Supreme Court to Palace: Comment on Baselines Law

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered Malacañang to comment on a petition seeking to declare unconstitutional the controversial Baselines Law signed by President Arroyo last month.

Named respondents were Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo, Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya, National Mapping and Resource Information Authority Administrator Diony Ventura, and Ambassador to the United Nations Hilario Davide Jr.

They were given 10 days or until April 17 to submit their answer.

“Acting on a special civil action with prayer for issuance of preliminary prohibitory injunction and/or temporary restraining order, the Court resolves to require respondents to comment within non-extendible period of 10 days,” read the SC order.

Last April 1, lawyers Merlin Magallona and Harry Roque, Akbayan party-list Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel and 38 law students asked the SC to stop the implementation of Republic Act 9522 on grounds that it violated the Constitution.

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

The petition said the Baselines Law would cause the loss of at least 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters of the Philippines.

It excludes much of the waters that were previously within the territory defined by the 1898 Treaty of Paris, which described the territory as rectangular about 600 miles wide and 1,200 miles long, the petition added.

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

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

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

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

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

Section 7 mandates that the Philippines place paramount consideration on national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and self-determination in its pursuit of an independent foreign policy.

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

Petitioners said the Baselines Law also violated Article II Section 16 of the Constitution because it threatens the Filipino people’s right to a healthful ecology as it grants passage to foreign ships of all kinds.

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

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

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

“By surrendering (these) waters, the law violates the constitutional duty to protect the Philippines’ exclusive marine wealth and offshore fishing grounds of our subsistence fishermen, as mandated by the said provisions (and) UNCLOS obligations.    – Edu Punay