Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R No. 187167 August 16, 2011PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, AKBAAN PART!LIST REP. RISA "ONTI#EROS, PROF. "ARR C. RO$UE, %R., AN& UNI#ERSIT OF T"E P"ILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LA' STU&ENTS, ALIT"EA BARBARA ACAS, #OLTAIRE ALFERES, C(ARINA MA ALTE(, FRANCIS AL#IN ASILO, S"ERL BALOT, RUB AMOR BARRACA, %OSE %A#IER BAUTISTA, ROMINA BERNAR&O, #ALERIE PAGASA BUENA#ENTURA, E&AN MARRI CA)ETE, #ANN ALLEN &ELA CRU(, RENE &ELORINO, PAULN MA &UMAN, S"ARON ESCOTO, RO&RIGO FA%AR&O III, GIRLIE FERRER, RAOULLE OSEN FERRER, CARLA REGINA GREPO, ANNA MARIE CECILIA GO, IRIS" KA KALA', MAR ANN %O LEE, MARIA LUISA MANALASA, MIGUEL RAFAEL MUSNGI, MIC"AEL OCAMPO, %AKLN "ANNA PINE&A, 'ILLIAM RAGAMAT, MARICAR RAMOS, ENRIK FORT RE#ILLAS, %AMES MARK TERR RI&ON, %O"ANN FRANT( RI#ERA I#, C"RISTIAN RI#ERO, &IANNE MARIE ROA, NIC"OLAS SANTI(O, MELISSA C"RISTINA SANTOS, CRISTINE MAE TABING, #ANESSA ANNE TORNO, MARIA ESTER #ANGUAR&IA, *+, MARCELINO #ELOSO III, Petitioners, vs."ON. E&UAR&O ERMITA, IN "IS CAPACIT AS E-ECUTI#E SECRETAR, "ON. ALBERTO ROMULO, IN "IS CAPACIT AS SECRETAR OF T"E &EPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, "ON. ROLAN&O AN&AA, IN "IS CAPACIT AS SECRETAR OF T"E &EPARTMENT OF BU&GET AN& MANAGEMENT, "ON. &ION #ENTURA, IN "IS CAPACIT AS A&MINISTRATOR OF T"E NATIONAL MAPPING . RESOURCE INFORMATION AUT"ORIT, *+, "ON. "ILARIO &A#I&E, %R., IN "IS CAPACIT AS REPRESENTATI#E OF T"E PERMANENT MISSION OF T"E REPUBLIC OF T"E P"ILIPPINES TO T"E UNITE& NATIONS,Respondents.& E C I S I O NCARPIO, J.:T/0 C*s0This original action for the writs of certiorari and prohibition assails the constitutionalit of Republic Act No. !"##$%RA !"##& ad'usting the countr(s archipelagic baselines and classifing the baseline regi)e of nearb territories.T/0 A+t010,0+ts*n $!+$, Congress passed Republic Act No. ,-.+ %RA ,-.+ de)arcating the )ariti)e baselines of the Philippines as an archipelagic /tate., This law followed the fra)ing of the Convention on the Territorial /ea and the Contiguous 0one in $!"1 %2NC34/ *&,. codifing, a)ong others, the sovereign right of /tates parties over their 5territorial sea,5 the breadth of which, however, was left undeter)ined. Atte)pts to 6ll this void during the second round of negotiations in 7eneva in $!+- %2NC34/ **& proved futile. Thus, do)esticall, RA ,-.+ re)ained unchanged for nearl 6ve decades, save for legislation passed in $!+1 %Republic Act No. "..+ 8RA "..+9& correcting tpographical errors and reserving the drawing of baselines around /abah in North Borneo.*n March #--!, Congress a)ended RA ,-.+ b enacting RA !"##, the statute now under scrutin. The change was pro)pted b the need to )a:e RA ,-.+ co)pliant with the ter)s of the 2nited Nations Convention on the 3aw of the /ea %2NC34/ ***&," which the Philippines rati6ed on #; tended continental shelf.1 Co)pling with these re?uire)ents, RA !"## shortened one baseline, opti)i@ed the location of so)e basepoints around the Philippine archipelago and classi6ed ad'acent territories, na)el, the Aalaaan *sland 7roup %A*7& and the /carborough /hoal, as 5regi)es of islands5 whose islands generate their own applicable )ariti)e @ones.Petitioners, professors of law, law students and a legislator, in their respective capacities as 5citi@ens, ta>paers or > > > legislators,5! as the case )a be, assail the constitutionalit of RA !"## on two principal grounds, na)elB %$& RA !"## reduces Philippine )ariti)e territor, and logicall, the reach of the Philippine state(s sovereign power, in violation of Article $ of the $!1; Constitution,$- e)boding the ter)s of the Treat of Paris$$ and ancillar treaties,$# and %#& RA !"## opens the countr(s waters landward of the baselines to )ariti)e passage b all vessels and aircrafts, under)ining Philippine sovereignt and national securit, contravening the countr(s nuclear=free polic, and da)aging )arine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions.$,*n addition, petitioners contend that RA !"##(s treat)ent of the A*7 as 5regi)e of islands5 not onl results in the loss of a large )ariti)e area but also pre'udices the livelihood of subsistence 6sher)en.$. To buttress their argu)ent of territorial di)inution, petitioners faciall attac: RA !"## for what it e>cluded and included C its failure to reference either the Treat of Paris or /abah and its use of 2NC34/ ***(s fra)ewor: of regi)e of islands to deter)ine the )ariti)e @ones of the A*7 and the /carborough /hoal.Co))enting on the petition, respondent oDcials raised threshold issues ?uestioning %$& the petition(s co)pliance with the case or controvers re?uire)ent for 'udicial review grounded on petitioners( alleged lac: of locus standiand %#& the propriet of the writs of certiorari and prohibition to assail the constitutionalit of RA !"##. 4n the )erits, respondents defended RA !"## as the countr(s co)pliance with the ter)s of 2NC34/ ***, preserving Philippine territor over the A*7 or /carborough /hoal. Respondents add that RA !"## does not under)ine the countr(s securit, environ)ent and econo)ic interests or relin?uish the Philippines( clai) over /abah.Respondents also ?uestion the nor)ative force, under international law, of petitioners( assertion that what /pain ceded to the 2nited /tates under the Treat of Paris were the islands and all the waters found within the boundaries of the rectangular area drawn under the Treat of Paris.Ee left unacted petitioners( praer for an in'unctive writ.T/0 Issu0sThe petition raises the following issuesB$. Preli)inaril C$. Ehether petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suitF and#. Ehether the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper re)edies to assail the constitutionalit of RA !"##.#. 4n the )erits, whether RA !"## is unconstitutional.T/0 Ru23+g o4 t/0 Cou5t4n the threshold issues, we hold that %$& petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit as citi@ens and %#& the writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper re)edies to test the constitutionalit of RA !"##. 4n the )erits, we 6nd no basis to declare RA !"## unconstitutional.On the Threshold IssuesPetitioners Possess LocusStandi as CitizensPetitioners the)selves under)ine their assertion of locus standi as legislators and ta>paers because the petition alleges neither infringe)ent of legislative prerogative$" nor )isuse of public funds,$+ occasioned b the passage and i)ple)entation of RA !"##. Nonetheless, we recogni@e petitioners( locus standi as citi@ens with constitutionall suDcient interest in the resolution of the )erits of the case which undoubtedl raises issues of national signi6cance necessitating urgent resolution. *ndeed, owing to the peculiar nature of RA !"##, it is understandabl diDcult to 6nd other litigants possessing 5a )ore direct and speci6c interest5 to bring the suit, thus satisfing one of the re?uire)ents for granting citi@enship standing.