MIDTERM EXAMINATIONS REVIEWER PART A

Subject: LEGAL RESEARCH

Scope: Territory of the Philippines
Prepared by: MARIA FATIMA PARRO

Territory of the Philippines

I. Archipelagic Doctrine
 Archipelagic Doctrine
Under this doctrine, an archipelago shall be regarded as a single unit, so that the waters around, between,
and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of
the internal waters of the Philippines and are subject to its exclusive sovereignty.

 Elements:
 Internal waters – the water within the baselines
 Straight Baseline Method – imaginary straight lines that are drawn joining the outermost points of the
outermost islands of the archipelago, enclosing an area the ratio of which should not be more than 9:1
(water to land); provided that the drawing of the baselines shall not depart, to any appreciable extent,
from the general configuration of the archipelago.

*the breadth of the territorial sea shall be measured from the baselines

Territorial Sea
-12 Nautical Miles from the
baseline

Contiguous Zone
-24 Nautical Miles from the
baseline, 12 Nautical Miles from
the Territorial sea

Exclusive Economic Zone

-200 Nautical Miles from the
baseline

 Purpose:

 National Security
 Territorial Integrity
 Economic causes

 Archipelago Doctrine
“The waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their
breadth and dimensions, form part of internal waters of the Philippines”

Other important concepts:

 Archipelago – a group of islands, including parts of islands, interconnecting waters and other natural
features which are so closely interrelated that such islands, waters and other natural features form an
intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity, or which historically have been regarded as such
(Source: UNCLOS)
 Archipelagic State - a State constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and may include other islands
(Source: UNCLOS)
 Archipelagic Waters - areas enclosed as internal waters by using the baseline method which had not been
previously considered as internal waters where a right of innocent passage shall exist in these waters
(Source: UNCLOS)

II. National Territory of the Philippines

1. 1935 constitution
 Section 1. The Philippines comprises all the territory ceded to the US by the Treaty of Paris concluded between
US and Spain on the 10th day of December, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight 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 US and Spain on the 17 th day of November, nineteen hundred, and in the treaty concluded
between the US and Great Britain on the 2 nd day of January nineteen hundred and thirty, and all territory over
which the present government of the Philippine islands exercises jurisdiction.

2. 1973 Constitution

Section 1. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced
therein, and all the other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title, including the
territorial sea, the airspace, the subsoil, the sea-bed, the insular shelves, and the other submarine areas over
which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands
of the archipelago, irrespective of their breadth and dimensions, for part of the internal waters of the
Philippines.

3. 1987 Constitution

Article I. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced
therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its
terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves,
and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago,
regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

III. Regime of Islands

1. RA 3046, 17 June 1961 as amended by RA 9522, 10 March 2009

 “An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines” (sec.1)
 Regime of Islands – determined by the baselines in the following areas over which the Philippines
exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction (sec.2):
a. Kalayaan Island Group
b. Scarborough Shoal (Bajo de Masinloc)
 RA 7160 (Local Government Code Of 1991) – an applicable law which contains provisions that defines
all portions of the national territory (sec.3)
 Baselines shall be deposited and registered with the Secretary General of the United Nations (sec.4)
 NAMRIA – National Mapping and Resource Information Authority
- produce and publish charts and maps of the appropriate scale clearly representing the
delineation of base points and baselines as set forth in the act. (sec.5)
 General Appropriations Act – provides the supplemental budget to carry out the provisions of the act
(sec.6)

2. RA 5446 amending RA 3046

 “An Act to Amend Section One of the Republic Act Numbered Thirty Hundred and Forty-Six, Entitled "An
Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines"
 Corrects typographical errors (sec.1)
 The definiton 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 North Borneo, over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired
dominion and sovereignty. (Sec.1)

3. RA 7160, Section 2.
 “An Act Providing for a Local Government Code Of 1991”
 SECTION 2. Declaration of Policy.

(a) It is hereby declared the policy of the State that the territorial and political subdivisions of the State
shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development
as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals.
Toward this end, the State shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government
structure instituted through a system of decentralization whereby local government units shall be
 given more powers, authority, responsibilities, and resources. The process of decentralization shall
proceed from the National Government to the local government units.

