REPUBLIC ACT No.

3046
(as amended by RA 5446)

AN ACT DEFINE THE BASELINES OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA OF THE PHILIPPINES.

WHEREAS, the Constitution of the Philippines describes the national territory as comprising all the territory ceded
to the United States by the Treaty of Paris concluded between the United States and Spain on December 10, 1898,
the limits of which are set forth in Article III of said treaty, together with all the islands embraced in the treaty
concluded at Washington, between the United States and Spain on November 7, 1900, and in the treaty concluded
between the United States and Great Britain on January 2, 1930, and all the territory over which the Government
of the Philippine Islands exercised jurisdiction at the time of the adoption of the Constitution;

WHEREAS, all the waters within the limits set forth in the above-mentioned treaties have always been regarded as
part of the territory of the Philippine Islands;

WHEREAS, all the waters around, between and connecting the various islands of the Philippines archipelago,
irrespective of their width or dimension, have always been considered as necessary appurtenances of the land
territory, forming part of the inland or internal waters of the Philippines;

WHEREAS, all the waters beyond the outermost islands of the archipelago but within the limits of the boundaries
set forth in the aforementioned treaties comprise the territorial sea of the Philippines;

WHEREAS, the baselines from which the territorial sea of the Philippines is determined consist of straight lines
joining appropriate points of the outermost islands of the archipelago; and

WHEREAS, the said baselines should be clarified and specifically defined and described for the information of all
concerned; Now, therefor,

Section 1. The baselines for the territorial sea of the Philippines are hereby defined and described specifically as
follows:

Section 2. All waters within the baselines provided for in Section one hereof are considered inland or internal
waters of the Philippines.

Section 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: June 17, 1961.

REPUBLIC ACT No. 9522

March 10, 2009

AN ACT TO AMEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3046, AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO.
5446, TO DEFINE THE ARCHIPELAGIC BASELINE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled::

Section 1. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 3046, entitled "An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the
Philippines", as amended by Section 1 of Republic Act No. 5446, is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 1. The baselines of the Philippines archipelago are hereby defined and described specifically as follows:

Section 2. The baseline in the following areas over which the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and
jurisdiction shall be determined as "Regime of Islands" under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article
121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS):
a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No. 1596; and

b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal.

Section 3. This Act affirms that the Republic of the Philippines has dominion, sovereignty and jurisdiction over all
portions of the national territory as defined in the Constitution and by provisions of applicable laws including,
without limitation, Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, as amended.

Section 4. This Act, together with the geographic coordinates and the chart and maps indicating the aforesaid
baselines, shall be deposited and registered with the Secretary General of the United Nations.

Section 5. The National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) shall forthwith produce and
publish charts and maps of the appropriate scale clearly representing the delineation of basepoints and baselines
as set forth in this Act.

Section 6. The amount necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act shall be provided in a supplemental budyet
or included in the General Appropriations Act of the year of its enactment into law.

Section 7. If any portion or provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional or invalid the other portions or
provisions hereof which are not affected thereby shall continue to be in full force and effect.

Section 8. The provisions of Republic Act No. 3046, as amended by Republic Act No. 5446, and all other laws,
decrees, executive orders, rules and issuances inconsistent with this Act are hereby amended or modified
accordingly.

Section 9. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in any two
(2) newspaper of general circulation.

Approved

(Sgd.) PROSPERO C. NOGRALES (Sgd.) JUAN PONCE ENRILE

Speaker of the House of Representatives President of the Senate

This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2699 and House Bill No. 3216 was finally passed by the Senate
and the House of Representative on February 17, 2009.

(Sgd.) MARILYN B. BARUA-YAP (Sgd.) EMMA LIRIO-REYES

Secretary General Secretary of Senate
House of Represenatives

Approved: MAR 10, 2009

(Sgd.) GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

President of the Philippines

Republic Act No. 5446

September 18, 1968
as amended by R.A. 9522

AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION ONE OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED THIRTY HUNDRED AND FORTY-SIX, ENTITLED
"AN ACT TO DEFINE THE BASELINES OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA OF THE PHILIPPINES"

Section 1. To correct typographical errors, Section one of Republic Act numbered thirty hundred and forty-six is
amended to read as follows:
"SECTION 1. The baselines for the territorial sea of the Philippines are hereby defined and described specifically as
follows:

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.

