CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 – MIDTERMS PHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO, DEFINED.

Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | EH306MC Evening | @itsmaebecher ARTICLE I | The National Territory | 1935 Constitution
SECTION 1. The Philippines comprises all the territory ceded to the United States by the
PHILIPPINES AS A STATE treaty of Paris concluded between the United States and Spain on the tenth day of
December, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, the limits of which are set forth in Article III
STATE, DEFINED. of said treaty [Treaty of Paris], together with all the islands embraced in the treaty
concluded at Washington, between the United States and Spain on the seventh day of
ARTICLE I | Montevideo Constitution
November, nineteen hundred [Treaty of Washington], and in the treaty concluded
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
1. Permanent population between the United States and Great Britain on the second day of January, nineteen
2. Defined territory hundred and thirty, and all territory over which the present Government of the Philippine
Islands exercises jurisdiction [Treaty between US and Great Britain].
3. Government
4. Capacity to enter into relations with other states
NOTE: RA 9522 is patterned to UNCLOS III
NORTH COTABATO v GRP CASE
ARTICLE I | The National Territory | 1973 Constitution
 Memorandum Agreement – Ancestral Domain
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters
 Creates the Bangsamoro Juridical Entry (BJE) to be entered by GRP
embraced therein, and all the other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right
or legal title, including the territorial sea, the air space, the subsoil, the sea-bed, the insular
[Petitioner’s Argument] - The constitution does not contemplate any state in the
shelves, and the other submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction other than the Philippine state
jurisdiction. 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
[Respondent Argument] - BJE is not a state. It is only an expanded version of ARMM which
Philippines.
is allowed under the 1987 Constitution.
ARTICLE 46 | Use of Terms | UNCLOS III
SUPREME COURT’s RULING
For the purposes of this Convention:
BJE Is a state; it is an associated state. MOA-AD is unconstitutional.
a) "archipelagic State" means a State constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos
Association under the International Law concept embodied in several provisions of the
and may include other islands;
MOA-AD, most explicitly in paragraph 4 governing governance, thus, an association is
b) "archipelago" means a group of islands, including parts of islands, interconnecting
formed when two states of unequal power voluntarily establish durable links. In the basic
waters and other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such islands,
model, one state, the associate delegates certain responsibilities.
waters and other natural features form an intrinsic geographical, economic and
political entity, or which historically have been regarded as such.
THE PHILIPPINE TERRITORY
ARTICLE 52 | Right of Innocent Passage | UNCLOS III
NATIONAL TERRITORY, DEFINED. 1) Subject to article 53 and without prejudice to article 50, ships of all States enjoy
ARTICLE I | National Territory | 1987 Constitution the right of innocent passage through archipelagic waters, in accordance with Part II,
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters section 3.
embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or 2) The archipelagic State may, without discrimination in form or in fact among foreign
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its archipelagic waters
sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the
around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth protection of its security. Such suspension shall take effect only after having been duly
and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines [Archipelagic Doctrine]. published.
ARTICLE 53 | Right of Archipelagic Sea Lanes Passage 12) If an archipelagic State does not designate sea lanes or air routes,
1) An archipelagic State may designate sea lanes and air routes there above, suitable for the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage may be exercised through the routes
the continuous and expeditious passage of foreign ships and aircraft through or over normally used for international navigation.
its archipelagic waters and the adjacent territorial sea.
2) All ships and aircraft enjoy the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage in such sea lanes OTHER TERRITORIES
and air routes.
3) Archipelagic sea lanes passage means the exercise in accordance with this ARTICLE I | The National Territory | 1935 Constitution
Convention of the rights of navigation and overflight in the normal mode solely for the SECTION 1. The Philippines comprises all the territory ceded to the United States by the
purpose of continuous, expeditious and unobstructed transit between one part of the treaty of Paris concluded between the United States and Spain on the tenth day of
high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an December, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, the limits of which are set forth in Article III
exclusive economic zone. of said treaty, together with all the islands embraced in the treaty concluded at
4) Such sea lanes and air routes shall traverse the archipelagic waters and the adjacent Washington, between the United States and Spain on the seventh day of November,
territorial sea and shall include all normal passage routes used as routes for nineteen hundred, and in the treaty concluded between the United States and Great Britain
international navigation or overflight through or over archipelagic waters and, within on the second day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty, and all territory over which the
such routes, so far as ships are concerned, all normal navigational channels, provided present Government of the Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction.
that duplication of routes of similar convenience between the same entry and exit
points shall not be necessary. ARTICLE I | The National Territory | 1973 Constitution
5) Such sea lanes and air routes shall be defined by a series of continuous axis lines from SECTION 1. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands
the entry points of passage routes to the exit points. Ships and aircraft in archipelagic and waters embraced therein, and all the other territories belonging to the Philippines by
sea lanes passage shall not deviate more than 25 nautical miles to either side of such historic right or legal title, including the territorial sea, the air space, the subsoil, the sea-
axis lines during passage, provided that such ships and aircraft shall not navigate bed, the insular shelves, and the other submarine areas over which the Philippines has
closer to the coasts than 10 per cent of the distance between the nearest points on sovereignty or jurisdiction. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the
islands bordering the sea lane. archipelago, irrespective of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters
6) An archipelagic State which designates sea lanes under this article may also prescribe of the Philippines.
traffic separation schemes for the safe passage of ships through narrow channels in
such sea lanes. ARTICLE I | National Territory | 1987 Constitution
7) An archipelagic State may, when circumstances require, after giving due publicity The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters
thereto, substitute other sea lanes or traffic separation schemes for any sea lanes or embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
traffic separation schemes previously designated or prescribed by it. jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial
8) Such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes shall conform to generally accepted sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters
international regulations. around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth
9) In designating or substituting sea lanes or prescribing or substituting traffic separation and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
schemes, an archipelagic State shall refer proposals to the competent international
organization with a view to their adoption. The organization may adopt only such sea SECTION 2 | RA 5446
lanes and traffic separation schemes as may be agreed with the archipelagic State, The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as
after which the archipelagic State may designate, prescribe or substitute them. provided in this Act is without prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of the territorial
10) The archipelagic State shall clearly indicate the axis of the sea lanes and the traffic sea around the territory of Sabah, situated in North Borneo, over which the Republic of the
separation schemes designated or prescribed by it on charts to which due publicity Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty.
shall be given.
11) Ships in archipelagic sea lanes passage shall respect applicable sea lanes and traffic PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1596
separation schemes established in accordance with this article. DECLARING CERTAIN AREA PART OF THE PHILIPPINE TERRITORY AND PROVIDING FOR
THEIR GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
 officers of the Civil government or the Armed Forces of the Philippines as the President may
WHEREAS, by reason of their proximity the cluster of islands and islets in the South China designate.
Sea situated within the following:
SECTION 2. The baselines in the following areas over which the Philippines likewise
KALAYAAN ISLAND GROUP. From a point [on the Philippine Treaty Limits] at latitude 7º40' exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction shall be determined as "Regime of Islands" under the
North and longitude 116º00 East of Greenwich, thence due West along the parallel of 7º40' Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on
N to its intersection with the meridian of longitude 112º10' E, thence due north along the the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS):
meridian of 112º10' E to its intersection with the parallel of 9º00' N, thence northeastward a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No. 1596; and
to the intersection of parallel of 12º00' N with the meridian of longitude 114º30' E, thence, b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal.
due East along the parallel of 12º00' N to its intersection with the meridian of 118º00' E,
thence, due South along the meridian of longitude 118º00' E to its intersection with the COMPONENTS OF TERRITORY
parallel of 10º00' N, thence Southwestwards to the point of beginning at 7º40' N, latitude
and 116º00' E longitude are vital to the security and economic survival of the Philippines; Comment of Commissioner Adolfo Azcuna | RCC No. 022
The changes here include, first, the words "NOW OR HEREAFTER belonging" so as to cover
Much of the above area is part of the continental margin of the Philippine archipelago; possible future changes in our territory. There might be an island that will suddenly sprout
from within our waters — that should belong to us by accession; or we might purchase a
These areas do not legally belong to any state or nation but, by reason of history, small island — that should also belong to us. So this is to cover very clearly the possibility
indispensable need, and effective occupation and control established in accordance with of expanding our territory although we do not have any intentions. Besides,
international law, such areas must now be deemed to belong and subject to the sovereignty a constitution should last for years in order to cover the future. Anyway, the national
of the Philippines; territory should belong to us by sovereign right or legal title.