$;The Writs of Certiorari and ProhibitionAre Proper Reedies to Testthe Constitutionalit! of Statutes*n praing for the dis)issal of the petition on preli)inar grounds, respondents see: a strict observance of the oDces of the writs of certiorari and prohibition, noting that the writs cannot issue absent an showing of grave abuse of discretion in the e>ercise of 'udicial, ?uasi='udicial or )inisterial powers on the part of respondents and resulting pre'udice on the part of petitioners.$1Respondents( sub)ission holds true in ordinar civil proceedings. Ehen this Court e>ercises its constitutional power of 'udicial review, however, we have, b tradition, viewed the writs of certiorari and prohibition as proper re)edial vehicles to test the constitutionalit of statutes,$! and indeed, of acts of other branches of govern)ent.#-*ssues of constitutional i)port are so)eti)es crafted out of statutes which, while having no bearing on the personal interests of the petitioners, carr such relevance in the life of this nation that the Court inevitabl 6nds itself constrained to ta:e cogni@ance of the case and pass upon the issues raised, non=co)pliance with the letter of procedural rules notwithstanding. The statute sought to be reviewed here is one such law.RA "#$$ is %ot &nconstitutionalRA "#$$ is a Statutor! Toolto 'earcate the Countr!(s)aritie *ones and ContinentalShelf &nder &%CLOS III+ not to'elineate Philippine Territor!Petitioners sub)it that RA !"## 5dis)e)bers a large portion of the national territor5#$ because it discards the pre=2NC34/ *** de)arcation of Philippine territor under the Treat of Paris and related treaties, successivel encoded in the de6nition of national territor under the $!,", $!;, and $!1; Constitutions. Petitioners theori@e that this constitutional de6nition tru)ps an treat or statutor provision dening the Philippines sovereign control over waters, beond the territorial sea recogni@ed at the ti)e of the Treat of Paris, that /pain supposedl ceded to the 2nited /tates. Petitioners argue that fro) the Treat of Paris( technical description, Philippine sovereignt over territorial waters e>tends hundreds of nautical )iles around the Philippine archipelago, e)bracing the rectangular area delineated in the Treat of Paris.##Petitioners( theor fails to persuade us.2NC34/ *** has nothing to do with the ac?uisition %or loss& of territor. *t is a )ultilateral treat regulating, a)ong others, sea=use rights over )ariti)e @ones %i.e., the territorial waters 8$# nautical )iles fro) the baselines9, contiguous @one 8#. nautical)iles fro) the baselines9, e>clusive econo)ic @one 8#-- nautical )iles fro) the baselines9&, and continental shelves that 2NC34/ *** deli)its.#, 2NC34/ *** was the cul)ination of decades=long negotiations a)ong 2nited Nations )e)bers to codif nor)s regulating the conduct of /tates in the world(s oceans and sub)arine areas, recogni@ing coastal and archipelagic /tates( graduated authorit over a li)ited span of waters and sub)arine lands along their coasts.4n the other hand, baselines laws such as RA !"## are enacted b 2NC34/ *** /tates parties to )ar:=out speci6c basepoints along their coasts fro) which baselines are drawn, either straight or contoured, to serve as geographic starting points to )easure the breadth of the )ariti)e @ones and continental shelf. Article .1 of 2NC34/ *** on archipelagic /tates li:e ours could not be an clearerBA5t3120 68. Measurement of the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. C The breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous @one, the e>clusive econo)ic @one and the continental shelf s/*22 70 80*su50, 45o8 *51/3902*g31 7*s023+0s drawn in accordance with article .;. %E)phasis supplied&Thus, baselines laws are nothing but statutor )echanis)s for 2NC34/ *** /tates parties to deli)it with precision the e>tent of their )ariti)e @ones and continental shelves. *n turn, this gives notice to the rest of the international co))unit of the scope of the )ariti)e space and sub)arine areas within which /tates parties e>ercise treat=based rights, na)el, the e>ercise of sovereignt over territorial waters %Article #&, the 'urisdiction to enforce custo)s, 6scal, i))igration, and sanitation laws in the contiguous @one %Article ,,&, and the right to e>ploit the living and non=living resources in the e>clusiveecono)ic @one %Article "+& and continental shelf %Article ;;&.Even under petitioners( theor that the Philippine territor e)braces the islands and all the waters within the rectangular area deli)ited in the Treat of Paris, the baselines of the Philippines would still have to be drawn in accordance with RA !"## because this is the onl wa to draw the baselines in confor)it with 2NC34/ ***. The baselines cannot be drawn fro) the boundaries or other portions of the rectangular area delineated in the Treat of Paris, but fro) the 5outer)ost islands and dring reefs of the archipelago.5#.2NC34/ *** and its ancillar baselines laws pla no role in the ac?uisition, enlarge)ent or, as petitioners clai), di)inution of territor. 2nder traditional international law tpolog, /tates ac?uire %or conversel, lose& territor through occupation, accretion, cession and prescription,#" not b e>ecuting )ultilateral treaties on the regulations of sea=use rights or enacting statutes to co)pl with the treat(s ter)s to deli)it )ariti)e @ones and continental shelves. Territorial clai)s to land features are outside 2NC34/ ***, and are instead governed b the rules on general international law.#+RA "#$$(s &se of the ,rae-or.of Re/ie of Islands to 'eterine the)aritie *ones of the 0I1 and theScarborou/h Shoal+ not Inconsistent-ith the Philippines( Clai of So2erei/nt!O2er these AreasPetitioners ne>t sub)it that RA !"##(s use of 2NC34/ ***(s regi)e of islands fra)ewor: to draw the baselines, and to )easure the breadth of the applicable )ariti)e @ones of the A*7, 5wea:ens our territorial clai)5 over that area.#; Petitioners add that the A*7(s %and /carborough /hoal(s& e>clusion fro) the Philippine archipelagic baselines results in the loss of 5about$",--- s?uare nautical )iles of territorial waters,5 pre'udicing the livelihood of subsistence 6sher)en.#1 A co)parison of the con6guration of the baselines drawn under RA ,-.+ and RA !"## and the e>tent of )ariti)e space enco)passed b each law, coupled with a reading of the te>t of RA !"## and its congressional deliberations, vis--vis the Philippines( obligations under 2NC34/ ***, belie this view.1avvphi1The con6guration of the baselines drawn under RA ,-.+ and RA !"## shows that RA !"## )erel followed the basepoints )apped b RA ,-.+, save for at least nine basepoints that RA !"## s:ipped to opti)i@e the location of basepoints and ad'ustthe length of one baseline %and thus co)pl with 2NC34/ ***(s li)itation on the )a>i)u) length of baselines&. 2nder RA ,-.+, as under RA !"##, the A*7 and the /carborough /hoal lie outside of the baselines drawn around the Philippine archipelago. This undeniable cartographic fact ta:es the wind out of petitioners( argu)ent branding RA !"## as a statutor renunciation of the Philippines( clai) over the A*7, assu)ing that baselines are relevant for this purpose.Petitioners( assertion of loss of 5about $",--- s?uare nautical )iles of territorial waters5 under RA !"