Section 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: September 18, 1968

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1599

ESTABLISHING AN EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

WHEREAS, an exclusive economic zone extending to a distance of two hundred nautical miles from the baselines
from which the territorial sea is measured is vital to the economic survival and development of the Republic of the
Philippines;

WHEREAS, such a zone is now a recognized principle of international law;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by
the Constitution, do hereby decree and order:

Section 1. There is hereby established a zone to be known as the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines. The
exclusive economic zone shall extend to a distance of two hundred nautical miles beyond and from the baselines
from which the territorial sea is measured: Provided, That, where the outer limits of the zone as thus determined
overlap the exclusive economic zone of an adjacent or neighboring state, the common boundaries shall be
determined by agreement with the state concerned or in accordance with pertinent generally recognized
principles of international law on delimitation.

Section 2. Without prejudice to the rights of the Republic of the Philippines over it territorial sea and continental
shelf, it shall have and exercise in the exclusive economic zone established herein the following;

(a) Sovereignty rights for the purpose of exploration and exploitation, conservation and management of the
natural resources, whether living or non-living, both renewable and non-renewable, of the sea-bed, including the
subsoil and the superjacent waters, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and
exploration of the resources of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds;

(b) Exclusive rights and jurisdiction with respect to the establishment and utilization of artificial islands, off-shore
terminals, installations and structures, the preservation of the marine environment, including the prevention and
control of pollution, and scientific research;

(c) Such other rights as are recognized by international law or state practice.

Section 3. Except in accordance with the terms of any agreement entered into with the Republic of the Philippines
or of any license granted by it or under authority by the Republic of the Philippines, no person shall, in relation to
the exclusive economic zone:

(a) explore or exploit any resources;

(b) carry out any search, excavation or drilling operations:

(c) conduct any research;

(d) construct, maintain or operate any artificial island, off-shore terminal, installation or other structure or device;
or

(e) perform any act or engage in any activity which is contrary to, or in derogation of, the sovereign rights and
jurisdiction herein provided.

Nothing herein shall be deemed a prohibition on a citizen of the Philippines, whether natural or juridical, against
the performance of any of the foregoing acts, if allowed under existing laws.

Section 4. Other states shall enjoy in the exclusive economic zone freedoms with respect to navigation and
overflight, the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea relating to
navigation and communications.

Section 5. (a) The President may authorize the appropriate government office/agency to make and promulgate
such rules and regulations which may be deemed proper and necessary for carrying out the purposes of this
degree.

(b) Any person who shall violate any provision of this decree or of any rule or regulation promulgated hereunder
and approved by the President shall be subject to a fine which shall not be less than two thousand pesos
(P2,000.00) nor be more than one hundred thousand pesos (100,000.00) or imprisonment ranging from six (6)
months to ten (10) years, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. Vessels and other
equipment or articles used in connection therewith shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture.

Section 6. This Decree shall take effect thirty (30) days after publication in the Official Gazette.

Done in the City of Manila, this 11th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-eight.

MAGALLONA v. ERMITA

PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, et.al v. HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
et.al
G.R. No. 187167, 16 July 2011, EN BANC (Carpio, J.)

The conversion of internal waters into archipelagic waters will not risk the Philippines because an
archipelagic State has sovereign power that extends to the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines,
regardless of their depth or distance from the coast.

R.A. 9522 was enacted by the Congress in March 2009 to comply with the terms of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which the Philippines ratified on February 27, 1984. Such
compliance shortened one baseline, optimized the location of some basepoints around the Philippine archipelago
and classified adjacent territories such as the Kalayaan Island Ground (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal as “
regimes of islands” whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.

Petitioners, in their capacities as “citizens, taxpayers or legislators” assail the constitutionality of R.A.
9522 with one of their arguments contending that the law unconstitutionally “converts” internal waters into
archipelagic waters, thus subjecting these waters to the right of innocent and sea lanes passage under UNCLOS III,
including overflight. Petitioners have contended that these passage rights will violate the Constitution as it shall
expose Philippine internal waters to nuclear and maritime pollution hazard.

ISSUE:

Whether or not R.A. 9522 is unconstitutional for converting internal waters into archipelagic waters

HELD:

Petition DISMISSED.
 The Court finds R.A. 9522 constitutional and is consistent with the Philippine’s national interest. Aside from
being a vital step in safeguarding the country’s maritime zones, the law also allows an internationally-recognized
delimitation of the breadth of the Philippine’s maritime zones and continental shelf.

The Court also finds that the conversion of internal waters into archipelagic waters will not risk the
Philippines as affirmed in the Article 49 of the UNCLOS III, an archipelagic State has sovereign power that extends
to the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast. It is
further stated that the regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage will not affect the status of its archipelagic waters
or the exercise of sovereignty over waters and air space, bed and subsoil and the resources therein.