While other states have laid claims to some of these areas, their claims have lapsed by The other change is, instead of "historic right or legal title," I would like it to read
abandonment and cannot prevail over that of the Philippines on legal, historical, and "SOVEREIGN right or legal title." The reason for this is that I believe the more proper term
equitable grounds; is "sovereign right" because "historic right" has been interpreted to mean other than what
it means in international law. Therefore, I would like to substitute the word SOVEREIGN —
SECTION 1. The area within the following boundaries which necessarily includes the exercise of sovereignty in the past and, at the same time,
KALAYAAN ISLAND GROUP would clearly denote in international law the basis for the right; namely, our sovereignty.
From a point [on the Philippine Treaty Limits] at latitude 7º40' North and longitude 116º00'
East of Greenwich, thence due West along the parallel of 7º40' N to its intersection with The other changes would put our territory in logical sequence. The territories of a state
the meridian of longitude 112º10' E, thence due north along the meridian of 112º10' E to would consist of the following: terrestrial domain, its land territory; the fluvial domain, its
its intersection with the parallel of 9º00' N, thence northeastward to the intersection of water territory; and the aerial domain, the air territory.
parallel of 12º00' N with the meridian of longitude 114º30' E, thence, due East along the
parallel of 12º00' N to its intersection with the meridian of 118º00' E, thence, due South The terrestrial domain includes all surfaces of land above the sea that belong to the
along the meridian of longitude 118º00' E to its intersection with the parallel of 10º00' N, Philippines. These are the ones included within the base lines of the archipelago.
thence Southwestwards to the point of beginning at 7º40' N, latitude and 116º00' E The fluvial domain includes the inland waters: bays and rivers, streams, as well as internal
longitude; including the sea-bed, sub-soil, continental margin and air space shall belong and waters or the waters of the sea, landwards from the base lines.
be subject to the sovereignty of the Philippines. Such area is hereby constituted as a distinct
and separate municipality of the Province of Palawan and shall be known as "Kalayaan." The aerial domain of the Philippines includes the air directly above its terrestrial and fluvial
domains. All the air that lies above our land territory and our water territory belongs to us,
SECTION 2. Pending the election of its regular officials and during the period of emergency all the way up to outer space where there is no more air (because air is a mixture of gases,
declared in Proclamation No. 1081, and unless earlier provided by law, the administration and where there is only one gas — helium — there is no air). The aerial domain extends up
and government of the area shall be vested in the Secretary of National Defense or in such to where outer space begins, directly over our land and water territories.
 3. The drawing of straight baselines must not depart to any appreciable extent from the
Then we specify that our national territory includes the territorial sea, the seabed, the general direction of the coast, and the sea areas lying within the lines must be sufficiently
subsoil — again, we rearranged the sequence here. The territorial sea comes first — this is closely linked to the land domain to be subject to the regime of internal waters.
the margin or belt of maritime waters adjacent to our base lines up to the extent of 12
nautical miles. It is a belt surrounding our base lines seaward. Whether we like it or not, 4. Straight baselines shall not be drawn to and from low-tide elevations, unless lighthouses
international law imposes a territorial sea in every country that has waters. Under the or similar installations which are permanently above sea level have been built on them or
territorial sea is the seabed which belongs to us — the seabed is the top portion of the except in instances where the drawing of baselines to and from such elevations has
submarine area. This is followed by the subsoil or the land under the seabed, which also received general international recognition.
belongs to us. And then, the insular shelves or the continental shelf, meaning the
submarine area that is directly under the water beyond the territorial sea, up to the edge 5. Where the method of straight baselines is applicable under paragraph 1, account may be
of the continental margin, regardless of the depth of the superjacent waters. Under taken, in determining particular baselines, of economic interests peculiar to the region
international law, the continental shelf; namely, the seabed and subsoil of the submarine concerned, the reality and the importance of which are clearly evidenced by long usage.
area, belongs to us. This includes not only the continental shelf of individual islands but the 6. The system of straight baselines may not be applied by a State in such a manner as to cut
archipelagic shelves and the other submarine areas over which the Philippines has off the territorial sea of another State from the high seas or an exclusive economic zone.
sovereignty or jurisdiction — this is true in the old provision. This was intended to cover
any other areas that also belong to us, such as the continental slope or the continental [Fisheries Case]
margin, over which we have jurisdiction or sovereignty. So, my proposal is that we just
rearrange the sequence there. With regard to the additional sentence on the straits, I would REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3046
like to remove it because the straits connecting the territorial waters with the economic AN ACT DEFINE THE BASELINES OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA OF THE PHILIPPINES
zone are part of our internal waters and, therefore, there is no need to specify that. Our
sovereignty or jurisdiction extends over them. 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
BASELINE AND MARITIME ZONES 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,
ARTICLE 5 | Normal Baseline | UNCLOS III between the United States and Spain on November 7, 1900, and in the treaty concluded
Except where otherwise provided in this Convention, the normal baseline for measuring between the United States and Great Britain on January 2, 1930, and all the territory over
the breadth of the territorial sea is the low-water line along the coast as marked on large- which the Government of the Philippine Islands exercised jurisdiction at the time of the
scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State. adoption of the Constitution;

