ARTICLE I

NATIONAL TERRITORY
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.

Philippine Archipelago:
1. Treaty of Paris, December 10 1898 – cessation of the Philippine Islands by Spain to the
United States
2. Treaty of Washington November 7 1900 – clarifying territories to the US by Spain,
particularly the islands of Cagayan Sulu and Sibutu.
3. Convention between US and Great Britain 1930– delimiting the boundary between North
Borneo and Philippine Archipelago

What comprises the National Territory?

1. The Philippine Archipelago with all the islands embraced therein
2. All other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction

1. The Philippine Archipelago with all the islands embraced therein

Archipelago - under the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), it is a
group of islands, interconnecting waters and other natural features which are so closely
inter-related that such islands, waters and natural features from an intrinsic geographical,
economic and political entity, or which historically regarded as such.

2 Elements of Archipelagic Principle

1.Definition of internal waters
2. Straight baseline method of delineating the territorial sea
o Straight Baseline Method - allows a country with offshore islands and/or very jagged
coastlines to calculate its territorial seas from straight lines drawn from a point on the coast to the islands,
or from island to island. One then “connects the dots” literally, and the water behind the lines is
designated internal waters, while waters away from the line and toward open waters are considered
territorial seas

2. All other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction
• Includes any territory that presently belongs or might in the future belong to the Philippines
through any of the accepted international modes of acquiring territory.
• Batanes (1935 Constitution)
• Other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic or legal title (1973 Constitution)
o Claim to Sabah
o Spratly Islands (PD 1596 of June 11 1968)

Components of National Territory:

I. Terrestrial – refers to the land mass, which may be integrate or dismembered, or partly
bound by water or consists of one whole island. It includes all the resources attached to the
land.

II. Fluvial
a. Internal waters - the waters around, between and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions.
b. Archipelagic waters – waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines, regardless of their
depth or distance from the coast.
Archipelagic State – state made up of one or two archipelagos
Straight Archipelagic Baseline – determine the archipelagic waters, the state shall draw
straight baselines connecting the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reef provided that
within such baselines are included the main islands and an area in which the ratio of the water to the area
of land, including atolls, is between 1:1 and 9:1. The length of such baselines shall not exceed 100
nautical miles, except that up to 3 per cent of the total number of baselines enclosing any archipelago
may exceed that length, up to a maximum length of 125 nautical miles. The drawing of such baselines
shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago.

c. Territorial sea - belt of the sea located between the coast and internal waters of the
coastal state on the one hand, and the high seas on the other, extending up to 12 nautical
miles from the low water mark
d. Contiguous zone - Extends up to 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea. Although not
part of the territory, the coastal State may exercise jurisdiction to prevent infringement of
customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws.

Principle of Innocent Passage – guarantees that all vessels, whatever flag that
they are flying, can freely cross all territorial seas.

e. Exclusive economic zone - Body of water extending up to 200 nautical miles, within
which the state may exercise sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the
natural resources.
f. Continental shelf – the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas extending beyond
the Philippine territorial sea.
g. High seas – res communes; not territory of any particular State. They are beyond the
jurisdiction and sovereign rights of the State.

III. Aerial – Rules governing the high seas also apply to outer space, which is considered
as res communes.
Kármán Line – lies an altitude of 100 km (62 mi) above the Earth's sea level and is
commonly define the boundary between the Earth's atmosphere and outer space.

Tañada, et al., v. Angara, et al., G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997

DECISION
(En Banc)

PANGANIBAN, J.:

I. THE FACTS

Petitioners Senators Tañada, et al. questioned the constitutionality of the concurrence by the
Philippine Senate of the President’s ratification of the international Agreement establishing the World
Trade Organization (WTO). They argued that the WTO Agreement violates the mandate of the 1987
Constitution to “develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by
Filipinos . . . (to) give preference to qualified Filipinos (and to) promote the preferential use of Filipino
labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods.” Further, they contended that the “national
treatment” and “parity provisions” of the WTO Agreement “place nationals and products of member
countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products,” in contravention of the “Filipino First”
policy of our Constitution, and render meaningless the phrase “effectively controlled by Filipinos.”