(b) It is also the policy of the State to ensure the accountability of local government units through the
institution of effective mechanisms of recall, initiative and referendum.

(c) It is likewise the policy of the State to require all national agencies and offices to conduct periodic
consultations with appropriate local government units, nongovernmental and people’s organizations,
and other concerned sectors of the community before any project or program is implemented in their
respective jurisdictions.

4. Treaty of Paris of 1898; Kasunduan sa Paris noong 1898; Tratado de Paris de 1898

 Treaty concluding the Spanish- American War

 The treaty was signed by Spain and US on December 10, 1898
 Under the treaty, the Spain relinquished all the claim of sovereignty to US over the ff. territories:
a. Cuba
b. Puerto Rico
c. Guam
d. Philippines
 Effectivity date: April 11, 1899

* Case

1. Magallona vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, 16 July 2011

PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, AKBAYAN PARTY-LIST REP. RISA HONTIVEROS, PROF. HARRY C. ROQUE, JR., AND UNIVERSITY OF
Petitioners THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW STUDENTS, ALITHEA BARBARA ACAS, VOLTAIRE ALFERES, CZARINA MAY ALTEZ, FRANCIS
ALVIN ASILO, SHERYL BALOT, RUBY AMOR BARRACA, JOSE JAVIER BAUTISTA, ROMINA BERNARDO, VALERIE PAGASA
BUENAVENTURA, EDAN MARRI CAÑETE, VANN ALLEN DELA CRUZ, RENE DELORINO, PAULYN MAY DUMAN, SHARON ESCOTO,
RODRIGO FAJARDO III, GIRLIE FERRER, RAOULLE OSEN FERRER, CARLA REGINA GREPO, ANNA MARIE CECILIA GO, IRISH KAY
KALAW, MARY ANN JOY LEE, MARIA LUISA MANALAYSAY, MIGUEL RAFAEL MUSNGI, MICHAEL OCAMPO, JAKLYN HANNA
PINEDA, WILLIAM RAGAMAT, MARICAR RAMOS, ENRIK FORT REVILLAS, JAMES MARK TERRY RIDON, JOHANN FRANTZ RIVERA IV,
CHRISTIAN RIVERO, DIANNE MARIE ROA, NICHOLAS SANTIZO, MELISSA CHRISTINA SANTOS, CRISTINE MAE TABING, VANESSA
ANNE TORNO, MARIA ESTER VANGUARDIA, and MARCELINO VELOSO III
HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. ALBERTO ROMULO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY
Respondents OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HON. ROLANDO ANDAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, HON. DIONY VENTURA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL MAPPING &
RESOURCE INFORMATION AUTHORITY, and HON. HILARIO DAVIDE, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
PERMANENT MISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES TO THE UNITED NATIONS
Ponente Hon. Justice Carpio
Facts 1961- Congress passed R.A. 3046 demarcating the maritime baselines of the
Philippines as an Archepelagic State pursuant to UNCLOS I of 9158, codifying the
sovereignty of State parties over their territorial sea. This law followed the
framing of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in 1958
(UNCLOS I), codifying, among others, the sovereign right of States parties over
their "territorial sea," the breadth of which, however, was left undetermined.
1968 – R.A. 3046 was amended by R.A. 5446, correcting some errors in R.A. 3046
reserving the drawing of baselines around Sabah.
2009 – R.A. 3046 was amended by R.A. 9522, to be compliant with the UNCLOS
III of 1984. The change was prompted by the need to make RA 3046 compliant
with the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS
III), which the Philippines ratified on 27 February 1984. Among others, UNCLOS III
prescribes the water-land ratio, length, and contour of baselines of archipelagic
States like the Philippines and sets the deadline for the filing of application for the
extended continental shelf. Complying with these requirements, RA 9522
shortened one baseline, optimized the location of some base points around the
Philippine archipelago and classified adjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan
Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal, as "regimes of islands" whose
islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.

