|
By Sen. Antonio F. Trillanes IV
LAST August 2007, this author
filed Senate Bill No. 1467 entitled, “An Act Defining the
Archipelagic Baselines of the Philippine Archipelago, Amending for
the Purpose Republic Act No. 3046, as Amended by Republic Act No.
5446.” or the “Archipelagic Baselines Law of the Philippines.”
The bill was the result of a
series of consultations primarily with former Sen. Leticia Ramos-Shahani,
who first pushed for the baselines bill back in 1993. It basically
defines the archipelagic baselines to include the Scarborough Shoal
and designates the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) as a “regime of
islands.” To facilitate the passing of the bill, the technical
details provided by the National Mapping and Resource Information
Authority (NAMRIA) as enumerated in House Bill No. 1202 filed by
Rep. Antonio V. Cuenco as well as its other provisions were adopted
in toto. Congress, however, filed HB 3216 that substituted for HB
1202.
Recently, controversies arose
with the discovery of the particulars of the Joint Marine Seismic
Undertaking (JMSU) being conducted by RP, China and Vietnam within
the waters off Palawan. Thereafter, Malacanang pressured Congress to
revert HB 3216 back to the Committee on Foreign Relations ostensibly
to push for certain amendments. These two seemingly unrelated events
inevitably pushed the baselines issue at the top of the national
policy agenda. Given this context, now is the best time for us to
finally resolve this issue.
This paper intends to explain and
justify the position adopted in SB 1467 and differentiate it with
the other options, as well as to clarify other closely related
subjects surrounding the baseline issue.
Treaty of Paris and UNCLOS
The first time the author studied
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
agreement was in 1994 as part of a course in International Law given
to graduating cadets of the Philippine Military Academy who intend
to join the Philippine Navy. The course focused on the UNCLOS
provisions particularly the archipelagic doctrine; the coastal
state’s rights and duties within the territorial sea, contiguous
zone and the exclusive economic zone (EEZ); the right of innocent
passage; the doctrine of hot pursuit; and other provisions
concerning enforcement of maritime laws.
After graduating, however, the
new Navy officers were surprised to find out that the NAMRIA-supplied
nautical charts used aboard Philippine Navy ships defined the
territorial limits of the country as those stated in the Treaty of
Paris plus the attached KIG borders defined by PD 1596, and not the
UNCLOS definitions as taught at PMA. To be fair, NAMRIA has no other
basis than the Treaty of Paris because our country, precisely, has
yet to pass a new baselines law that would amend the pre-UNCLOS
baseline law, RA 5446, which is not compliant with the UNCLOS
criteria. To complicate matters, the Navy uses PD 1599, a pre-UNCLOS
unilateral declaration of our country’s EEZ, as a mandate to
enforce maritime laws in these areas. As a consequence, the author
remembers that when their ship patrolled as far east as the Anson
Shoal in the Pacific, they used the Treaty of Paris as reference.
And when they patrolled as far west as the Scarborough Shoal in the
South China Sea, they used PD 1599. In short, as of the moment, we
have two sets of boundaries (PD 1599 and Treaty of Paris with PD
1596) and we will yet define another one (UNCLOS).
Two sets of boundaries
1. PD 1599 is a unilateral
declaration by the Philippines of its EEZ as measured from the
baselines as defined by RA 5446. President Ferdinand Marcos signed
it on 11 June 1978.
2. The Treaty of Paris is a peace
treaty forged between the US and Spain in 10 December 1898. It
detailed, among others, the territorial limits of the Philippine
archipelago as being ceded by Spain to the US. These same limits
were then used to define our national territory when we eventually
gained independence from the US in 1946.
3. The Third United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea or UNCLOS III, also called the Law
of the Sea Convention, refers to the international agreement that
came out of the UN conferences from 1973 to 1982. The agreement
consists of 320 articles and 9 annexes. To date, 155 countries have
ratified the UNCLOS which officially came into force in 16 November
1994. The Philippines became the 11th country to ratify UNCLOS on 08
May 1984. It defines, among others, the limits of the territorial
sea, contiguous zone and the EEZ of a coastal or archipelagic State.
Each of these reference options
has its own strengths and weaknesses, but if we are to consider both
the validity in International Law and the area covered, the UNCLOS
option is superior to the other two.
UNCLOS option best
PD 1599, while almost as vast as
the UNCLOS option in terms of area, has practically no binding
effect in International Law by virtue of its being a unilateral
declaration in the pre-UNCLOS era. Moreover, since we have ratified
UNCLOS and, therefore, agreed to its provisions, we are obliged to
rescind PD 1599.
The Treaty of Paris, meanwhile,
may still have a binding effect in International Law,
notwithstanding the UNCLOS ratification. However, its total area
covered is significantly smaller because it cannot avail of the EEZ
provisions of the UNCLOS.
As to the legal alternative of
retaining the Treaty of Paris while availing of the UNCLOS option,
we, as a self-respecting people living within a community of
nations, should not have two sets of boundaries that we can use for
our own convenience. It is simply not fair; it is simply not right.
Therefore, it is in our country’s best interest to adopt solely
the UNCLOS option.
(In the succeeding pages of his
position paper, the author describes the 1) Baseline (reference
lines drawn by a coastal or archipelagic state) Methods (three
according to the UNCLOS), 2) the Baseline Options, four as proposed
by Namria, 3) the Options under SB 1467 and RA 5446, 4) the Spratly
Issue, 5) the Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking Issue, t6) the
Continental Shelf Concept and 7) the Philippine Claim to Sabah.
He ends with the following
conclusions and recommendations).
Recommendations
1. Push for the passing of SB
1467 and its counterpart in Congress before May 2009 so that there
will be a basis for measuring the outer limits of the territorial
sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.
More importantly, so that our country can now officially claim the
limits of our National Territory that is consistent with the
international covenant of UNCLOS.
2. Push for the submission of
particulars of the outer limits of the continental shelf to the UN
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf before the 12 May
2009 deadline by supporting NAMRIA and other concerned agencies in
their data gathering.
3. On the assumption that
recommendations 1 and 2 as stated above are achieved, we should do
the following:
A. Modernize our fishing methods
and technologies;
B. Invest heavily on marine
scientific research and exploration of the EEZ and continental
shelf;
C. Reach out to other claimant
States of the contested territories in order to settle disputes and
come up with an agreement for joint exploration and development so
that all these States can finally benefit from the abundant natural
resources in these areas.
D. Comply with the other UNCLOS
obligations of an archipelagic State.
4. Modernize the Navy and Coast
Guard. Logically, the next step after having firmly and clearly
established our territory is to protect it. Aside from the basic
demands of naval defense, we should increase our capability for
maritime law enforcement operations.
5. Conduct a legislative inquiry
on the Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking.
Conclusion
The baseline issue is quite
technical and highly complex because of the interplay with other
equally important national security, economy and foreign policy
issues. But after carefully analyzing these issues separately, this
paper tried its best to come up with reasonable and feasible courses
of action which, hopefully, would be given due consideration. Still,
everything starts when we finally make a stand, as a nation, by
defining the limits of what is truly ours and what will be good for
our country now and in the generations to come.
Excerpts from a position paper
|
