of the plateau;
(8)The baselines drawn in accordance with this article shall be shown on charts of a scale or scales
adequate for ascertaining their position.
Article 121, UNCLOS
with respect to the other islands which do not geographically form an integral part of the
archipelago, Regime of Islands principle allows a different legal treatment for the purpose of the
baselines.

Why RA 3046, as amended by RA 5446, is not in compliance with UNCLOS

The existing 80 baselines delineated under RA 3046 have a total length of 8,174.8974 miles.
Three (3) of these 80 baselines or 2.4% of the total number of baselines exceed 100 miles in length

 The baseline to the southeast of Mindanao in the Gulf of Moro is of 140.05 miles in length. This is
beyond the 125 miles limit under UNCLOS

655 SCRA 476 Political Law National Territory RA 9522 is Constitutional

In March 2009, Republic Act 9522, an act defining the archipelagic baselines of the
Philippines was enacted the law is also known as the Baselines Law. This law was meant
to comply with the terms of the third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS III), ratified by the Philippines in February 1984.
Professor Merlin Magallona et al questioned the validity of RA 9522 as they contend, among
others, that the law decreased the national territory of the Philippines hence the law is
unconstitutional. Some of their particular arguments are as follows:
a. the law abandoned the demarcation set by the Treaty of Paris and other ancillary treaties
this also resulted to the exclusion of our claim over Sabah;
b. the law, as well as UNCLOS itself, describes the Philippine waters as archipelagic waters
which, in international law, opens our waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage
by all vessels (innocent passage) and aircrafts (overflight), undermining Philippine
sovereignty and national security, contravening the countrys nuclear-free policy, and
damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions;
c. the classification of the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG), as well as the Scarborough Shoal
(bajo de masinloc), as a regime of islands pursuant to UNCLOS results in the loss of a large
maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.
ISSUE: Whether or not the contentions of Magallona et al are tenable.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court emphasized that RA 9522, or UNCLOS, itself is not a means
to acquire, or lose, territory. The treaty and the baseline law has nothing to do with the
acquisition, enlargement, or diminution of the Philippine territory. What controls when it comes
to acquisition or loss of territory is the international law principle on occupation, accretion,
cession and prescription and NOT the execution of 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.
The law did not decrease the demarcation of our territory. In fact it increased it. Under the old
law amended by RA 9522 (RA 3046), we adhered with the rectangular lines enclosing the
Philippines. The area that it covered was 440,994 square nautical miles (sq. na. mi.). But
under 9522, and with the inclusion of the exclusive economic zone, the extent of our maritime
was increased to 586,210 sq. na. mi. (See image below for comparison)

If any, the baselines law is a notice to the international community of the scope of the maritime
space and submarine areas within which States parties exercise treaty-based rights.
a. The law did not abandon the Sabah claim. This is evident on the provision of Section 2 of
RA 9522:
Section 2. The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as provided
in this Act is without prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea around the
territory of Sabah, situated in North Borneo, over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired
dominion and sovereignty.

b. UNCLOS may term our waters as archipelagic waters and that we may term it as our
internal waters, but the bottom line is that our country exercises sovereignty over these
waters and UNCLOS itself recognizes that. However, due to our observance of international
law, we allow the exercise of others of their right of innocent passage. No modern State can
validly invoke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent passage that is exercised in
accordance with customary international law without risking retaliatory measures from the
international community.
c. The classification of the KIG (or the Spratlys), as well as the Scarborough Shoal, as a
regime of islands did not diminish our maritime area. Under UNCLOS and under the baselines
law, since they are regimes of islands, they generate their own maritime zones in short,
they are not to be enclosed within the baselines of the main archipelago (which is the
Philippine Island group). This is because if we do that, then we will be enclosing a larger area
which would already depart from the provisions of UNCLOS that the demarcation should
follow the natural contour of the archipelago.
Nevertheless, we still continue to lay claim over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal through
effective occupation.