Petition The Petitioners filed writs of certiorari and prohibition which assails the
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 95221 (RA 9522) adjusting the country’s
archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline regime of nearby territories.
Petitioner assails the constitutionality of the law on two principal grounds:

1. RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the reach of the
Philippine state’s sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987
Constitution, embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties
 2. RA 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of the baselines to maritime
passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and
national security, contravening the country’s nuclear-free policy, and damaging
marine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions.

*RA 9522’s treatment of the KIG as "regime of islands" not only results in the loss
of a large maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence
fishermen.
Issue  Whether or not the petitioners lack locus standi
 Whether or not the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper
remedies to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522
 Whether or not R.A. 9522 is Unconstitutional
Principle  Regime of Islands
-defines an island as naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water,
which is above water at high tide (UNCLOS, Article 121)
-each island has its own territorial sea, contiguous zone, EEZ, and
continental shelf
Decision  Yes. Petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit as citizens.
 Yes. The writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to test
the constitutionality of RA 9522
 No. There’s no basis to declare RA 9522 unconstitutional
 The petition was DISMISSED
Ratio Decidendi  The petitioners’ locus standi as citizens is recognized with constitutionally
sufficient interest in the resolution of the merits of the case which
undoubtedly raises issues of national significance necessitating urgent
resolution.
 The court viewed the writs of certiorari and prohibition as proper
remedial vehicles to test the constitutionality of statutes, and of acts of
other branches of government
 RA 9522 is Not Unconstitutional. RA 9522 is a Statutory Tool to
Demarcate the Country’s Maritime Zones and Continental Shelf Under
UNCLOS III, not to Delineate Philippine Territory
 RA 9522’s use of UNCLOS III’s regime of islands framework to draw the
baselines, and to measure the breadth of the applicable maritime zones
of the KIG, "weakens our territorial claim" over that area.

IV. Territorial Dispute in the South China Sea

1.“In the Matter of an Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines (applicant) and the People’s Republic of
China, 12 July 2016, PCA Case No. 2013-19

*Note: The contents of this case is directly obtained from the sources (https:///rsilpak.org/2017/case-brief-on-the-
south-china-sea-arbitration/ and https://www.pcacases.com/pcadocs/PH-CN%20-%2020160712%20-%20Award.pdf) so
as not to alter the intent of the framers of it.

 The South China Sea Arbitration was conducted between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s
Republic of China by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), under the 1982 United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The arbitration is related to disputes between the Parties regarding the legal basis
of maritime rights and entitlements, the status of certain geographic features, and the lawfulness of certain
actions taken by China in the South China Sea; in particular, the following four issues, as raised by Philippines:
1. To resolve a dispute between the parties regarding the source of maritime rights and entitlements in
the South China Sea;
2. To resolve a dispute between the parties concerning the entitlements to maritime zones that would
be generated under the Convention by Scarborough Shoal and certain maritime features in the Spratly
Islands that are claimed by both the parties;
3. To resolve a series of disputes concerning the lawfulness of China’s actions in the South China Sea, vis-
à-vis interfering with Philippine’s rights, failing to protect and preserve the marine environment, and
inflicting harm on the marine environment (through land reclamation and construction of artificial
islands);
4. To find that China has aggravated and extended the disputes between the Parties by restricting access
to a detachment of Philippines Marines stationed at Second Thomas Shoal.
 The South China Sea is a semi-enclosed sea in the western Pacific Ocean, spanning an area of almost 3.5 million
square kilometres, and is depicted in Map 1 on page 9 below. The South China Sea lies to the south of China; to
the west of the Philippines; to the east of Viet Nam; and to the north of Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, and
Indonesia. The South China Sea is a crucial shipping lane, a rich fishing ground, home to a highly biodiverse coral
reef ecosystem, and believed to hold substantial oil and gas resources. The southern portion of the South China
Sea is also the location of the Spratly Islands, a constellation of small islands and coral reefs, existing just above
or below water, that comprise the peaks of undersea mountains rising from the deep ocean floor. Long known
principally as a hazard to navigation and identified on nautical charts as the “dangerous ground”, the Spratly
Islands are the site of longstanding territorial disputes among some of the littoral States of the South China Sea.
 The basis for this arbitration is the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the “Convention” or
“UNCLOS”). Both the Philippines and China are parties to the Convention, the Philippines having ratified it on 8
May 1984, and China on 7 June 1996.
 The Convention, however, does not address the sovereignty of States over land territory.
 The Convention does contain provisions concerning the delimitation of maritime boundaries, China made a
declaration in 2006 to exclude maritime boundary delimitation from its acceptance of compulsory dispute
settlement, something the Convention expressly permits for maritime boundaries and certain other matters.

