1.
NATIONAL TERRITORY
ARTICLE I OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
PRESENTER  JOHANNA S. ADREMESIN

2.
Composition of the Philippine Territory
The national territory comprises:
1. The Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced
therein; and
2. All other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction, consisting of:
a. its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains
b. including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular
shelves, and other submarine areas.
NOTE: The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the
internal waters of the Philippines.

3.
The Archipelagic Doctrine
 The Philippine Archipelago is considered as one
integrated unit instead of being divided into more
than 7,000 islands.
 The islands and waters of the Philippine
Archipelago are unified in sovereignty, together
with “all the territories over which the Philippines
has sovereignty or jurisdiction.”
 The purpose of the Archipelagic Doctrine is for
Territorial Integrity, Economic Reasons, and
National Security.

4.
Concept of Innocent Passage
Passage through territorial waters which is
neither prejudicial to the interests of the coastal
state nor contrary to recognized principles of
international law.

5.
Normal Baseline Method
The baseline is drawn following the low-water
line along the coasts as marked on large-scale
charts officially recognized by the coastal State.
This line follows the sinuosities of the coast and
therefore would normally not consist of straight
lines

6.
Straight Baseline Method
Consists of drawing straight lines connecting
appropriate points on the coast without departing
to any appreciable extent from the general
direction of the coast, in order to delineate the
internal waters from the territorial waters of an
archipelago.

7.
Baseline Law (R.A. 9522, 2009)
R.A. No. 9522–amended R.A. No. 3046, entitled
"An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial
Sea of the Philippines;" specified that baselines of
Kalayaan Group of Islands and Bajo de Masinloc
(Scarborough Shoal) shall be determined as
“Regime of Islands” under the Republic of the
Philippines, consistent with the UNCLOS.

8.
The SGI and Scarborough Shoal fall under the 2nd
phrase of Art. II, i.e. "and all other territories
over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction.” It is part of our national territory
because the Philippines exercise sovereignty
(through election of public officials) over the
Spratly Group of Islands. Moreover, under the
Philippine Baselines Law of 2009 [RA 9522], the
Spratly Islands and the Scarborough Shoal are
classified as islands under the regime of the
Republic of the Philippines.

9.
Magalona vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167,
Aug. 16, 2022
FACTS: RA 9552 was passed, amending RA 3046 to comply
with the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS). The new law shorterned one baseline,
namely, the Kalayaan Island Group and the Scarborough
Shoal. Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of the new
law on the ground that: it reduces the Philippine maritime
territory, in violation of Article 1 of the Constitution and it
opens the country’s waters to maritime passage by all
vessels, thus undermining Philippine sovereignty.
Respondents, on the other hand, defended the new law as
the country’s compliance with the terms of UNCLOS.
Respondents stressed that RA 9522 does not relinquish the
country’s claim over Sabah.

10.
ISSUE: Whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional?
RULING: NO. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the
acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a multilateral treaty
regulating, among others, sea-use rights over maritime
zones, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, and
continental shelves that UNCLOS III delimits.
Magalona vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167,
Aug. 16, 2022

11.
R.A. No. 9522 is constitutional:
The law also does not convert internal waters into
archipelagic waters (which allow the right of innocent
passage). The Philippines still exercises sovereignty over the
body of water lying landward of the baselines including the
air space over it and the submarine areas underneath. 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.
The Baselines Law does not abandon the Philippines’ claim
over Sabah under RA 5446.

12.
Rights of the Philippines within the
following areas:
MARITIME ZONE AREA RIGHTS OF THE PHILIPPINES
TERRITORIAL SEA
12 nautical miles from
baselines
Absolute Sovereignty
CONTIGUOUS ZONE
24 nautical miles from
baselines
Enforcement of customs, fiscal,
immigration, sanitation laws
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC
ZONE
200 nautical miles from
baselines
Exploitation of living and non-
living resources
CONTINENTAL SHELF
Submerged prolongation
of the land territory
Sovereign rights of exploration
and exploitation of living and
non-living resources of the
seabed

13.
In the Matter of the South China Sea
Arbitration Before an Arbitral Tribunal
Constituted under Annex VII to the 1982
UNCLOS between the Republic of the
Philippines and the People’s Republic of China

14.
Philippines-China Arbitration Ruling of
the Permanent Court of Arbitration
 China claims the South China Sea by virtue of its
historic rights within the 'nine-dash line’
 The Tribunal concluded that the UNCLOS
comprehensively allocates rights to maritime
areas and that protections for pre-existing right
to resources were considered, but not adopted in
the UNCLOS.

15.
 To the extent China had historic rights to
resources in the waters of the South China Sea,
such right were extinguished to the extent they
were incompatible with the exclusive economic
zones provided for in the UNCLOS.
 Although Chinese navigators and fishermen, as
well as those of other States, had historically
made use of the islands in the South China Sea,
there was no evidence that China had historically
exercised exclusive control over the waters or
their resources.
Philippines-China Arbitration Ruling of
the Permanent Court of Arbitration

16.
a. Prior to the UNCLOS, the waters of the South
China Sea beyond the territorial sea were
legally part of the high seas, in which vessels
from any State could freely navigate and fish.
b. Historical navigation and fishing by China in
the waters of the South China Sea represented
the exercise of high seas freedoms, rather than
a historic right.
Philippines-China Arbitration Ruling of
the Permanent Court of Arbitration

17.
 The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal
basis for China to claim historic rights to
resources within the sea areas falling within the
'nine-dash line.’
[The South China Sea Arbitration or Philippines vs. China, PCA Case No.
2013-19, 2016]
Philippines-China Arbitration Ruling of
the Permanent Court of Arbitration