ARTICLE 7 | Straight Baselines | UNCLOS III All the waters within the limits set forth in the above-mentioned treaties have always been
1. In localities where the coastline is deeply indented and cut into, or if there is a fringe of regarded as part of the territory of the Philippine Islands;
islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity, the method of straight baselines joining
appropriate points may be employed in drawing the baseline from which the breadth of All the waters around, between and connecting the various islands of the Philippines
the territorial sea is measured. 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
2. Where because of the presence of a delta and other natural conditions the coastline is of the Philippines;
highly unstable, the appropriate points may be selected along the furthest seaward extent All the waters beyond the outermost islands of the archipelago but within the limits of the
of the low-water line and, notwithstanding subsequent regression of the low-water line, boundaries set forth in the aforementioned treaties comprise the territorial sea of the
the straight baselines shall remain effective until changed by the coastal State in accordance Philippines;
with this Convention.
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
The said baselines should be clarified and specifically defined and described for the
information of all concerned; Now, therefor, 3. The drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the
general configuration of the archipelago.
[Please see R.A. 5446 in the preceding pages]
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9522 | AN ACT TO AMEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.
3046, AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5446, TO DEFINE THE ARCHIPELAGIC BASELINES
OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

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:
"SEC. 1. The baselines of the Philippine archipelago are hereby defined and described
specifically as follows:

SECTION 2. The baselines 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):
 The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No. 1596; and
 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 charts 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.
ARTICLE 47 | Archipelagic Baselines | UNCLOS III
1. An archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost SECTION 6. The amount necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act shall be provided
points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago provided that within in a supplemental budget or included in the General Appropriations Act of the year of its
such baselines are included the main islands and an area in which the ratio of the area of enactment into law.
the water to the area of the land, including atolls, is between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1.
SECTION 7. If any portion or provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional or invalid, the
2. The length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, except that up to 3 per other portions or provisions hereof which are not affected thereby shall continue to be in
cent of the total number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length, up full force and effect.
to a maximum length of 125 nautical miles.
SECTION 8. The provisions of Republic Act No. 3046, as amended by Republic Act No. 5446, The sovereignty over the territorial sea is exercised subject to this Convention and to other
and all other laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and issuances inconsistent with this Act rules of international law.
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) newspapers of general circulation.
Approved: March 10, 2009

MAGALLONA v ERMITA CASE

RA 9522 [Petitioner’s argument]

➜ reduces Philippine maritime territory in violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution.
➜ limits us to only the Philippine archipelago (see PH map; beyond the yellow line is
considered high seas)
➜ KIG and Scarborough Shoal’s exclusion from the Philippine archipelagic baselines results
in the loss of about 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters’ prejudicing the
livelihood of subsistence fishermen.