## is si)ilarl unfounded both in fact and law. 4n the contrar, RA !"##, b opti)i@ing the location of basepoints, increased the Philippines( total )ariti)e space %covering its internal waters, territorial sea and e>clusive econo)ic @one& b $.",#$+ s?uare nautical )iles, as shown in the table belowB#!E>tent of )ariti)e area using RA ,-.+, as a)ended, ta:ing into account the Treat of Paris( E>tent of )ariti)e area using RA !"##, ta:ing into account 2NC34/ *** %in s?uaredeli)itation %in s?uare nautical )iles&nautical )iles&*nternal or archipelagic waters $++,1"1 $;$,.,"Territorial /ea #;.,$,+ ,#,$-+E>clusive Econo)ic 0one ,1#,++!TOTAL 660,::6 ;86,210Thus, as the )ap below shows, the reach of the e>clusive econo)ic @one drawn under RA !"## even e>tends wa beond the waters covered b the rectangular de)arcation under the Treat of Paris. 4f course, where there are overlapping e>clusive econo)ic @ones of opposite or ad'acent /tates, there will have to be a delineation of )ariti)e boundaries in accordance with 2NC34/ ***.,-t the Philippines( continued clai) of sovereignt and 'urisdiction over the A*7 and the /carborough /hoalBSEC. 2. The baselines in the following areas o0=3s0 0?0513s0s soceed $-- nautical )iles,5 save for three per cent %,J& of the total nu)ber of baselines which can reach up to $#" nautical )iles.,$Although the Philippines has consistentl clai)ed sovereignt over the A*7,# and the /carborough /hoal for several decades, these outling areas are located at an appreciable distance fro) the nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipelago,,, such that an straight baseline loped around the) fro) the nearest basepoint will inevitabl 5depart to an appreciable e>tent fro) the general con6guration of the archipelago.5The principal sponsor of RA !"## in the /enate, /enator Miria) Gefensor=/antiago, too: pains to e)phasi@e the foregoing during the /enate deliberationsBEhat we call the Aalaaan *sland 7roup or what the rest of the world call89 the /pratls and the /carborough /hoal 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: "he drawing of such baseline shall not depart to an! appreciable extent from the general con"guration 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.This is called contested islands outside our con6guration. Ee see that our archipelago is de6ned b the orange line which 8we9 call89 archipelagic baseline. Ngaon, tingnan nino ang )aliit na circle doon sa itaas, that is /carborough /hoal, itong )ala:ing circle sa ibaba, that is Aalaaan 7roup or the /pratls. 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$a hindi na tatanggapin ng &nited 'ations because of the rule that it should follow the natural con"guration of the archipelago.,. %E)phasis supplied&/i)ilarl, the length of one baseline that RA ,-.+ drew e>ceeded 2NC34/ ***(s li)its. The need to shorten this baseline, and in addition, to opti)i@e the location of basepoints using current )aps, beca)e i)perative as discussed b respondentsB8T9he a)end)ent of the baselines law was necessar to enable the Philippines to draw the outer li)its of its )ariti)e @ones including the e>tended continental shelf in the )anner provided b Article .; of 82NC34/ ***9. As de6ned b R.A. ,-.+, as a)ended b R.A. "..+, the baselines suIer fro) so)e technical de6ciencies, to witB$. The length of the baseline across Moro 7ulf %fro) Middle of , Roc: Awash to Tong?uil Point& is $.-.-+ nautical )iles > > >. This e>ceeds the )a>i)u) length allowed under Article .;%#& of the 82NC34/ ***9, which states that 5The length of such baselines shall not e>ceed $-- nautical )iles, e>cept that up to , per cent of the total nu)ber of baselines enclosing an archipelago )a e>ceed that length, up to a )a>i)u) length of $#" nautical )iles.5#. The selection of basepoints is not opti)al. At least ! basepoints can be s:ipped or deleted fro) the baselines sste). This will enclose an additional #,$!" nautical )iles of water.,. isting in $!+1, and not established b geodetic surve )ethods. Accordingl, so)e of the points, particularl along the west coasts of 3u@on down to Palawan were later found to be located either inland or on water, not on low=water line and dring reefs as prescribed b Article .;.,"Hence, far fro) surrendering the Philippines( clai) over the A*7 and the /carborough /hoal, Congress( decision to classif the A*7 and the /carborough /hoal as 5KRegi)e8s9 of *slands( under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article $#$5,+ of 2NC34/ *** )anifests the Philippine /tate(s responsible observance of its pacta sunt servanda obligation under 2NC34/ ***. 2nder Article $#$ of 2NC34/ ***, an 5naturall for)ed area of land, surrounded b water, which is above water athigh tide,5 such as portions of the A*7, ?uali6es under the categor of 5regi)e of islands,5 whose islands generate their own applicable )ariti)e @ones.,;Statutor! Clai O2er Sabah underRA #334 RetainedPetitioners( argu)ent for the invalidit of RA !"## for its failure to te>tuali@e the Philippines( clai) over /abah in North Borneo is also untenable. /ection # of RA "..+, which RA !"## did not repeal, :eeps open the door for drawing the baselines of /abahB/ection #. The de6nition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Act3s =3t/out 950Au,310 to t/0 ,023+0*t3o+ o4 t/0 7*s023+0s o4 t/0 t0553to53*2 s0* *5ou+, t/0 t0553to5@ o4 S*7*/, s3tu*t0, 3+ No5t/ Bo5+0o, opeditious international navigation, consistent with the international law principle of freedo) of navigation. Thus, do)esticall, the political branches of the Philippine govern)ent, in the co)petent discharge of their constitutional powers, )a pass legislation designating routes within the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and sea lanes passage..- *ndeed, bills drawing nautical highwas for sea lanes passage are now pending in Congress..$*n the absence of )unicipal legislation, international law nor)s, now codi6ed in 2NC34/ ***, operate to grant innocent passage rights over the territorial sea or archipelagic waters, sub'ect to the treat(s li)itations and conditions for their e>ercise..# /igni6cantl, the right of innocent passage is a custo)ar international law,., thus auto)aticall incorporated in the corpus of Philippine law... No )odern /tate can validl invo:e its sovereignt to absolutel forbid innocent passage that is e>ercised in accordance with custo)ar international law without ris:ing retaliator )easures fro) the international co))unit.The fact that for archipelagic /tates, their archipelagic waters are sub'ect to both the right of innocent passage and sea lanespassage." does not place the) in lesser footing vis--vis continental coastal /tates which are sub'ect, in their territorial sea, to the right of innocent passage and the right of transit passage through international straits. The i)position of these passage rights through archipelagic waters under 2NC34/ *** was a concession b archipelagic /tates, in e>change for their right to clai) all the waters landward of their baselines,regardless of their depth or distance from the coast, as archipelagic waters sub'ect to their territorial sovereignt!. More i)portantl, the recognition of archipelagic /tates( archipelago and the waters enclosed b their baselines as one cohesive entit prevents the treat)ent of their islands as separate islands under 2NC34/ ***..