When I read J's article on the Baselines bill, I was initially impressed. J, the youngest writer at FilipinoVoices, wrote a somewhat learned analysis and explanation of the bill.
However, much to my chagrin, the more I read it, the more convince am I that his assumptions are wrong. Or, worst, unwittingly written to misled the reader.
First, J failed to tell what's the true implications of the concepts of "archipelago" and "regime of islands." J said that, by the Senate describing the Spratlys as a "regime of islands", the august body effectively strengthen, instead of weaken, the Philippine position on the disputed territories. He went further to say that the Senate just avoided the possible hoopla a claims assertion would do in case the Philippines further reiterated its claim on these islands.
J even went further and said that we have no more time and there's a deadline. To avoid possiblt problems before the CLC, the country needs to pass a watered down version of the bill.
Bull.
First, the concepts of "archipelago" and "regime of islands" have been debated and staunchly defended by the Philippines since the 1970's. Even before the ratification of the UNCLOS, the Philippine position has been very consistent---that Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution is the controlling legal principle with regards to Philippine territory. The Philippine territory is limited or delimited only by the very definition as stated in this provision. No constitutional law professor would argue otherwise.
And based on the 1987 Constitution, we are an archipelagic state. The essence therefore of our position wrest on this principle.
Having said that, an archipelago, as defined by international convention and by the minutes of the Constitutional Convention is very clear---it is a contiguous area made up of islands. As the erudite professor Harry Roque said, all the islands including the waters surrounding and between those islands comprise the Philippine archipelago.
Now, with this watered down version, we actually allowed a redefinition of this provision through a legislative fiat, which, upon closer scrutiny, is inconsistent with the principle of archipelagic state.
When we utilized the concept of "regime of islands", we effectively disassociated these islands from the archipelagic territory. What these Senators did, they excluded these islands to avoid possible diplomatic confrontations.
The exclusionary provision of the bill presents a serious problem. If these "regime of islands" are not part of the baselines, then, it implies that it not ours. It is excluded from the baselines of the archipelago. Now, if it is excluded, then, it is not included. If these islands are not included, then, the Philippines cannot claim effective sovereignty over them. If they are not sovereign territory, then, what are them? J would definitely say, "its a regime of Islands". He would probably say this in this way:
" The Kalayaan and Scarborough shoal are a regime of islands. Being a regime of islands, it is not part of the Philippine archipelago, but we did'nt abandon our claims to them. They are still ours yet others also claim them."
What foolishness. How can you claim such territory if you say it is not included in the archipelago? If you're an archipelagic country and you don't recognize a regime of islands beyond the baselines, when (1) you historically stake a claim to it by effective dominion and (2) exercises control by maintaining a base and a community of your people there, then, what is your real stand?
The Senate now says that Kalayaan and Scarborough shoal are a regime of islands away from the baselines of the Philippine archipelago, hence, not part of territory but being claimed by us as well as other nations. Is that an abandonment of the previous state position or not? It is a clear abandonment of the Philippine position just because of the convenience of avoiding a diplomatic row between China or other claimant countries.
Worst, which J did'nt tell or wrote on that entry is the stark implication of the bill in the waters "around, surrounding and between" the islands comprising our archipelago. The bill allowed foreign ships to now, pass around and between these islands. What's the implication? It just says that we don't own these waters and it is now "open" to anyone who wants to exploit those waters. Example, Taiwanese trawlers are now permitted to fish in the Sulu sea, because that part of the world, is now "international waters". Or the waters in the Gulf of Lingayen. That gulf can now be exploited since it is not part of Philippine territory---it is now international waters.
Pat, It doesn't follow that if it's not in the baseline, we abrogate our claims. With the "regime of islands" we not only lay claim exclusively to Kalayaan or Scarborough but the whole island groups instead. As we cannot extend our continental shelf to Kalayaan IG without violating UNCLOS, doing otherwise would jeopardize our whole baseline claim. Scarborough should have been treated differently though. Think Hawaii, Guam and the minor Micronesian islands which are way beyond the US continental shelf.
ReplyDeleteAs Sen. Trillanes explains his version - regime of islands for Kalayaan but include Scarborough in the baseline - would not violate UNCLOS and increase our territorial water 200 to 350 miles.