Furthermore, due to the absence of its own legislation regarding routes within the archipelagic waters to
regulate innocent and sea lanes passage, the Philippines has no choice but to comply with the international law
norms. The Philippines is subject to UNCLOS III, which grants innocent passage rights over the territorial sea or
archipelagic waters, subject to the treaty’s limitations and conditions for their exercise, thus, the right of
innocent passage, being a customary international law, is automatically incorporated in the corpus of Philippine
law. If the Philippines or any country shall invoke its sovereignty to forbid innocent passage, it shall risk retaliatory
measures from the international community. With compliance to UNCLOS III and the enactment of R.A. 9522, the
Congress has avoided such conflict.

Contrary to the contention of the petitioners, the compliance to UNCLOS III through the R.A. 9522 will not
expose Philippine internal waters to nuclear and maritime pollution hazard. As a matter of fact, if the Philippines
did not comply with the baselines law, it will find itself devoid of internationally acceptable baselines from where
the breadth of its maritime zones and continental shelf is measured and which will produce two-fronted disaster:
(1) open invitation to the seafaring powers to freely enter and exploit the resources in the waters and submarine
areas around the archipelago and (2) it shall weaken the country’s case in any international dispute over
Philippine maritime space. Such disaster was avoided through the R.A. 9522.

ARIGO v. SWIFT

CASE: Most Rev. Pedro D. Arigo, et.al. v. Scott H. Swift, et.al. (G.R. No. 206510)
DATE: 16 September 2014
PONENTE: J. Villarama, Jr.

FACTS

 Tubbataha was declared a National Marine Park by virtue of Proclamation No. 306 issued by President
Corazon C. Aquino on 11 August 1988.
 In 1993, Tubbataha was inscribed by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) as a World Heritage Site. It was recognized as one of the Philippines’ oldest ecosystems.
 On 6 April 2010, Congress passed R.A. No. 10067 (RA 10067), otherwise known as the “Tubbataha Reefs
Natural Park (TRNP) Act of 2009”, to ensure protection and conservation of the Tubbataha Reefs into
perpetuity for the enjoyment of present and future generations.
 Under the “no take” policy, entry into the waters of the TRNP is strictly regulated and many human
activities are prohibited, penalized or fined, including fishing, gathering, destroying and disturbing the
resources within the TRNP.
 In December 2012, the US Embassy in the Philippines requested diplomatic clearance for the USS
Guardian (the ship) “to enter and exit the territorial waters of the Philippines and to arrive at the port of
Subic Bay for the purpose of routine ship replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty.”
 On 6 January 2013, the ship left Sasebo, Japan for Subic Bay, arriving on 13 January 2013. Two days later,
it departed Subic Bay for its next port of call in Makassar, Indonesia.
 On 17 January 2013, while transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship ran aground on the northwest side of South
Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs. No one was injured in the incident and there have been no reports of
leaking fuel or oil.
 On 20 January 2013, US 7th Fleet Commander, Vice Admiral Scott Swift expressed regret for the incident in
a press statement.
 On 4 February 2013, US Ambassador to the Philippine Harry Thomas, Jr. met with Department of Foreign
Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario regarding the compensation for damage to the reef caused by the
ship.
 By 30 March 2013, the US Navy-led salvage team had finished removing the last piece of the grounded
ship from the coral reef.
  On 17 April 2013, petitioners Arigo, et.al. on their behalf and in representation of their respective
sector/organization and others, including minors or generations yet unborn filed a petition for the
issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection
Order (TEPO) under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. Their contentions are:
- The grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging operations of the ship cause and continue to cause
environmental damage of such magnitude as to affect the provinces of Palawan, Antiques, Aklan,
Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental, Zamboaga del Norte, Basilan, Sulu and Taw-
Tawi which events violate their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology
- There should be a directive from the Supreme Court for the institution of civil, administrative and
criminal suits for acts committed in violation of environmental laws and regulations in
connection with the grounding incident
- US respondents committed the following violations under RA 10067: unauthorized entry; non-
payment of conservation fees; obstruction of law enforcement officer; damages to the reef; and
destroying and disturbing resources
- The VFA provides for a waiver of immunity from suit
 The respondents consist of the following: Scott Swift in his capacity as Commander of the US 7 th Fleet;
Mark Rice as the Commanding Officer of the ship; President Benigno Aquino III as the Commander-in-
Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines; Hon. Albert del Rosario as the DFA Secretary; Hon. Paquito
Ochoa as the Executive Secretary; Hon. Ramon Paje as the DENR Secretary; Vice Admiral Jose Luis Alano
as the Philippine Navy Flag Officer in Command; Admiral Rodolfo Isorena as Commandant of the
Philippine Coast Guard, Commodore Enrico Efren Evangelista as the Philippine Coast Guard Palawan,
Major Gen. Virgilio Domingo as Commandant of the AFP and Lt. Gen. Terry Robling as Co-Director of the
US Marine Corps. Forces. The Philippine respondents contend that:
- The grounds relied upon by petitioners for the issuance of TEPO or writ of Kalikasan have become
fait accompli as the salvage operations on the ship were already completed
- The petition is defective in form and in substance
- The petition improperly raises issues involving VFA between Philippines and USA
- The determination of the extent of responsibility of the US Government regarding the damage to
the Tubbataha Reefs rests exclusively with the executive branch