+ /eparate islands generate their own )ariti)e @ones, placing the waters between islands separated b )ore than #. nautical )iles beond the /tates( territorial sovereignt, sub'ecting these waters to the rights of other /tates under 2NC34/ ***..;Petitioners( invocation of non=e>ecutor constitutional provisions in Article ** %Geclaration of Principles and /tate Policies&.1 )ust also fail. 4ur present state of 'urisprudence considers the provisions in Article ** as )ere legislative guides, which, absent enabling legislation, 5do not e)bod 'udiciall enforceable constitutional rights > > >.5.! Article ** provisions serve as guides in for)ulating and interpreting i)ple)enting legislation, as well as in interpreting e>ecutor provisions of the Constitution. Although )posa v. *actoran"- treated the right to a healthful and balanced ecolog under /ection $+ of Article ** as an e>ception, the present petition lac:s factual basis to substantiate the clai)ed constitutional violation. The other provisions petitioners cite, relating to the protection of )arine wealth %Article M**, /ection #, paragraph #"$ & and subsistence 6sher)en %Article M***, /ection ;"# &, are not violated b RA !"##.*n fact, the de)arcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to deli)it its e>clusive econo)ic @one, reserving solel to the Philippines the e>ploitation of all living and non=living resources within such @one. /uch a )ariti)e delineation binds the international co))unit since the delineation is in strict observance of 2NC34/ ***. *f the )ariti)e delineation is contrar to 2NC34/ ***, the international co))unit will of course re'ect it and will refuse to be bound b it.2NC34/ *** favors /tates with a long coastline li:e the Philippines. 2NC34/ *** creates a sui generis )ariti)e space C the e>clusive econo)ic @one C in waters previousl part of the high seas. 2NC34/ *** grants new rights to coastal /tates to e>clusivel e>ploit the resources found within this @one up to #-- nautical )iles.", 2NC34/ ***, however, preserves the traditional freedo) of navigation of other /tates that attached to this @one beond the territorial sea before 2NC34/ ***.RA "#$$ and the Philippines( )aritie *onesPetitioners hold the view that, based on the per)issive te>t of 2NC34/ ***, Congress was not bound to pass RA !"##.". Ee have loo:ed at the relevant provision of 2NC34/ ***"" and we 6nd petitioners( reading plausible. Nevertheless, the prerogativeof choosing this option belongs to Congress, not to this Court. Moreover, the lu>ur of choosing this option co)es at a ver steep price. Absent an 2NC34/ *** co)pliant baselines law, an archipelagic /tate li:e the Philippines will 6nd itself devoid of internationall acceptable baselines fro) where the breadth of its )ariti)e @ones and continental shelf is )easured. This is recipe for a two=fronted disasterB "rst, it sends an open invitation to the seafaring powers to freel enter and e>ploit the resources in the waters and sub)arine areas around our archipelagoF and second, it wea:ens the countr(s case in an international dispute over Philippine )ariti)e space. These are conse?uences Congress wisel avoided.The enact)ent of 2NC34/ *** co)pliant baselines law for the Philippine archipelago and ad'acent areas, as e)bodied in RA !"##, allows an internationall=recogni@ed deli)itation of the breadth of the Philippines( )ariti)e @ones and continental shelf. RA !"## is therefore a )ost vital step on the part of the Philippines in safeguarding its )ariti)e @ones, consistent with the Constitution and our national interest.'"EREFORE, we &ISMISS the petition./4 4RGEREG.ANTONIO T. CARPIOAssociate NusticeEE C4NC2RBRENATO C. CORONAChief NusticePRESBITERO %. #ELASCO, %R.Associate NusticeTERESITA %. LEONAR&O!&E CASTROAssociate NusticeARTURO &. BRION &IOS&A&O M. PERALTAAssociate Nustice Associate NusticeLUCAS P. BERSAMINAssociate NusticeMARIANO C. &EL CASTILLOAssociate NusticeROBERTO A. ABA&Associate NusticeMARTIN S. #ILLARAMA, %R.Associate Nustice%OSE PORTUGAL PERE(Associate Nustice%OSE C. MEN&O(AAssociate NusticeMARIA LOUR&ES P. A. SERENOAssociate NusticeC E R T * < * C A T * 4 NPursuant to /ection $,, Article O*** of the Constitution, * certif that the conclusions in the above Gecision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.RENATO C. CORONAChief NusticeFoot+ot0s$ Entitled 5An Act to A)end Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. ,-.+, as A)ended b Republic Act No. "..+, to Ge6ne the Archipelagic Baselines of the Philippines, and for 4ther Purposes.5# Entitled 5An Act to Ge6ne the Baselines of the Territorial /ea of the Philippines.5, The third 5Ehereas Clause5 of RA ,-.+ e>presses the i)port of treating the Philippines as an archipelagic /tateB5EHEREA/, all the waters around, between, and connecting the various islands of the Philippine archipelago, irrespective of their width or di)ensions, have alwas been considered as necessar appurtenances of the land territor, for)ing part of the inland waters of the Philippines.5. 4ne of the four conventions fra)ed during the 6rst 2nited Nations Convention on the 3aw of the /ea in 7eneva, this treat, e>cluding the Philippines, entered into force on $- /epte)ber $!+.." 2NC34/ *** entered into force on $+ Nove)ber $!!..+ The Philippines signed the treat on $- Gece)ber $!1#.; Article .;, paragraphs $=,, provideB$. An archipelagic /tate )a draw straight archipelagic baselines 'oining the outer)ost points of the outer)ost islands and dring reefs of the archipelago provided that within such baselines are included the )ain islands and an area in which the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land, including atolls, isbetween $ to $ and ! to $.#. The length of such baselines shall not e>ceed $-- nautical )iles, e>cept that up to , per cent of the total nu)ber of baselines enclosing an archipelago )a e>ceed that length, up to a )a>i)u) length of $#" nautical )iles.,. The drawing of such baselines shall not depart to an appreciable e>tent fro) the general con6guration of the archipelago. %E)phasis supplied&> > > >1 2NC34/ *** entered into force on $+ Nove)ber $!!.. The deadline for the 6ling of application is )andated in Article ., Anne> **B 5Ehere a coastal /tate intends to establish, in accordance with article ;+, the outer li)its of its continental shelf beond #-- nautical )iles, it shall sub)it particulars of such li)its to the Co))ission along with supporting scienti6c and technical data as soon as possible but in an case within $- ears of the entr into force of this Convention for that /tate. The coastal /tate shall at the sa)e ti)e give the na)es of an Co))ission )e)bers who have provided it with scienti6c and technical advice.5 %2nderscoring supplied&*n a subse?uent )eeting, the /tates parties agreed that for /tates which beca)e bound b the treat before $, Ma $!!! %such as the Philippines& the ten=ear period will be counted fro) that date. Thus, RA !"