 The disputes that the Philippines has placed before the Tribunal fall broadly within 4 categories:

1.) The Philippines has asked the Tribunal to resolve a dispute between the Parties
concerning the source of maritime rights and entitlements in the South China Sea. Specifically, the Philippines
seeks a declaration from the Tribunal that China’s rights and entitlements in the South China Sea must be based
on the Convention and not on any claim to historic rights. In this respect, the Philippines seeks a declaration that
China’s claim to rights within the ‘nine-dash line’ (MING DYNASTY) marked on Chinese maps are without lawful
effect to the extent that they exceed the entitlements that China would be permitted by the Convention.

2.) The Philippines has asked the Tribunal to resolve a dispute between the Parties concerning the entitlements
to maritime zones that would be generated under the Convention by Scarborough Shoal and certain maritime
features in the Spratly Islands that are claimed by both the Philippines and China. The Convention provides that
submerged banks and low-tide elevations are incapable on their own of generating any entitlements to maritime
areas and that
“[r]ocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own” do not generate an entitlement
to an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles or to a continental shelf. The Philippines seeks a declaration
that all of the features claimed by China in the Spratly Islands, as well as Scarborough Shoal, fall within one or
the other of these categories and that none of these features generates an entitlement to an exclusive economic
zone or to a continental shelf.

3.) The Philippines has asked the Tribunal to resolve a series of disputes between the Parties
concerning the lawfulness of China’s actions in the South China Sea.

The Philippines seeks declarations that China has violated the Convention by:
(a) interfering with the exercise of the Philippines’ rights under the Convention, including with respect to fishing,
oil exploration, navigation, and the construction of artificial islands and installations;
(b) failing to protect and preserve the marine environment by tolerating and actively supporting Chinese
fishermen in the harvesting of endangered species and the use of harmful fishing methods that damage the
fragile coral reef ecosystem in the South China Sea; and
(c) inflicting severe harm on the marine environment by constructing artificial islands and engaging in extensive
land reclamation at seven reefs in the Spratly Islands.

4) the Philippines has asked the Tribunal to find that China has aggravated and extended the disputes between
the Parties during the course of this arbitration by restricting access to a detachment of Philippine marines
stationed at Second Thomas Shoal and by engaging in the large-scale construction of artificial islands and
land reclamation at seven reefs in the Spratly Islands.

 China has consistently rejected the Philippines’ recourse to arbitration and adhered to a position of neither
accepting nor participating in these proceedings. It has articulated this position in public statements and in many
diplomatic Notes Verbales, both to the Philippines and to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (the “PCA” or the
“Registry”), which serves as the Registry in this arbitration. China’s Foreign Ministry has also highlighted in its
statements, press briefings, and interviews that it considers non-participation in the arbitration to be its lawful
right under the Convention.

