Del Rosario, Marc Leonard G.

Fernandez, Francis Carl E.

Ronquillo, Chester Ken A.
Vistada, John Christopher A.
Fangsilat, Iris Faith B.
Matulac, Justine Pearl O.

1. What is the scope of National Territory as defined in Article 1?

 In article 1, the scope of our national territory comprises the philippine archipelago, with all the
islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its
territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas.

2. The word “historic right” or “legal title” found in the 1973 Constitution were deleted, have we
abandoned our claim over Sabah on account of the said deleted words?

 No. Even with the deletion of the words "by historic right or legal title", we have not
abandoned our claim over sabah but instead changed it to improve our relations with malaysia
while allowing flexibility in pursuing the sabah claim.

3. What is included by the phrase “all other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic/
legal title?”

 In Article 1 Section 1 The Phrase acquired a definite meaning in the 1973 constitution as a cover
– all for pending Philippine claim Sabah (formerly North Borneo) against Malaysia and the
possible claim to the so-called Freedom land (a group of islands known as “Spratley” islands
in the South China Sea) and the Maraianas Islands, Including Guam or any other territory over
which the Philippines may in the future find it has a right to claim.

4. Is the definition of our National Territory binding against all other nations?

 Is a disagreement over the possession/control of land between two or more territorial entities
or over the possession or control of land, usually between a new state and the occupying
power.
5. Why is there a need to draw the lines, the scope, and the extent of our national territory?

 It is stated in the Philippine Constitution that, “It is important to define as precisely as possible
our national territory for the purpose of making known to the world the areas over which we
assert title or ownership to avoid future conflicts with other nations.”

6. What is the Archipelagic Doctrine? Under the Archipelagic Doctrine, what is our claim with
respect to the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago?

 Archipelagic Doctrine? Under the Archipelagic Doctrine, what is our claim with respect to the
waters around, between and connecting the islands of the Archipelago?
It is indicated in the Philippine Constitution that the main idea of the Archipelagic Doctrine
and/or Concept is that “An archipelago shall be regarded as a single unit, so that the waters
around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, irrespective of their breadth
and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the state, subject to it’s sovereignty.” The
Philippine’s claim regarding the extent of our territory is the former three-mile rule now known
as the 12-mile rule.

7. What is UNCLOS?

 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), also called the Law of the
Sea Convention or the Law of the Sea treaty, is the international agreement that resulted from
the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which took place
between 1973 and 1982. The Law of the Sea Convention defines the rights and responsibilities
of nations with respect to their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for
businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources. The
Convention, concluded in 1982, replaced four 1958 treaties. UNCLOS came into force in 1994,
a year after Guyana became the 60th nation to ratify the treaty

8. What is referred to as the Contiguous Zone?

 The Contiguous Zone is an intermediary zone between the territorial sea and the high seas
extending enforcement jurisdiction of the coastal state to a maximum of 24 nautical miles from
baselines for the purposes of preventing or punishing violations of customs, fiscal,
immigration or sanitary (and thus residual national security) legislation. In the maritime
security context, this can certainly include monitoring any activities which can result in armed
violence or weapons import into the state. Therefore, the coastal state can take measures to
prevent or regulate armed maritime security activities out to 24 nautical miles under the
reasoning that it is undertaking customs enforcement operations to prevent movement of
arms into its waters/ports.
9. What is referred to as the Exclusive Economic Zone?

 The exclusive economic zone (EEZ), established on June 11, 1978 under Presidential Decree No.
1599, is referred to as the zone in international waters that is measured from the extension of
200 nautical miles beyond and from which the territorial sea is measured. It is the sea zone
over which a state has no sovereignty over but has equal right of use in them such as
exploration and marine resources. Shall there be an overlap of economic zones of neighboring
countries, it is stated in Article I that, “common boundaries shall be determined by agreement
with the state concerned, or in accordance with generally recognized principles of
international law on delimitation.”

10. What is the position of the Philippine government to the Archipelagic Doctrine?

 Resounding words of the leader of the Philippine delegation to the International Convention
on the Law of the Sea held on Geneva in 1985, former Senator Arturo M. Tolentino explained
the position of the Philippines as follows:
“"To apply the three-mile rule to the Philippines, with every island having its own territorial
sea, would have a fatal effect upon the territorial integrity of the Philippines. It would mean
the dismemberment of the archipelago with the Sibuyan sea separating the Visayas, and the
Mindanao Strait and the Sulu isolating Palawan from the rest of the archipelago.
These and other areas of waters would cease to be Philippine waters; they would become
international waters or high seas, and fishing vessels from all nations can enter to get the fish
and other living resources of the sea which nature and Divine Providence intended for the
Filipinos. Furthermore, warships of even unfriendly nations could enter these waters and stay
there with perfect legal right to do so. At the same time, we would lose a large part of our
territory on both sides of the archipelago, towards the China Sea and the Pacific Ocean.
As long as the Philippine Constitution stands, as long as the Philippines continues as one united
country, and as long as the Philippines continues one nation, the three-mile limit can never be
acceptable to us."

11. Research on the territorial disputes on Spratly Island and Scarborough Shoal.

 The famous Spratly island dispute has been happening for more than a decade now. Many
countries are involve in this game tag of war. The Philippines, Brunei, China, Cambodia,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam all claims that this islands is their property.
Most of the countries mentioned earlier say that the island is theirs historically, that their
ancestors discovered this group of island first while the other half of the countries says that it
is theirs legally, because it is within their territory. Many legal actions have been taken in order
to find out who really owns Spratly Islands especially by the Philippines since it is the closest
country within the area and legally speaking, they really do own the Spratly. The People’s
Republic of China strongly believes that they have the right to the island since historically
speaking, they discovered it in 2 B.C. while the Philippines clings to the law.
Another famous dispute is the Scarborough Shoal issue where, once again, the Philippines and
China found themselves in troubled waters. “PRC calls the shoal as Huangyan island while RP
refers to it as Bajo de Masinloc or Panatag Shoal as advanced and published in their respective
governmental positions, albeit their claims for de facto sovereignty and territory. Employing
mainly descriptive, historical, documentary and content analyses techniques, this dwells on (a)
the character of Scarborough Shoal in the perspective of international law, (b) the conflicting
claims of the PRC and RP with their respective governmental positions, (c) the mechanisms for
settlement of an international dispute as provided for by the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and (d) whether or not the Philippines can avail of the said
remedies and how can the Scarborough Shoal be settled employing international law, rules
and principles.” (Taton, 2013).

The shoal is part of the Philippines’ national territory. Philippine maritime law experts argue
that the country has exercised continuous and effective sovereignty over the shoal since the
Spanish colonial era. Under the Philippine Baselines Law of 2009 (Republic Act 9522), the
Philippine government classified the Scarborough Shoal as part of a group of islands under the
Republic of the Philippines. And once again, PRC’s reason was based on history.