##, which too: eIect on #; March #--!, barel )et the deadline.! +ollo, p. ,..$- Ehich providesB 5The national territor co)prises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters e)braced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignt or 'urisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, Luvial, and aerial do)ains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other sub)arine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and di)ensions, for) part of the internal waters of the Philippines.5$$ Entered into between the 2nites /tates and /pain on $- Gece)ber $1!1 following the conclusion of the /panish=A)erican Ear. 2nder the ter)s of the treat, /pain ceded to the 2nited /tates 5the archipelago :nown as the Philippine *slands5 ling within its technical description.$# The Treat of Eashington, between /pain and the 2nited /tates %; Nove)ber $!--&, transferring to the 2/ the islands of Cagaan, /ulu, and /ibutu and the 2/=7reat Britain Convention %# Nanuar $!,-& de)arcating boundar lines between the Philippines and North Borneo.$, Article **, /ection ;, /ection 1, and /ection $+.$. Allegedl in violation of Article M**, /ection #, paragraph # and Article M***, /ection ; of the Constitution.$" ,ilosba!an, -nc. v. Morato, ,#- Phil. $;$, $1+ %$!!"&.$+ .ascual v. #ecretar! of .ublic /or$s, $$- Phil. ,,$ %$!+-&F #anidad v. 0)M1(10, $+" Phil. ,-, %$!;+&.$; *rancisco, 2r. v. 3ouse of +epresentatives, .+- Phil. 1,-, 1!! %#--,& citing ,ilosba!an, -nc. v. 4uingona,2r., 7.R. No. $$,,;", " Ma $!!., #,# /CRA $$-, $""=$"+ %$!!"& %cept as provided for in paragraph ,, the territorial sea, the contiguous @one, the e>clusive econo)ic @one and the continental shelf of an island are deter)ined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territor.,. Roc:s which cannot sustain hu)an habitation or econo)ic life of their own shall have no e>clusive econo)ic @one or continental shelf.5,1 +ollo, pp. "+=";, +-=+..,! Paragraph #, /ection #, Article M** of the Constitution uses the ter) 5archipelagic waters5 separatel fro) 5territorial sea.5 2nder 2NC34/ ***, an archipelagic /tate )a have internal waters C such as those enclosed b closing lines across bas and )ouths of rivers. /ee Article "-, 2NC34/ ***. Moreover, Article 1 %#& of 2NC34/ *** providesB 5Ehere the establish)ent of a straight baseline in accordance with the )ethod set forth in article ; has theeIect of enclosing as 3+t05+*2 =*t05s areas which had not previousl been considered as such, a right of innocent passage as provided in this Convention shall e>ist in those waters.5 %E)phasis supplied&.- Mandated under Articles "# and ", of 2NC34/ ***BArticle "#. Right of innocent passage. P$. /ub'ect to article ", and without pre'udice to article "-, s/39s o4 *22 St*t0s 0+Ao@ t/0 53g/t o4 3++o10+t 9*ss*g0 t/5oug/ *51/3902*g31 =*t05s, in accordance with Part **, section ,.#. The archipelagic /tate )a, without discri)ination in for) or in fact a)ong foreign ships, suspend te)poraril in speci6ed areas of its archipelagic waters the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its securit. /uch suspension shall ta:e eIect onl after having been dul published. %E)phasis supplied&Article ",. Right of archipelagic sea lanes passage. P$. An archipelagic /tate )a designate sea lanes and air routes thereabove, suitable for the continuous and e>peditious passage of foreign ships and aircraft through or over its archipelagic waters and the ad'acent territorial sea.#. A22 s/39s *+, *3515*4t 0+Ao@ t/0 53g/t o4 *51/3902*g31 s0* 2*+0s 9*ss*g0 3+ su1/ s0* 2*+0s*+, *35 5out0s.,. Archipelagic sea lanes passage )eans the e>ercise in accordance with this Convention of the rights of navigation and overLight in the nor)al )ode solel for the purpose of continuous, e>peditious and unobstructed transit between one part of the high seas or an e>clusive econo)ic @one and another part of the high seas or an e>clusive econo)ic @one... /uch sea lanes and air routes shall traverse the archipelagic waters and the ad'acent territorial seaand shall include all nor)al passage routes used as routes for international navigation or overLight through or over archipelagic waters and, within such routes, so far as ships are concerned, all nor)al navigational channels, provided that duplication of routes of si)ilar convenience between the sa)e entr and e>it points shall not be necessar.". /uch sea lanes and air routes shall be de6ned b a series of continuous a>is lines fro) the entr points of passage routes to the e>it points. /hips and aircraft in archipelagic sea lanes passage shall not deviate )ore than #" nautical )iles to either side of such a>is lines during passage, provided that such ships and aircraft shall not navigate closer to the coasts than $- per cent of the distance between the nearest points on islands bordering the sea lane.+. An archipelagic /tate which designates sea lanes under this article )a also prescribe traDc separation sche)es for the safe passage of ships through narrow channels in such sea lanes.;. An archipelagic /tate )a, when circu)stances re?uire, after giving due publicit thereto, substitute other sea lanes or traDc separation sche)es for an sea lanes or traDc separation sche)es previousl designated or prescribed b it.1. /uch sea lanes and traDc separation sche)es shall confor) to generall accepted international regulations.!. *n designating or substituting sea lanes or prescribing or substituting traDc separation sche)es, an archipelagic /tate shall refer proposals to the co)petent international organi@ation with a view to their adoption. The organi@ation )a adopt onl such sea lanes and traDc separation sche)es as )a be agreed with the archipelagic /tate, after which the archipelagic /tate )a designate, prescribe or substitute the).$-. The archipelagic /tate shall clearl indicate the a>is of the sea lanes and the traDc separation sche)es designated or prescribed b it on charts to which due publicit shall be given.$$. /hips in archipelagic sea lanes passage shall respect applicable sea lanes and traDc separation sche)es established in accordance with this article.$#. *f an archipelagic /tate does not designate sea lanes or air routes, the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage )a be e>ercised through the routes nor)all used for international navigation. %E)phasis supplied&.$ Na)el, House Bill No. .$", and /enate Bill No. #;,1, identicall titled 5AN ACT T4 E/TAB3*/H THE ARCH*PE3A7*C /EA 3ANE/ *N THE PH*3*PP*NE ARCH*PE3A7*C EATER/, PRE/CR*B*N7 THE R*7HT/ ANG 4B3*7AT*4N/ 4< clusive econo)ic @one. P$. *n the e>clusive econo)ic @one, all /tates, whether coastal or land=loc:ed, en'o, sub'ect to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedo)s referred to in article 1; of navigation and overLight and of the laing of sub)arine cables and pipelines, and other internationall lawful uses of the sea related to these freedo)s, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and sub)arine cables and pipelines, and co)patible with the other provisions of this Convention.