II. THE ISSUE

Does the 1987 Constitution prohibit our country from participating in worldwide trade
liberalization and economic globalization and from integrating into a global economy that is
liberalized, deregulated and privatized?

III. THE RULING

[The Court DISMISSED the petition. It sustained the concurrence of the Philippine Senate of
the President’s ratification of the Agreement establishing the WTO.]

NO, the 1987 Constitution DOES NOT prohibit our country from participating in
worldwide trade liberalization and economic globalization and from integrating into a global
economy that is liberalized, deregulated and privatized.

There are enough balancing provisions in the Constitution to allow the Senate to ratify the
Philippine concurrence in the WTO Agreement.

[W]hile the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor
and enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the
world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only
against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. In other words, the Constitution did
not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign investments, goods and services
in the development of the Philippine economy. While the Constitution does not encourage the
unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and investments into the country, it does not prohibit them
either.In fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign
competition that is unfair.

xxx xxx xxx

[T]he constitutional policy of a “self-reliant and independent national economy” does not
necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments, goods and services. It contemplates neither
“economic seclusion” nor “mendicancy in the international community.” As explained by
Constitutional Commissioner Bernardo Villegas, sponsor of this constitutional policy:
Economic self-reliance is a primary objective of a developing country that is keenly aware of
overdependence on external assistance for even its most basic needs. It does not mean autarky or
economic seclusion; rather, it means avoiding mendicancy in the international community.
Independence refers to the freedom from undue foreign control of the national economy, especially
in such strategic industries as in the development of natural resources and public utilities.

The WTO reliance on “most favored nation,” “national treatment,” and “trade without
discrimination” cannot be struck down as unconstitutional as in fact they are rules of equality and
reciprocity that apply to all WTO members. Aside from envisioning a trade policy based on “equality
and reciprocity,” the fundamental law encourages industries that are “competitive in both domestic
and foreign markets,” thereby demonstrating a clear policy against a sheltered domestic trade
environment, but one in favor of the gradual development of robust industries that can compete with
the best in the foreign markets. Indeed, Filipino managers and Filipino enterprises have shown
capability and tenacity to compete internationally. And given a free trade environment, Filipino
entrepreneurs and managers in Hongkong have demonstrated the Filipino capacity to grow and to
prosper against the best offered under a policy of laissez faire.

xxx xxx xxx

It is true, as alleged by petitioners, that broad constitutional principles require the State to
develop an independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos; and to protect and/or
prefer Filipino labor, products, domestic materials and locally produced goods. But it is equally true
that such principles — while serving as judicial and legislative guides — are not in themselves
sources of causes of action. Moreover, there are other equally fundamental constitutional principles
relied upon by the Senate which mandate the pursuit of a “trade policy that serves the general
welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity”
and the promotion of industries “which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets,”
thereby justifying its acceptance of said treaty. So too, the alleged impairment of sovereignty in the
exercise of legislative and judicial powers is balanced by the adoption of the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land and the adherence of the Constitution to
the policy of cooperation and amity with all nations.

That the Senate, after deliberation and voting, voluntarily and overwhelmingly gave its
consent to the WTO Agreement thereby making it “a part of the law of the land” is a legitimate
exercise of its sovereign duty and power. We find no “patent and gross” arbitrariness or despotism
“by reason of passion or personal hostility” in such exercise. It is not impossible to surmise that this
Court, or at least some of its members, may even agree with petitioners that it is more advantageous
to the national interest to strike down Senate Resolution No. 97. But that is not a legal reason to
attribute grave abuse of discretion to the Senate and to nullify its decision. To do so would constitute
grave abuse in the exercise of our own judicial power and duty. Ineludibly, what the Senate did was a
valid exercise of its authority. As to whether such exercise was wise, beneficial or viable is outside
the realm of judicial inquiry and review. That is a matter between the elected policy makers and the
people. As to whether the nation should join the worldwide march toward trade liberalization and
economic globalization is a matter that our people should determine in electing their policy
makers. After all, the WTO Agreement allows withdrawal of membership, should this be the political
desire of a member.