Constitutionality of Baselines Law questioned at Supreme Court

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court was asked yesterday to declare unconstitutional the Baselines Law signed by President Arroyo last month on grounds that at least 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters of the Philippines would be lost after the law “radically revised the definition of the Philippine archipelago.”

Petitioners said the Baselines Law violates Article I of the Constitution defining Philippine territory as having a roughly triangular shape, excluding much of the waters that were previously within the territory defined by the 1898 Treaty of Paris, which described it as rectangular, about 600 miles wide and 1,200 miles long.

“A law has been passed that, well-intentioned it may be inasmuch as it purportedly updates Philippine treaty commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) regime, actually deprives the Philippines of what has been established long before in historical, legal and scientific terms as part and parcel of its national territory,” read the petition.

At Malacañang, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita downplayed the petition to have the Supreme Court declare the Baselines Law as unconstitutional.

“The Baselines Law is nothing more than the establishment of base points joined together to establish the Philippines as an archipelago and the basis for compliance with the UNCLOS,” he said.

Speaking to reporters, Ermita said government lawyers would easily defend the constitutionality of the law.

The Philippines would not be able to comply with the UNCLOS requirement of submitting the country’s extended continental shelf and exclusive economic zone if it did not establish its baselines, Ermita said.

In their 71-page petition, lawyers Merlin Magallona and Harry Roque, Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, and 38 law students asked the SC to issue a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction or a temporary restraining order against the implementation of Republic Act 9522, which amended RA 3046.

The new Baselines Law also violated Article II Sections 7 and 8 of the Constitution as it converts Philippine internal waters into archipelagic waters under the UNCLOS when the Constitution declares that the waters connecting the islands of the Philippines are internal waters, the petition added.

RA 9522 has declared the Philippines as an “archipelagic state” through standards under the UNCLOS that uses the straight baselines method in delineating the national territory.

The straight baselines method uses straight lines to connect the outermost points of the outermost islands of the country, with the overall shape following the general contour of the archipelago.

The UNCLOS mandates that states can exercise the rights of innocent passage and archipelagic sea lanes passage over archipelagic waters.

Foreign ships including nuclear-powered ships and other ships carrying weapons-grade nuclear substances and even aircraft of all kinds can pass through and over archipelagic waters in a continuous, expeditious, and unobstructed manner.

RA 9522 obligates the Philippines to grant these rights to other states, in violation of Article II Sections 7 and 8 of the Constitution.

Section 7 mandates that the Philippines place paramount consideration on national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national

interest, and self-determination in its pursuit of an independent foreign policy.

Section 8 provides that the Philippines pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in our territory.

Other allegations in the petition include:

• The Baselines Law violated Article II Section 16 of the Constitution because it threatens the Filipino people’s right to a healthful ecology as it allows foreign ships of all kinds, including those that carry nuclear and other dangerous substances, to pass through Philippine waters without obstruction; and

• RA 9522 violated Article XII Section 2 and Article XIII Section 7 of the Constitution by declaring the Kalayaan Island Group and Scarborough Shoal as mere regimes of islands.

Petitioners said treating the group of islands, which include the Spratlys, under the regime of islands is an admission it does not form part of the Philippine archipelago, and is far and distant from the mainland of Palawan.

“The law also effectively relinquishes our claim to Sabah,” read the petition.

“By surrendering the said waters, the law violates the constitutional duty to protect the Philippines’ exclusive marine wealth and offshore fishing grounds of our subsistence fishermen, as mandated by the said provisions.”

Named respondents in the petition were Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo, Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya Jr., National Mapping and Resource Information

Authority administrator Diony Ventura, and Ambassador to the United Nations Hilario Davide Jr. —With Paolo Romero