SUPREME COURT’S RULING

➜ RA 9522 is unconstitutional is a statutory tool to demarcate the country’s maritime zones
and continental shelf under UNCLOS III, not to delineate Philippine territory.
➜ UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a multilateral
treaty regulating sea use rights over maritime zones, contiguous zones, exclusive economic
zones and continental shelves that UNCLOS III delimits.
➜ RA 9522’s use of the framework of Regime of Islands to determine the maritime zones
of the KIG and Scarborough Shoal, not inconsistent with the Philippines’ claim of ARTICLE 3 | Breadth of the Territorial Sea | UNCLOS III
sovereignty over these areas. Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not
exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this
NOTE: We are waiving our rights over sovereignty if we enter into treaties. Convention.

ARTICLE 17 | Right of Innocent Passage | UNCLOS III

Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the
ARTICLE 2 | Legal Status of the Territorial Sea, of the Air Space Over the Territorial Sea and right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.
of its Bed and Subsoil | UNCLOS III
ARTICLE 19 | Meaning of Innocent Passage | UNCLOS III
1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security
The sovereignty of a coastal State extends, beyond its land territory and internal waters
and, in the case of an archipelagic State, its archipelagic waters, to an adjacent belt of sea, of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and
described as the territorial sea. with other rules of international law.

This sovereignty extends to the air space over the territorial sea as well as to its bed and 2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order
subsoil. or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following
activities:
a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political Sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the
independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the sea-bed
of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations; and of the sea-bed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic
b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind; exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water,
c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defense or security of currents and winds;
the coastal State; Jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this Convention with regard to:
d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defense or security of the coastal State;  the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures;
e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;  marine scientific research;
f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;  the protection and preservation of the marine environment;
g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the
customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State; Other rights and duties provided for in this Convention.
h) any act of willful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;
i) any fishing activities; 2. In exercising its rights and performing its duties under this Convention in the exclusive
j) the carrying out of research or survey activities; economic zone, the coastal State shall have due regard to the rights and duties of other
k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities States and shall act in a manner compatible with the provisions of this Convention.
or installations of the coastal State;
l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage. 3. The rights set out in this article with respect to the sea-bed and subsoil shall be exercised
in accordance with Part VI.
ARTICLE 33 | Contiguous Zone | UNCLOS III
1. In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the coastal ARTICLE 57 | Breadth of the Exclusive Economic Zone
State may exercise the control necessary to: The exclusive economic zone shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines
a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.
regulations within its territory or territorial sea;
b) punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its ARTICLE 58 | Rights and Duties of Other States in the Exclusive Economic Zone
territory or territorial sea. 1. In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject
2. The contiguous zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines from to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87 of
which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other
internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated
**NOTE: In contiguous zones, we only have our sovereign rights. with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible
ARTICLE 48 | Measurement of the Breadth of the Territorial Sea, the Contiguous Zone, the with the other provisions of this Convention.
Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf | UNCLOS III
2. Articles 88 to 115 and other pertinent rules of international law apply to the exclusive
The breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and economic zone in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.
the continental shelf shall be measured from archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance
with article 47. 3. In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention in the
exclusive economic zone, States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal
ARTICLE 56 | Rights, Jurisdiction and Duties of the Coastal State in the Exclusive Economic State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in
Zone | UNCLOS III accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so
far as they are not incompatible with this Part.
1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has:
 PEOPLE / CITIZENSHIP Poe-Llamanzares v COMELEC
Facts:
- 1968, Grace Poe was found abandoned as a newborn in the Parish Church of Iloilo
Modes of Acquisition; Citizens of the Philippines
- 1974, Grace Poe was legally adopted by FPJ and Susan Roces
- 2016, Grace Poe ran for President
ARTICLE IV | Citizenship | 1987 Constitution
SECTION 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
Petitions for disqualification were filed against Poe on the ground of material
1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this
misrepresentation – because she is not a Natural Born citizen.
Constitution – requires an examination of prior rules on citizenship
2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines; (prospective in
application) Petitioners’ Argument
- Under the principle of jus sanguinis, person of unknown parentage, particularly
3) Those born before January 17, 1973 (time when we ratified the 1973 Constitution), of
foundlings, cannot be considered natural-born Filipino citizen since blood relationship
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority;
and is determinative of natural-born status.
- International convention and treaties are not self-executory and that local legislations
4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
are necessary in order to give effect to treaty obligations assumed by the Philippines.
**Commit to memory the rules of the 1935 Constitution which were not carried over to
the current Constitution** Philippines follow the jus sanguinis principle.

