In a very fluid geographical scenario of our global condition today,our lawmakers have found the time to re-examine and thereon redefine our national boundaries and re-establish firmly the full and certain content of our territory, which consist not merely that part of the earth’s surface but also the waters underneath it, the seas beyond the coastlines at 200 miles, the air above and even the caverns underneath the sea.
Article I of our Constitution, relating on National Territory states:
"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."
The focal point in this new baseline bill is the Philippine claim over the Kayalaan Islands or that part of the Spratly Islands being occupied by the Philippines. House Bill 3216 redefining our boundaries was put into motion as early as January of last year but somehow, it had encountered major obstructions especially from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) which had advised the Lower House to go lightly in our claim to the whole of Spratley Islands as control and patrimony over it is still being hotly disputed by our country, Vietnam and China.
Obviously, the DFA had foreseen possible diplomatic troubles with China and Vietnam if the bill had pushed through in its original form or wordings. Now finally, the bicameral committee had an approved version where the Spratly Islands are merely referred to as "a regime of islands” belonging to the Philippines.
Clearly enough, it’s a backtracking on our part as it appears to be that our government is overtly resisting conflict with China, which would not be the military kind as this would not be likely to happen, but mostly on the economic and diplomatic side. Being the fastest growing economy today, the Philippines could not afford to disengage from China and that means we have to soften our stand on Spratlys. It’s cruel to be small. We could not be so direct even with our own territorial concern.
In actuality, the Kalayaan Group of islands lays clearly within the 200 Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as defined by the United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea through the Archipelagic Doctrine first championed by our own former Vice-President Arturo T. Tolentino, where our territory spans throughout a line drawn from the outermost point of our territory, and everything within this line, and 200 miles beyond it belongs to the Philippines.
And the Kalayaan Islands, which was first discovered by Admiral Tomas Cloma sometime in the 1950’s and named it “Freedomland”, lays within 200 miles off the farthest western coast of Palawan. The only problem is if a group of small islands fall within the items enumerated as possession in the definition of Exclusive economic Zone, which mostly pertains to marine resources.
However, under Terra Nullus legal doctrine, a state could claim a discovered land when it was not owned by any country previous to the discovery and that this should be the strongest basis for the Philippines' claim. China’s claim over the Spratlys is singularly anchored on their proposition that since the Spratly's is located in the body of water generally known as the South China Sea, then therefore it belongs to them. This could be faulty when in fact the term South China Sea does not necessarily mean that it was a sea belonging to China but it was just named that way by Portugese sea navigators in the past as a point of reference for their sea travels. The islands should be “terra nullus” or “land belonging to no one” and since we were the first to have sighted it, it should belong to us unconditionally and not merely as “a regime of islands” belonging to the Philippines.

I hope the government will not yield to the claims of other countries. Show them our claws this time.
Yeheyyy... nauna ko!!!
Comment by curacha — February 12, 2009 @ 1:35 am
what countries do when it comes to defending their sovereignty ! Remember the British sending flotilla of warships and aircraft carriers to the Falklands to battle the Argentinians for a bunch of islands that have no more than herds of sheep and cattle !
Comment by bw — February 12, 2009 @ 11:18 am
interesting facts I have never known before (really, I should read more...), thanks for sharing.
it looks like the Chinese gov't took it literally...
Comment by pining — February 12, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
but i am afraid our government lacks political will to do what must be done..
Comment by bingskee — February 13, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
A lot of people, including senators, are protesting this bill. I hope we could come up law that would really protect our national interests.
Comment by Toe — February 14, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
This is an interesting topic and I guess not a lot of Filipinos are not aware of this including me
! Thanks for sharing MT, I have learned something important today
!
Comment by haze — February 15, 2009 @ 2:27 am
ooops sorry was saying "not a lot of Filipinos are aware"
Comment by haze — February 15, 2009 @ 2:28 am
To Curacha: We should in fact be more steadfast, that's how to play the international game, never to show some weakness.
Comment by Major Tom — February 18, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
To BW: Pride and Honor could be bloody precious and ultimately illogical, just as what happened in the Falkland Wars. The British even had to invent the hovering Harrier fighter plane just because of that conflict...
Comment by Major Tom — February 18, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
To Pining: The Chinese government seem to won everything if it was up to them, that's how self-centric they are madame.
Comment by Major Tom — February 18, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
To Bingskee: That seems to be the case madame, China is inevitably the rising economic superstar nowadays and we could not afford to be enemies with them.
Comment by Major Tom — February 18, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
To Toe: It's a show of lack of will and courage on the part of our legislators, and could be tantamount to fully backtracking on our claim to the Spratlys Island. Maybe, they should still reconsider and change some wordings, to be more direct and concise and straightforward.
Comment by Major Tom — February 18, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
To Haze: No prob Haze and I would gladly be writing about such topic if it's that pleasurable for you.
Comment by Major Tom — February 18, 2009 @ 2:57 pm