 The Tribunal has thus held that China’s non-participation does not prevent the arbitration from continuing. The
Tribunal has also observed that China is still a Party to the arbitration and, pursuant to the terms of Article
296(1) of the Convention and Article 11 of Annex VII, shall be bound by any award the Tribunal issues. The
 situation of a non-participating Party, however, imposes a special responsibility on the Tribunal. It cannot, in
China’s absence, simply accept the Philippines’ claims or enter a default judgment.

 Despite its decision not to appear formally at any point in these proceedings, China has taken steps to informally
make clear its view that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to consider any of the Philippines’ claims. On 7 December
2014, China’s Foreign Ministry published a “Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China
on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines”
(“China’s Position Paper”). In its Position Paper, China argued that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction because

(a) “the essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration is the territorial sovereignty over the relevant maritime
features in the South China Sea”;
(b) “China and the Philippines have agreed, through bilateral instruments and the Declaration on the Conduct of
Parties in the South China Sea, to settle their relevant disputes through negotiations”; and
(c) the disputes submitted by the Philippines “would constitute an integral part of maritime delimitation
between the two countries.” The Chinese Ambassador to the Netherlands has also sent several communications
to the individual members of the Tribunal, directly and via the Registry, to draw certain statements of Foreign
Ministry officials and others to the attention of the arbitrators, while at the same time making clear that such
communications should not be interpreted as China’s participation in the arbitral proceedings.

 The Tribunal decided to treat the Position Paper and communications from China as equivalent to an objection
to jurisdiction and to conduct a separate hearing and rule on its jurisdiction as a preliminary question, except
insofar as an issue of jurisdiction “does not possess an exclusively preliminary character.”

 The Tribunal issued its Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (the “Award on Jurisdiction”) on 29 October 2015,
addressing the objections to jurisdiction set out in China’s Position Paper, as well as other questions concerning
the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. In its Award on Jurisdiction, the Tribunal reached conclusions with
respect to seven of the Philippines’ fifteen Submissions while deferring decisions on seven other submissions for
further consideration in conjunction with the merits of the Philippines’ claims. The Award on Jurisdiction
recounts in detail the procedural history of the arbitration from its commencement up until the date on which
the Award on Jurisdiction was issued. In this Award, the Tribunal will focus on procedural events which occurred
after the issuance of the Award on Jurisdiction.

 The Tribunal, proceeding with the first two submissions made by the Philippines, considered the validity of
China’s claim to historic rights in the maritime region of the South China Sea and the ‘Nine-Dash Line’. Through a
lengthy analysis of the text and context of the Convention, in line with the principles set out in the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Tribunal established that the Convention supersedes any treaties in force
before its coming into force. It questioned China’s claim to historical rights in the region, and established that
China’s state practice does not show that China had been enjoying any historical rights in the South China Sea;
rather, it was enjoying the freedom of the high seas and since it did not create bar to other states’ usage of the
same, it could not be understood as being a historical right.

 “The Tribunal concludes that the Convention superseded any historic rights or other sovereign rights or
jurisdiction in excess of the limits imposed therein.”

 The Tribunal concluded that Scarborough Shoal, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Johnson Reef, McKennan Reef
and Gaven Reef (North) were all found to be high-tide features. The Tribunal further noted that for the purposes
of Article 121(3), the high-tide features at Scarborough Shoal and the reefs were rocks that cannot sustain
human human habitation or economic life of their own and so have no exclusive economic zone or continental
shelf. The Tribunal found the same to be true of the Spratly Islands and so concluded that China, therefore, has
no entitlement to any maritime zone in the area of Mischief Reef or Second Thomas Shoal; they do, however,
form part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines as they lie within 200 nautical
miles of the Philippines’ coast and there are no overlapping entitlements in the area with respect to China.
Hughes Reef, Gaven Reef (South), Subi Reef, Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal were all found to be low-
tide elevations, of which Hughes Reef lay within 12 miles of McKennan Reef and Sin Cowe Island, Gaven Reef
(South) lay within 12 miles of Gaven Reef (North) and Namyit Island, and Subi Reef lay within 12 miles of the
high-tide feature of Sandy Cay on the reefs to the west of Thitu.