Supreme Court clarifying the issue

ARTICLE III | Citizenship | 1973 Constitution
SECTION 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: - The factual issue is not who the parents of petitioner are, as their identities are
1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this unknown, but whether such parents are Filipinos.
- In other words, we can determine whether your parents are Filipinos even if we
Constitution.
do not know who your parents are.
2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines.
3) Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution
As per Supreme Court, Grace Po is a natural born citizen
of 1935.
- Statistics
4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
- Legal presumption arising from established facts
ARTICLE III | Citizenship | 1935 Constitution o She was abandoned as an infant in Roman Catholic church in Iloilo city
o She has typical Filipino features.
SECTION 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
- Deliberations of the 1934 constitutional convention – the exchange between
1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution. (prior to the effectivity of 1935 Constitution) commissions Rafols, Roxas and Montinola reveals that as a matter of law,
foundlings are as a class, natural-born Filipino citizens.
2) Those born in the Philippines Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of
- International law
this Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands. (born
o Incorporation (generally accepted principle international law +
before 1935)
3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
Ruling:
4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and upon reaching the age of
- Consistent with the jus sanguinis
majority, elect Philippine citizenship.
- The presumption of natural-born citizenship of foundlings stems from the
5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
presumption that their parents are nationals of the Philippines.
Valles v COMELEC Therefore, respondent is also a Filipino citizen by virtue of jus sanguinis. Ever since
Facts: Philippine Bill 1902, jones law
1) Private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez
2) Born on 1934 in Australia Tecson v COMELEC
3) Father: Telesforo Ybasco (Filipino) and mother Theresa Marquez (Australian) Facts:
4) May 1998 elections, she ran for her 3rd term as governor of Davao Oriental - Ronald Allan Kelley Poe (FPJ) was born August 1939 in Manila to Allan Poe (Filipino)
5) Petitioner Valles filed for disqualification against private respondent contesting and Bessie Kelley Poe (American). Grandfather Lorenzo Pou
her citizenship
Petitioners’ Argument
Governing law on citizenship prior to 1935 - FPJ is not a Filipino because his ascendants are Spanish nationals
- Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 - In the alternative, FPJ is an illegitimate child who follows the American citizenship
- Philippine Autonomy Act of August 29, 2916 also known as the Jones Law of this mother

SECTION 4 | Philippine Bill of 1902 Supreme Court Ruling:

That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein who were FPJ’s ascendants are Filipino: grandfather is a Filipino under Philippine Bill 1902 and Jones
Spanish subjects on the 11th day of April 1899, and then resided in said Philippine Islands, Law of 1916. As a result, his father is also a Filipino citizen
and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of
the Philippine Islands and as such entitled to the protection of the United States, except Why is Lorenzo Pou a Filipino citizen?
such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance Established by death certificate
with the provisions of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain signed at 1. Born in 1870 as a subject of Spanish crown
Paris December 10, 1898. 2. Petitioner argues that Lorenzo was nor in the PH. Petitioner has burden to prove that
otherwise, he is presumed to be in the PH then
SECTION 2 | Philippine Autonomy Act | Jones Law of 1916 3. In the absences of any evidence to the contrary, it should be sound to conclude, or at
That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands who were Spanish subjects on the 11th day least to presume, that the place of residence of a person at the time of his death was
of April 1899, and then resided in said Islands, and their children born subsequent also his residence before death.
thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands, except such as
shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the When you died, and you died in the Philippines, you resided in the Philippines.
provisions of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain, signed at Paris
December 10, 1898, and except such others as have since become citizens of some other Allan Poe is a Filipino citizen, by virtue of the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Jones Law of 1916:
country: Provided, That the Philippine Legislature, herein provided for, is hereby authorized “and their children born subsequent thereto” (Jus Sanguinis Principle)
to provide by law for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship by those natives of the
Philippine Islands who cannot come within the foregoing provisions, the natives of the Why is FPJ a Filipino citizen? Section 1, Article 3 of 1935 Constitution Paragraph 3: “those
insular possessions of the United States, and such other persons residing in the Philippine whose fathers are citizen of the Philippines”
Islands who are citizens of the United States, or who could become citizens of the United
States under the laws of the United States if residing therein. Why is FPJ a natural-born citizen? The term “natural-born citizens” is defined to include
“those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to
Father of Respondent: acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.” FPJ did not do anything to acquire or
- An inhabitant of the Philippines perfect his Philippine citizenship.
- A Spanish subject since he was born on January 5, 1879, Camarines Norte, and duly
evidenced by a certified true copy of an entity in the Registry of Deeds Even if illegitimate child, FPJ is still a Filipino citizen: Providing neither conditions nor
- A resident of the Philippines distinction, the Constitution states that among the citizen of the Philippines are “those
whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.”
Roa Doctrine Fermin Caram
- Jus Soli - those born in the Philippines of alien parents are deemed citizens of the - Commissioner of the 1935 Constitutional Convention (framers).
Philippines - They were afraid that one of the framers is not a Filipino citizen
- Roa doctrine was pronounced by the SC on October 30, 1912
- The doctrine was overturned by the SC on September 16, 1947 Chiongbian v De Leon
- Effective until September 16, 1947: limited application of the jus soli doctrine in - Commissioner of customs was threatening to cancel petitioners Chiongbian’s
the Philippines for those born before the 1935 constitution vessels certificate of registration
- Philippine shipping administration threating to rescind the sale of three vessels to
October 30, 1912 – September 16, 1947: Philippines followed the Jus Soli principle. petitioners
- Basis: petitioner is not a Filipino citizen and therefore not qualified by law to
Citizenship of Children Born in the Philippines before the 1935 Constitution of Alien Parents operate and own vessels of the Philippine registry
General rule: They are not Filipino citizens because jus sanguinis. - Petitioner petitioned the SC to permanently prohibit the two respondents from
Exception: Judicially declared to be Filipino citizens before September 16, 1947 or before the threatened cancellation and rescission.
the Tan Chiong case was decided, by virtue of jus soli principle, you are a Filipino citizen.
William Chiongbian (Petitioner)
**It is not enough to be born in the 1935 Constitution, or from alien parents, to be declared - Son of Victoriano Chiongbian, a Chinese, was elected in 1925 as a municipal
as a Filipino citizen** councilor of Plaridel, Misamis occidental