ISSUES

1. WON the Court has jurisdiction over the US respondents

2. WON the waiver of immunity provisions of the VFA applies
3. WON the petition has become moot
4. WON the Court can determine the extent of responsibility of the US Government

RULING

1. None. The US respondents were sued in their official capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy who
had control and supervision over the USS Guardian and its crew. The alleged act or omission resulting in
the unfortunate grounding of the USS Guardian on the TRNP was committed while they were performing
official military duties. Considering that the satisfaction of a judgment against said officials will require
remedial actions and appropriation of funds by the US government, the suit is deemed to be one against
the US itself. The principle of State immunity therefore bars the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court over
the persons of respondents Swift, Rice and Robling.

It is worthy to note that during the deliberations, Justice Antonio Carpio took the position that
the conduct of the US in this case, when its warship entered a restricted area in violation of RA 10067 and
caused damage to the TRNP reef system, brings the matter within the ambit of Article 31 of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

While historically, warships enjoy sovereign immunity from suit as extensions of their flag State,
Art. 31 of UNCLOS creates an exception to this rule in cases where they fail to comply with the rules and
regulations of the coastal State regarding passage through the latter’s internal waters and the territorial
sea.

Although the US to date has not ratified the UNCLOS, as a matter of long-standing policy, the US
considers itself bound by customary international rules on the “traditional uses of the oceans” as
codified in UNCLOS.

The Court concurs with Justice Carpio’s view that non-membership in the UNCLOS does not
mean that the US will disregard the rights of the Philippines as a Coastal State over its internal waters and
 territorial sea. The Court thus expects the US to bear “international responsibility under Art. 31 of
UNCLOS in connection with the USS Guardian grounding which adversely affected the Tubbataha reefs.

2. No. The waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special
civil actions such as the present petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan.

In fact, it can be inferred from Section 17, Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases that a criminal case against a person charged with a violation of an environmental law is to be filed
separately:

“SEC. 17. Institution of separate actions. – The filing of a petition for the issuance of
the writ of kalikasan shall not preclude the filing of separate civil, criminal or
administrative actions.”

A ruling on the application or non-application of criminal jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to US

personnel who may be found responsible for the grounding of the USS Guardian, would be premature and
beyond the province of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan. The Court found it unnecessary to determine
whether such waiver of State immunity is indeed absolute.

In the same vein, the Court cannot grant damages which have resulted from the violation of
environmental laws. Section 15, Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases enumerates the
reliefs which may be granted in a petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan, to wit:

Section 15. Judgment. - Within sixty (60) days from the time the petition is submitted for
decision, the court shall render judgment granting or denying the privilege of the writ of
kalikasan.

The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are the following:

(a) Directing respondent to permanently cease and desist from committing acts or
neglecting the performance of a duty in violation of environmental laws resulting in
environmental destruction or damage;

(b) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, private person or entity
to protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the environment;

(c) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, private person or entity
to monitor strict compliance with the decision and orders of the court;

(d) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, or private person or
entity to make periodic reports on the execution of the final judgment; and

(e) Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology or to the protection, preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of the
environment, except the award of damages to individual petitioners. (Emphasis
supplied)

3. Yes, in the sense that the salvage operation sought to be enjoined or restrained had already been
accomplished. However, insofar as the directives to Philippine respondents to protect and rehabilitate the
coral reef structure and marine habitat adversely affected by the grounding incident are concerned,
petitioners are entitled to these reliefs notwithstanding the completion of the removal of the USS
Guardian from the coral reef.

The Court is mindful of the fact that the US and Philippine governments both expressed
readiness to negotiate and discuss the matter of compensation for the damage caused by the USS
Guardian. After all, exploring avenues for settlement of environmental cases is not proscribed by the
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.

4. No. The Court deferred to the Executive Branch the matter of compensation and rehabilitation measures
through diplomatic channels. Resolution of these issues impinges on our relations with another State in
the context of common security interests under the VFA.

It is settled that the conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the
Constitution to the executive and legislative – “the political” departments of the government, and the
propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or
decision.