#. Articles 11 to $$" and other pertinent rules of international law appl to the e>clusive econo)ic @one in so far as the are not inco)patible with this Part.> > > >Beond the e>clusive econo)ic @one, other /tates en'o the freedo) of the high seas, de6ned under 2NC34/ *** as followsBArticle 1;. ercised b all /tates with due regard for the interests of other /tates in their e>ercise of the freedo) of the high seas, and also with due regard for the rights under this Convention with respect to activities in the Area..1 /ee note $,..! ,ilosba!an, -nc. v. Morato, ,$+ Phil. +"#, +!1 %$!!"&F a9ada v. 5ngara, ,,1 Phil. ".+, "1-="1$ %$!!;&."- 7.R. No. $-$-1,, ,- Nul $!!,, ##. /CRA ;!#."$ 5The /tate shall protect the nation(s )arine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and e>clusive econo)ic @one, and reserve its use and en'o)ent e>clusivel to tend up to ,"- nautical )iles if the coastal /tate proves its right to clai) an e>tended continental shelf %see 2NC34/ ***, Article ;+, paragraphs .%a&, " and +, in relation to Article ;;&.". +ollo, pp. +;=+!."" Article .; %$& providesB 5An archipelagic /tate 8*@ draw straight archipelagic baselines 'oining the outer)ost points of the outer)ost islands and dring reefs of the archipelago provided that within such baselines are included the )ain islands and an area in which the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land, including atolls, is between $ to $ and ! to $.5 %E)phasis supplied& in the Area.The 3awphil Pro'ect = Arellano 3aw ercisessovereign authorit, such as the Aalaaan *slands, and the waters appurtenant theretoFThe Convention shall not be construed as a)ending in an )anner an pertinent laws and Presidential Gecrees or Procla)ations of the Republic of the Philippines. The 87RP9 )aintains and reserves the right and authorit to )a:e an a)end)ents to such laws, decrees or procla)ations pursuant to the provisions of the Philippine ConstitutionFThe provisions of the Convention on archipelagic passage through sea lanes do not nullif or i)pair the sovereignt of the Philippines as an archipelagic state over the sea lanes and do not deprive it of authorit to enact legislation to protect its sovereignt independence and securitFThe concept of archipelagic waters is si)ilar to the concept of internal waters under the Constitution of the Philippines, and re)oves straits connecting these waters with the econo)ic @one or high sea fro) the rights of foreign vessels to transit passage for international navigation.1 %E)phasis added.&Petitioners challenge the constitutionalit of RA !"## on the principal ground that the law violates /ection $, Article * of the $!1; Constitution on national territor which statesB/ection $. The national territor co)prises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters e)braced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignt or 'urisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, Luvial and aerial do)ains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other sub)arine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and di)ensions, for) part of the internal waters of the Philippines. %E)phasis supplied.&According to press )ention of the Treat of Paris.Report No. -$ of the Co))ittee on National Territor had in fact been e>plicit in its delineation of the e>panse of this archipelago. *t saidBNow if we plot on a )ap the boundaries of this archipelago as set forth in the Treat of Paris, a huge or giant rectangle will e)erge, )easuring about +-- )iles in width and $,#-- )iles in length. *nside this giant rectangle are the ;,$-- islands co)prising the Philippine *slands. > >.Ehile the Treat of Paris is not )entioned in both the $!;, and $!1; Constitutions, its )ention, so the nationalistic argu)ents went, being 5a repulsive re)inder of the indignit of our colonial past,5$. it is at once clear that the Treat of Paris had been utili@ed as :e reference point in the de6nition of the national territor.4n the other hand, the phrase 5all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignt or 'urisdiction,5 found in the $!1; Constitution, which replaced the deleted phrase 5all territories belonging to the Philippines b historic right or legal title5$" found in the $!;, Constitution, covers areas lin:ed to the Philippines with varing degrees of certaint.$+ 2nder this categor would fallB %a& Batanes, which then $!;$ Convention Gelegate Eduardo Tuintero, Chairperson of the Co))ittee on National Territor, described as belonging to the Philippines in all its historF$; %b& /abah, over which a for)al clai) had been 6led, the so=called ercise sovereignt.$!2pon the foregoing perspective and going into speci6cs, petitioners would have RA !"## stric:en down as unconstitutional for the reasons that it deprives the Philippines of what has long been established as part and parcel of its national territor under the Treat of Paris, as supple)ented b the afore)entioned $!-- Treat of Eashington or, to the sa)e eIect, revises the de6nition on or dis)e)bers the national territor. Pushing their case, petitioners argue that the constitutional de6nition of the national territor cannot be re)ade b a )ere statutor act.#- As another point, petitioners parla the theor that the law in ?uestion virtuall wea:ens the countr(s territorial clai) over the Aalaaan *sland 7roup %A*7& and /abah, both of which co)e under the categor of 5other territories5 over the Philippines has sovereignt or 'urisdiction. Petitioners would also assail the law on grounds related to territorial sea lanes and internal waters transit passage b foreign vessels.*t is re)ar:able that petitioners could seriousl argue that RA !"## revises the Philippine territor as de6ned in the Constitution, or worse, constitutes an abdication of territor.*t cannot be over=e)phasi@ed enough that RA !"## is a baseline law enacted to i)ple)ent the $!1# 34/C, which in turn see:s to regulate and establish an orderl sea use rights over )ariti)e @ones. 4r as the ponencia aptl states, RA !"## ai)sto )ar:=out speci6c base points along the Philippine coast fro) which baselines are drawn to serve as starting points to )easure the breadth of the territorial sea and )ariti)e @ones.#$ The baselines are set to de6ne the sea li)its of a state, be itcoastal or archipelagic, under the 2NC34/ *** regi)e. B setting the baselines to confor) to the prescriptions of 2NC34/ ***, RA !"## did not surrender an territor, as petitioners would insist at ever turn, for 2NC34/ *** is concerned with setting order in the e>ercise of sea=use rights, not the ac?uisition or cession of territor. And let it be noted that under 2NC34/ ***, it is recogni@ed that countries can have territories outside their baselines. clusive Econo)ic 0one %EE0& 5shall not e>tend beond #-- nautical )iles fro) the baselines fro) which the breadth of the territorial sea is )easured.5#. Most i)portant to note is that the baselines indicated under RA !"