SC pronouncement on Tan Chiong: the law in force in that time was the PH bill 1902, that Respondents
you are Filipino citizen if you are a child of a Spanish subject and residing in the PH at that - Petitioner is not a Filipino citizen
time - Caram Provision is only applicable to Fermin Caram

Tio Tiam v Republic Important Notes:

Facts: - Philippine Bill of 1902 – applies before the 1935 Constitution
- Teotimo Rodriguez Tio Tiam born in Cebu of Chinese parents on January 1904. - Roa Doctrine (jus soli) – applies from October 30, 1912
- Filed a petition for naturalization before the RTC - Caram Provision – applies up until the ratification and effectivity of 1973 Constitution
- Weirdly enough, he asked that he be allowed to present evidence to show that
long before the filling of the petition COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 625
AN ACT PROVIDING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE OPTION TO ELECT PHILIPPINE
Citizenship according to Supreme Court CITIZENSHIP SHALL BE DECLARED BY A PERSON WHOSE MOTHER IS A FILIPINO CITIZEN
- Petitioner acquired Filipino citizenship
- Expressly overruled in the case Tan Chiong. He has not been declared a Filipino Section 1. The option to elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with subsection (4),
citizen by judicial pronouncement before the overruling of said decision. section 1, Article IV, of the Constitution1 shall be expressed in a statement to be signed
and sworn to by the party concerned before any officer authorized to administer oaths,
Caram Provision under the 1935 Constitution and shall be filed with the nearest civil registry. The said party shall accompany the
- Article 4, section 1(2) those born in the Philippine islands of foreign parents who, aforesaid statement with the oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the Government
before the adoption of this constitution, had been elected to public office in the of the Philippines.
Philippine islands.
- Foreign parents are elected into office before 1935 constitution, you are a Filipino When to elect?
citizen. General Rule: within 3 years upon reaching the age of majority (18-21 years old)
Exception: there is justifiable reason for the delay, then the 3-year deadline may be relaxed
Justifiable reason: in good faith, with sufficient evidence, you treated yourself as a Filipino.
Cueco v Secretray of Justice Co v HRET
Facts: Fact:
- Chinese father + mother claimed to be Filipino - 1948, Mr. Ong was born of a Chinese father who was naturalized as Filipino, and a
- Born Feb 1923 Filipina mother
- Election of citizenship – may 1951, 28 years old - 9 years old, his father became naturalized under Revised Naturalization Act
- May 1951 asked the commissioner of immigration to cancel his alien certificate of - Section 15, RNA, minor children of persons naturalized under this law who have
registration because accordingly, he has already elected Filipino citizenship been born in the Philippines shall be considered citizens thereof.
- 1947 – petitioner knew that he had to make a formal election - 1987 – he ran as a representative of the 2 nd district of Northern Samar and was
- Reasons for delay- alleged financial difficulties and the illness of members of his overwhelmingly voted by his constituents
family - He did not formally elect to be a Filipino citizen
- Constitution requires him to be natural-born
Issues:
- Is petitioner’s mother filipino? Questions:
- SoJ said NO. SC did not review the finding as discretionary acts and determination 1) Is formal election necessary in the present case?
by SoJ are not subject to mandamus 2) Did Mr. Ong elect to be a Filipino citizen?
- At any rate, did petitioner timely elect filipino citizenship?
Supreme Court Ruling:
Discretionary acts, only to public officials 1) Formal election was not necessary. To expect the respondent to have formally or
in writing elected citizenship when he came of age is to ask for the unnatural and
Upon reaching the age of majority unnecessary. The reason is obvious. He was already a citizen
General Rule: A reasonable time after reaching the age of majority; three years from 18 2) Yes, Mr. Ong elected to be a Filipino citizen. The exercise of the right of suffrage a
years old positive act of election of Philippine citizenship.
Exception: Period may be extended, person concerned has always considered himself a a. Application of Millare: peculiar situation of the respondent who cannot
Filipino. be expected to have elected citizenship as they were already citizens.