 The Tribunal also found China in breach of Article 58 (3) of the Convention, due to its failure to prevent fishing
by Chinese flagged ships in the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, failing to respect the sovereign rights
of the Philippines over its fisheries in its exclusive economic zone.
  The Tribunal, assisted by three independent experts on coral reef biology, expert briefs and satellite imagery,
found that China was in breach of the Convention for failing to stop the fishing vessels from engaging in harmful
harvesting practices and also for its island-building activities. The Tribunal further opined that China’s
construction on Mischief Reef, without authorization from Philippines was in violation of Philippines’ sovereign
rights in its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and a breach of the Convention.

 The tribunal was the demeanour of China’s law enforcement vessels at Scarborough Shoal and the lawfulness of
these actions. The Philippines also raised the issue under the relevant provisions of the Convention on the
International Regulations for Preventing of Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGS). The Tribunal found that China,
through the actions of its law enforcement vessels, endangered Philippine vessels and personnel and created a
serious risk of collision and found China in breach of Article 94 of the Convention.

 The Tribunal, in response to Submission 14 of the Philippines, opined that China had, in the course of the
proceedings of this arbitration, aggravated and extended its disputes with Philippines, through its actions of
dredging, artificial island-building and construction activities.

 The Tribunal did not find it necessary to make any further declaration, owing to the fact that both the parties are
already parties to the Convention and are already obliged to comply with it.

2. Presidential spokesperson Roque and President Duterte on UNCLOS

 PRESIDENT Duterte surprised many nations, and maybe even himself, with his forthright and strong virtual
address to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, September 22, 2020. Duterte bluntly declared:
“China has no right to “undermine” an international tribunal’s rejection of Beijing’s claim to sovereignty over
most of the South China Sea. The award is now part of international law, beyond compromise and beyond the
reach of passing governments to dispute, diminish, or abolish. …We firmly reject attempts to undermine it. We
welcome the increasing number of states that have come in support of the award and what it stands for — the
triumph of reason over rashness, of law over disorder, of amity over ambition. This — as it should — is the
majesty of the law. The Philippines’ commitment in the disputed part of the South China Sea was in accordance
with the Unclos and the 2016 PCA ruling.”
 The President invoked eloquently the verities of international law and affirmed the July 2016 decision of the
arbitral panel of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague, which nullified China’s claim on nearly
all of the South China Sea, and recognized the Philippines’ sovereign rights to parts of the waterway under the
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos). China refused to participate in the arbitration, a process that was
in accordance with the Unclos, and rejected the tribunal’s decision.
 The Presidential Spokesperson preemptively suggests that Manila would try to “set aside” the territorial
disagreement with China in order to clear the path for economic investments and other pacts.

Other Notes:

Murillo Velarde Map

(Carta Hydrographica y Chorographica de las Islas Filipinas)
-a map of the Philippines made and first published in Manila in 1734 by the
Spanish Jesuit cartographer Pedro Murillo Velarde, and Filipino engravers
Nicolas de la Cruz Bagay and artist Francisco Suarez.

Tomas Arbolante Cloma

-the modern Magellan of the Philippines, conquered Kalayaan islands

-May 11, 1956 – he along with his brother Filemon and 40 men took
possession or claim over the Kalayaan islands 380 miles from the southern
end of Palawan in the South China Sea Or West Philippine Sea and termed
it as “Free Territory of Freedomland” wherein Flat Island (Patag Land)
serves as the Capital. He turned over all the claims of the Island under
a “Deed of Assignment and Waiver of Rights.”
-June 11,1987 – Pres. Marcos declared that the Kalayaan group of islands
shall be part Of the municipality of Palawan through PD 1596.
-The entire Spratlys island was entirely claimed by China

3. Lecture of J. Antonio Carpio on the territorial dispute in the South China Sea between the Philippines and People’s
Republic of China (https://www.slideshare.net/SamGalope/jose-rizal-university-south-china-sea-lecture)

*Refer to the powerpoint presentation slides