## are derived fro) Art. .; of the $!1# 34/C which was earlier ?uoted./ince the $!1; Constitution(s de6nition of national territor does not deli)it where the Philippine(s baselines are located, it isup to the political branches of the govern)ent to suppl the de6cienc. Through Congress, the Philippines has ta:en an oDcial position regarding its baselines to the international co))unit through RA ,-.+,#" as a)ended b RA "..+#+ and RA !"##. Ehen the Philippines deposited a cop of RA !"## with the 2N /ecretar 7eneral, we eIectivel co)plied in good faithwith our obligation under the $!1# 34/C. A declaration b the Court of the constitutionalit of the law will co)plete the bona 6des of the Philippines vis=a=vis the law of the sea treat.*t )a be that baseline provisions of 2NC34/ ***, if strictl i)ple)ented, )a have an i)posing i)pact on the signator states( 'urisdiction and even their sovereignt. But this actualit, without )ore, can hardl provide a 'ustifing di)ension to nullif the co)pling RA !"##. As held b the Court in Baan Muna v. Ro)ulo,#; treaties and international agree)ents have ali)iting eIect on the otherwise enco)passing and absolute nature of sovereignt. B their voluntar acts, states )a decide to surrender or waive so)e aspects of their sovereignt. The usual underling consideration in this partial surrender )a be the greater bene6ts derived fro) a pact or reciprocal underta:ing. 4n the pre)ise that the Philippines has adopted the generall accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, a portion of sovereignt )a be waived without violating the Constitution.As a signator of the $!1# 34/C, it behooves the Philippines to honor its obligations thereunder. Pacta sunt servanda, a basicinternational law postulate that 5ever treat in force is binding upon the parties to it and )ust be perfor)ed b the) in good faith.5#1 The e>acting i)perative of this principle is such that a state )a not invo:e provisions in its constitution or its laws as an e>cuse for failure to perfor) this dut.5#!The allegation that /abah has been surrendered b virtue of RA !"##, which supposedl repealed the hereunder provision of RA "..+, is li:ewise unfounded./ection #. The de6nition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Act is without pre'udice to the delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea around the territor of /abah, situated in North Borneo, overwhich the Republic of the Philippines has ac?uired do)inion and sovereignt.There is nothing in RA !"## indicating a clear intention to supersede /ec. # of RA "..+. Petitioners obviousl have read too )uch into RA !"##(s a)end)ent on the baselines found in an older law. Aside fro) setting the countr(s baselines, RA !"## is, in its /ec. ,, ?uite e>plicit in its reiteration of the Philippines( e>ercise of sovereignt, thusB/ection ,. This Act aDr)s that the Republic of the Philippines has do)inion, sovereignt and 'urisdiction over all portions of the national territor as de6ned in the Constitution and b provisions of applicable laws including, without li)itation, RepublicAct No. ;$+-, otherwise :nown as the 3ocal 7overn)ent Code of $!!$, as a)ended.To e)phasi@e, baselines are used to )easure the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous @one, the e>clusive econo)ic @one and the continental shelf. Having A*7 and the /carborough /hoal outside Philippine baselines will not di)inish our sovereignt over these areas. Art. .+ of 2NC34/ *** in fact recogni@es that an archipelagic state, such as the Philippines, is a state 5constituted wholl b one or )ore archipelagos and )a include other islands.5 %e)phasis supplied& The 5other islands5 referred to in Art. .+ are doubtless islands not for)ing part of the archipelago but are nevertheless part of the state(s territor.The Philippines( sovereignt over A*7 and /carborough /hoal are, thus, in no wa di)inished. ConsiderB 4ther countries such as Malasia and the 2nited /tates have territories that are located outside its baselines, et there is no territorial ?uestion arising fro) this arrange)ent. ,-*t )a well be apropos to point out that the /enate version of the baseline bill that would beco)e RA !"## contained the following e>planator noteB The law 5reiterates our sovereignt over the Aalaaan 7roup of *slands declared as part of the Philippine territor under Presidential Gecree No. $"!+. As part of the Philippine territor, the shall be considered as a Kregi)e of islands( under Article $#$ of the Convention.5,$ Thus, instead of being in the nature of a 5treasonous surrender5 that petitioners have described it to be, RA !"## even har)oni@es our baseline laws with our international agree)ents, without li)iting our territor to those con6ned within the countr(s baselines.Contrar to petitioners( contention, the classi6cation of A*7 and the /carborough /hoal as falling under the Philippine(s regi)e of islands is not constitutionall ob'ectionable. /uch a classi6cation serves as co)pliance with 34/C and the Philippines( assertion of sovereignt over A*7 and /carborough /hoal. *n setting the baseline in A*7 and /carborough /hoal, RA !"## states that these are areas 5over which the Philippines li:ewise e>ercises sovereignt and 'urisdiction.5 *t is, thus, not correct for petitioners to clai) that the Philippines has lost $",--- s?uare nautical )iles of territorial waters upon )a:ingthis classi6cation. Having $",--- s?uare nautical )iles of Philippine waters outside of our baselines, to reiterate, does not translate to a surrender of these waters. The Philippines )aintains its assertion of ownership over territories outside of its baselines. Even China views RA !"## as an assertion of ownership, as seen in its Protest,# 6led with the 2N /ecretar=7eneral upon the deposit of RA !"##.Ee ta:e 'udicial notice of the eIective occupation of A*7 b the Philippines. Petitioners even point out that national and local elections are regularl held there. The classi6cation of A*7 as under a 5regi)e of islands5 does not in an )anner aIect the Philippines( consistent position with regard to sovereignt over A*7. *t does not aIect the Philippines( other acts of ownership such as occupation or a)end Presidential Gecree No. $"!+, which declared A*7 as a )unicipalit of Palawan.The fact that the baselines of A*7 and /carborough /hoal have et to be de6ned would not detract to the constitutionalit of the law in ?uestion. The resolution of the proble) lies with the political depart)ents of the govern)ent.All told, the concerns raised b the petitioners about the di)inution or the virtual dis)e)ber)ent of the Philippine territor b the enact)ent of RA !"## are, to )e, not well grounded. To repeat, 2NC34/ *** pertains to a law on the seas, not territor. As part of its Prea)ble,,, 34/C recogni@es 5the desirabilit of establishing through this Convention, with due regard for the sovereignt of all /tates, a legal order for the seas and oceans > > >.5This brings )e to the )atter of transit passage of foreign vessels through Philippine waters.Apropos thereto, petitioners allege that RA !"