Evidence introduced by petitioner Citizenship by Election = Natural-born: to correct anomalous situation, if one so selected, he
- Birth certificate, in which he was referred to as Filipino was not, under earlier laws, conferred the status of a natural-born.
- Marriage contract and birth certificate of his children, in which he was referred to
as Filipino Issue: are you natural-born even if you elected prior to the 1987 constitution?
- Married a Filipina 1973: a natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen of the Philippines from birth without
- Enlisted in the Philippine guerilla forces in December 1942 having

Conflicting evidence In re: Application of Vicente Ching

- He joined a unit of Chinese volunteers - Born April 11, 1964
- He registered himself in the Bureau of Immigration as a Chinese - Father Chinese and mother Filipina
- Took the 1998 Bar exams and passed but not allowed to take oath because his
SC determination: patently insufficient to excuse said delay or to warrant extension of the citizenship was challenged
period to elect Philippine citizenship. - July 27, 1999, at 35 years old, he elected Filipino citizenship
SC Ruling (4) Real estate at least 5k or lucrative TPLO (trade, profession, lucrative and
- No, facts and circumstances are very different. The requirements and procedures occupation)
prescribed under the 1935 constitution and CA No. 625 for electing Philippine (5) Speak and write E/S + PH language
citizenship would not be applicable to him. (6) Minor children of school age enrolled in PH school during entire period of
- Philippine citizenship can never be treated like a commodity that can be claimed residence required
when needed and suppressed when convenient. Philippine citizenship has only an - Disqualifications (Section 4, CA 473)
inchoate right to such citizenship. (1) Opposed to organized government / affiliated in such organization
(2) Convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude
Implication of Inchoate Right: During minority, the child is an alien. (3) Citizens of an enemy country during war time
(4) Defends violence as a legitimate tool
Republic v Chule Lim (5) Suffering mental alienation / incurable contagious disease
Facts: (6) Citizens of a country refusing to grant Filipinos citizenship
- Born on October 29, 1954. Father is Chinese, mother is Filipina (7) Polygamists / believer thereof
- Illegitimate child since his father was previously married in china (8) Have not mingled with Filipino / no sincere desire to socialize
- Filed for correction of entries because, among others, her birth certificate reflects - Procedure:
that she is “Chinese” although she claims that she is a Filipino - Effects of Naturalization (Section 15, CA 473)
(1) Wife: acquires Filipino citizenship if she herself may be naturalized
Arguments: (2) Minor child born in PH before naturalization: acquires Filipino citizenship
- OSG: she is not a filipino. She did not elect (3) Minor child born outside the PH but residing in the PH at the time of
- Chule: I am a filipino. I do not need to elect because I am an illegitimate child naturalization: acquires Filipino citizenship
(4) Minor child born outside PH and residing outside the PH at the time of
Cases that invoked the exception: Chule Lim, Co v HRET, and In re: Millare naturalization: acquires Filipino citizenship only during minority unless begins
Natural-born citizens - First three provision; Naturalized - Fourth provision to permanently reside in the PH
(5) Minor child born outside the PH after naturalization: acquires Filipino
NATURALIZATION citizenship but shall, within 1 year after reaching majority age, register as
Filipino citizen at the consulate of residence + oath of allegiance.
- Denaturalization (Section 18, CA 473)
3 Modes of Naturalization
- Judicial: go to court and ask them to grant the citizenship (1) Naturalization obtained fraudulently or illegally
(2) Within 5 years from naturalization, returns to native or other foreign country
- Administrative: go to an administrative office to grant your citizenship; no trial is done
and resides therein
- Legislative: fastest way of acquiring citizenship for a specific group of people
(3) Petition was made on an invalid declaration of intention
(4) Failure of minor children to graduate from high school through the fault of their
Judicial Naturalization
parents
- Governed by CA 473 or the Revised Naturalization Law
(5) Allowed to be used as dummy
- Qualifications (Section 2, CA 473)
(1) 21 years old on the date of the petition - Effects of Denaturalization
(2) Philippine residence for 10 years continuous
Moy Ya Lim Yao v Commissioner of Immigration
 Exception: may be reduced to 5 years if you held government office,
Facts:
new industry/invention, married to a Filipina, teacher in PH school of 2
years 1) Lau Yuen Yeung, Chinese citizen
2) March 13, 1961, she came to PH and allowed under her visa to stay for a month
 Born in the Philippines
3) Several extensions were given to her. The last, being until February 13, 1962
(3) Good moral character + believes in constitutional principles + conducts in
proper and irreproachable manner 4) January 25, 1962, she married Moy Ya Lim Yao, an alleged Filipino citizen
5) Nearing February 13, 1962, they filed a petition for injunction against COI from - These laws are in nature separate and distinct laws
arresting and deporting her. - They are not intended to repeal or amend any conditions under the constitution

Lau Yuen Yeung: Status of Alien Wife and Minor Children

- Could not write nor speak English or Tagalog - Minor children may acquire Filipino citizenship by:
- Could not name any Filipino neighbor, with a Filipino name except one, Rosa (1) Filing a petition for cancellation of alien certificates with the special committee
- Did not know the names of her brothers-in-law, or sisters-in-law for naturalization
(2) Payment of filing fee and naturalization fee
Lower Court Denied the Petition (3) Taking of the oath of allegiance to the republic of the Philippines
- Who might herself be lawfully naturalized, only if she possesses all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications. Wife
- She claims to have no disqualification, once she lacks at least, the requisite length - Not beneficiary
of residents in the Philippines. - Minor must go through the process of acquiring citizenship