## violates the nuclear weapons=free polic under /ec. 1, in relation to /ec. $+, Art. ** of the Constitution, and e>poses the Philippines to )arine pollution ha@ards, since under the 34/C the Philippines supposedl )ust give to ships of all states the right of innocent passage and the right of archipelagic sea=lane passage.The adverted /ec. 1, Art. ** of the $!1; Constitution declares the adoption and pursuit b the Philippines of 5a polic of freedo) fro) nuclear weapons in its territor.5 4n the other hand, the succeeding /ec. l+ underscores the /tate(s 6r) co))it)ent 5to protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecolog in accord with the rhth) and har)on of nature.5 t, RA !"## si)pl see:s to confor) to our international agree)ent on the setting of baselines and provides nothing about the designation of archipelagic sea=lane passage or the regulation of innocent passage within our waters. Again, petitioners have read into the a)endator RA !"## so)ething not intended.*ndeed, the $!1# 34/C enu)erates the rights and obligations of archipelagic part=states in ter)s of transit under Arts. "$ to",, which are e>plained belowBTo safeguard, in e>plicit ter)s, the general balance struc: b 8Articles "$ and "#9 between the need for passage through the area %other than straits used for international navigation& and the archipelagic state(s need for securit, Article ", gave the archipelagic state the right to regulate where and how ships and aircraft pass through its territor b designating speci6c sealanes. Rights of passage through these archipelagic sea lanes are regarded as those of transit passageB%$& An archipelagic /tate )a designate sea lanes and air routes thereabove, suitable for safe, continuous and e>peditious passage of foreign ships and aircraft through or over its archipelagic waters and the ad'acent territorial sea.%#& All ships and aircraft en'o the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage in such sea lanes and air routes.%,& Archipelagic sea lanes passage is the e>ercise in accordance with the present Convention of the rights of navigation and overLight in the nor)al )ode solel for the purpose of continuous, e>peditious and unobstructed transit between one part of the high seas or an e>clusive econo)ic @one and another part of the high seas or an e>clusive econo)ic @one.,.But owing to the geographic structure and phsical features of the countr, i.e., where it is 5essentiall a bod of water studded with islands, rather than islands with water around the),5," the Philippines has consistentl )aintained the conceptual unit of land and water as a necessar ele)ent for territorial integrit,,+ national securit %which )a be co)pro)ised b the presence of warships and surveillance ships on waters between the islands&,,; and the preservation of its )ariti)e resources. As succinctl e>plained b Minister Arturo Tolentino, the essence of the archipelagic concept is 5the do)inion and sovereignt of the archipelagic /tate within its baselines, which were so drawn as to preserve the territorial integrit of the archipelago b the inseparable unit of the land and water do)ain.5,1 *ndonesia, li:e the Philippines, in ter)s of geographic realit, has e>pressed agree)ent with this interpretation of the archipelagic concept. /o it was that in $!";, the *ndonesian 7overn)ent issued the G'uanda Geclaration, therein stating B8H9istoricall, the *ndonesian archipelago has been an entit since ti)e i))e)orial.1avvphi1 *n view of the territorial entiret and of preserving the wealth of the *ndonesian state, it is dee)ed necessar to consider all waters between the islands and entire entit.> > > 4n the ground of the above considerations, the 7overn)ent states that all waters around, between and connecting, the islands or parts of islands belonging to the *ndonesian archipelago irrespective of their width or di)ension are natural appurtenances of its land territor and therefore an integral part of the inland or national waters sub'ect to the absolute sovereignt of *ndonesia.,! %E)phasis supplied.&Hence, the Philippines )aintains the sui generis character of our archipelagic waters as e?uivalent to the internal waters of continental coastal states. *n other words, the landward waters e)braced within the baselines deter)ined b RA !"##, i.e., all waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and di)ensions, for) part of the internal waters of the Philippines..- Accordingl, such waters are not covered b the 'urisdiction of the 34/C and cannot be sub'ected to the rights granted to foreign states in archipelagicwaters, e.g., the right of innocent passage,.$ which is allowed onl in the territorial seas, or that area of the ocean co)prising $# )iles fro) the baselines of our archipelagoF archipelagic sea=lane passageF.# over LightF., and traditional 6shing rights...4ur position that all waters within our baselines are internal waters, which are outside the 'urisdiction of the $!1# 34/C,." was abundantl )ade clear b the Philippine Geclaration at the ti)e of the signing of the 34/C on Gece)ber$-, $!1#. To reiterate, paragraphs ", + and ; of the Geclaration stateB". The Convention shall not be construed as a)ending in an )anner an pertinent laws and Presidential decrees of Procla)ation of the republic of the PhilippinesF the 7overn)ent > > > )aintains and reserves the right and authorit to )a:e an a)end)ents to such laws, decrees or procla)ations pursuant to the provisions of the Philippine ConstitutionF+. The provisions of the Convention on archipelagic passage through sea lanes do not nullif or i)pair the sovereignt of the Philippines as an archipelagic /tate over the sea lanes and do not deprive it of authorit to enact legislation to protect its sovereignt, independence and securitF;. The concept of archipelagic waters is si)ilar to the concept of internal waters under the Constitution of the Philippines and re)oves straits connecting this water with the econo)ic @one or high seas fro) the rights of foreign vessels to transit passage for international navigation. %E)phasis supplied.&.+More i)portantl, b the rati6cation of the $!1; Constitution on change for the international co))unit(s recognition of the Philippines as an archipelagic state. The ecutive agree)ent, law, presidential decree, procla)ation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in ?uestion. %E)phasis supplied.&, Gece)ber $-, $!1#.. Ma 1, $!1.." Available on UhttpBQQwww.un.orgQGeptsQlosQconventionVagree)entsQte>tsQunclosQclosind>.ht)W %visited Nul #1, #-$$&.+ 2NC34/, Art. .;, Gece)ber $-, $!1#.; N. Bernas, /.N., The $!1; Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines A Co))entar "; %#--,&.1 /ee N. Batongbacal, The Metes and Bounds of the Philippine National Territor, An *nternational 3aw and Polic Perspective, /upre)e Court of the Philippines, Philippine Nudicial Acade) Third Gistinguished 3ecture, clusive econo)ic @one and the continental shelf shall be )easured fro) the archipelagic baseline drawn in accordance with Art. .;.## R.P. 3otilla, The Philippine National TerritorB A Collection of Related Gocu)ents "$,="$; %$!!"&F citing Batasang Pa)bansa, Acts and Resolution, +th Regular /ession.#, N. Bernas, supra note ;, at ##.#. 2NC34/ ***, Art. ";.#" Nune $;, $!+$.#+ /epte)ber $1, $!+1.#; 7.R. No. $"!+$1,