Under CA 473, you must be continuously residing in the Philippines for 10 years. Section 13, Cancellation of Certificate of Naturalization
- Naturalization obtained permanently
Supreme Court Decision - Within 5 years
- Alien woman marrying a Filipino, native born or naturalized, becomes ipso facto a
Filipina provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines under Section Legislative Naturalization
4 of the same law. (Section 15, CA 473) - Congress will just have to pass a law

Administrative Naturalization Loss and Reacquisition of Citizenship

- Governed by RA 9139 - Article 4, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution
- Applies exclusively to native-born aliens who lived in the Philippines all their lives - Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law
- Born of alien parents but resided in the Philippines all their lives - Look into laws that makes you lose and regain citizenship
- Easier process
Modes of Losing Citizenship
So v Republic 1. Section 1, CA 473, as amended by RA 9225
- Native-born Chinese 2. Cancellation of Naturalization
- Filed a petition for naturalization - By naturalization in a foreign country
- Only 20 years old when he applied for naturalization - By express renunciation of citizenship (no specific manner provided in laws)
- Lacks some qualifications under CA 473 but fulfills all qualifications under RA 9139 - By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a
- RTC approved the petition foreign country upon attaining the age of 21 or more
- OSG appealed saying that he cannot be a naturalized citizen - By rendering services to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign
- So replied: He can be naturalized and rely under RA 9139 which he has satisfied country
- Cross enforce CA 473 and RA 9139 - By cancellation of the certificates of naturalization
- By having been declared by competent authority, a deserter of the Philippine
Supreme Court Ruling armed forces in the time of war, unless subsequently a plenary pardon or
- CA 473 is not and never will be equal to RA 9139 amnesty has been granted
- One must possess all qualifications
- Those provided for RA 9139 and not those set forth in CA 473 is barren of merit Modes of Reacquiring Citizenship
- Therefore, you cannot cross enforce RA 9139 and CA 473 - Taking an oath of allegiance under RA 9225
 - Naturalization therefore granting of American citizenship by a matter of place of birth automatically
- Repatriation under PD 725 implies that they are citizens of US.
- Repatriation under RA 8171
Lopez v Comelec
Maquiling v Comelec - Natural born
- Natural-born Filipino and became a naturalized American - Able to regain citizenship
- July 2008, took an oath of allegiance and applied for repatriation under RA 9225. - Did not renounce his citizenship
- April 2008, took another oath of allegiance + executed an affidavit of renunciation
- November 2008, filed a COC for Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, for the Repatriation under PD 725
May 2010 elections - Filipino women who lost their citizenship by marriage to aliens (already covered
- Candidacy was challenged on the ground that he is not a Filipino citizen by RA 8171)
- Natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship (covered by RA
RA 9225 policy states that natural-born citizens who acquired foreign citizenship may retain 9225)
or reacquire Filipino citizenship. - This does not apply anymore

How to retain or reacquire Philippine citizenship under RA 9225? Section 3. Repatriation under RA 8171
Additional requirement if you run for a public office: Section 5, RA 9225 - Filipino women who have lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens
- Natural-born Filipino who have lost their Philippine citizenship, including their
Armando’s actions vis-à-vis RA 9225 minor children, on account of political or economic necessity
- Citizenship retention and reacquisition policy that natural born Filipino citizens
who acquired foreign citizenship not reacquisition because he was a natural-born Frivaldo v Comelec
Filipino - Filed a disqualification case against Lee
- Was allowed retroactive effect - Won as a governor for the third time
- Retention, nothing lost in the first place - Application for repatriation was granted on June 30, 2pm – when he took his oath
of allegiance as a Filipino
Section 3, Ratification of Philippine Citizenship - Opponent, Lee, who was the second placer was proclaimed the governor
- By taking an oath of allegiance (required) - According to Lee, Frivaldo need to be citizen at the time he filed his certificate of
- To seek for public office – oath/affidavit of renunciation for taking an oath of candidacy.
allegiance - PD 725 mere act to be given retroactive effect (retroacts at the date of
- He used his American passport 4 times in and out of the country repatriation)
- Use of foreign passport after renouncing one’s foreign citizenship does not divest
Filipino citizenship Prime issue of citizenship showed be reckoned from the date of proclamation, not
- However, it recants the oath of renunciation and thus, making him not qualified to necessary the date of election or date of filing of certificate of candidacy.
be a candidate but a Filipino citizen
Bingzon III v HRET
Question: Juan is a dual citizen of the United States of America and the Philippines, can he - Effect of repatriation: allows the person to recover his citizenship
run for any public office in the Philippines?
Dual Citizenship v Double Allegiance
Answer: Dual citizens by virtue of birth, are not required by law to take the oath of - Dual citizenship: citizenship of two countries concurrently
allegiance as the mere filing of the certificate of candidacy already carries with it an implied - Double allegiance: unsettled kind of allegiance, bound by their acts and be bound
renunciation of foreign citizenship. Matter of identity. USA uses the jus soli principle, by a second allegiance to a country
- Nothing in the constitution that mentions/prohibits double allegiance.