.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Monday, April 30, 2012
Sunday, April 22, 2012
The Directorate: The Basics
These are the slides given to the 19th Directorate in their strategic planning session on April 20, 2012 at Dear Manok Cagayan de Oro City.
The law making body
View more PowerPoint from Ernesto Neri
Barangay Good Governance Index
For my XUCLA internship, I am assigned at the Xavier
University Governance and Leadership Institute headed by the multi-awarded
former mayor of Opol Dr. Dixon Yasay. I am glad to be assigned in this unit
since it is in line with my interests and background. In a nutshell, this unit
provides trainings and other capacity building activities for Local Government
Units here in Mindanao. The opportunity appeals to my curiosity on the basics
of local governance and most importantly brings me closer to actual community
leaders.
In one of our work, we assisted
in facilitating a seminar entitled “Barangay Good Governance Index”. This is a
series of seminar-workshops which aims to strengthen the knowledge base and
approaches of local governments on areas such as health, peace and order among
others. The most singular and powerful idea that the speaker keeps on
emphasizing is that the Barangay’s power should focus primarily not on
infrastructure but ON THE CHANGE OF BEHAVIOR of the people. In an instant, the
whole scheme of government for me made sense. Everyone knows that the unique
government unit we call Barangay is the first level of government, the closest
to the people but not everyone understands that its main purpose is to harness that
intimacy by changing societal behaviours. You may ask how societal behaviours change.
Many factors affect these changes but one that the Barangay themselves can set
and control is a Barangay ordinance which has the effect of law in its
jurisdiction.
For us law students, this is a
gold mine of opportunity to engage in a more relevant setting. We can use our
basic knowledge in articulating the most basic of laws and help craft sound
policies that will eventually spur a change in behaviour if implemented and
evaluated earnestly. This in itself requires political will where we can help
cement by providing sound legal support.
This experience made me see more
the relevance of engaging local governance in the most basic level. Considering
that most of us these days are callous to the national and even local political
situation, one area we can experience with our own senses every single day as
we get out of our houses is the state of affairs in our own communities or
Barangays. This is the immediate area within our sphere of control and
influence. So a positive or negative change that touches our senses happens in
this level more often than not. Furthermore, understanding that an integral
element of good governance is inclusivity, we citizens should also make it a
point to include ourselves in the political process.
Official statement of DFA: The Philippine position on Bajo de Masinloc and the waters within its vicinity
BACKGROUND ON THE BAJO DE MASINLOC (PANATAG) INCIDENT
Bajo de Masinloc is an integral part of the Philippine territory. It is part of the Municipality of Masinloc, Province of Zambales. It is located 124 nautical miles west of Zambales and is within the 200 nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Philippine Continental Shelf.
A Philippine Navy Surveillance aircraft monitored eight (8) Chinese fishing vessels anchored inside the Bajo de Masinloc (Panatag Shoal) on Sunday, 8 April 2012, in the conduct of its maritime patrols and its enforcement of the Philippine Fisheries Code and marine environment laws. On 10 April 2012, the BRP Gregorio del Pilar, in accordance with the established Rules of Engagement, dispatched an inspection team that reported that large amounts of illegally collected corals, giant clams and live sharks were found in the compartments of these fishing vessels.
The actions of the Chinese fishing vessels are a serious violation of the Philippines’ sovereignty and maritime jurisdiction. The poaching of endangered marine resources is in violation of the Fisheries Code and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES).
BASIS OF PHILIPPINE SOVEREIGNTY OVER BAJO DE MASINLOC AND THE WATERS WITHIN ITS VICINITY
Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) is not an island. Bajo de Masinloc is also not part of theSpratlys.
Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) is a ring-shaped coral reef, which has several rocksencircling a lagoon. About five of these rocks are above water during high tide. Of these five rocks, some are about 3 meters high above water. The rest of the rocks and reefs are below waterduring high tide.
Bajo de Masinloc’s (Scarborough Shoal’s) chain of reefs and rocks is about 124 NM from the nearest coast of Luzon and approximately 472 NM from the nearest coast of China. Bajo de Masinloc is located approximately along latitude 15⁰08’ N and longitude 117⁰45’E. The rocks of Bajo de Masinloc are situated north of the Spratlys.
Obviously therefore, the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc are also within the 200 NM Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and 200 NM Continental Shelf (CS) of the Philippines.
A distinction has to be made between the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc and the larger body of water and continental shelf where the said geological features are situated. The rights ornature of rights of the Philippines over the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc is different from that which it exercises over the larger body of water and continental shelf.
The Philippines exercises full sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc, and sovereign rights over the waters and continental shelf where the said rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are situated.
The basis of Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc isdistinct from that of its sovereign rights over the larger body of water and continental shelf.
A. The Rock Features of Bajo de Masinloc: Basis of Philippine Sovereignty under Public International Law
The rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are Philippine territories.
The basis of Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc is not premised on the cession by Spain of the Philippine archipelago to the United States under the Treaty of Paris. The matter that the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are not included or within the limits of the Treaty of Paris as alleged by China is therefore immaterial and of no consequence.
Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc is likewise not premised on proximity or the fact that the rocks are within its 200 NM EEZ or Continental Shelf (CS) under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Although the Philippines necessarily exercise sovereign rights over its EEZ and CS, nonetheless, the reason why the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are Philippine territories is anchored on other principles of public international law.
As decided in a number of cases by international courts or tribunals, most notably the Palmas Island Case, a modality for acquiring territorial ownership over a piece of real estate is effective exercise of jurisdiction. Indeed, in that particular case, sovereignty over the Palmas Island was adjudged in favor of the Netherlands on the basis of “effective exercise of jurisdiction” although the said island may have been historically discovered by Spain and historically ceded to the US in the Treaty of Paris.
In the case of Bajo de Masinloc, the Philippines has exercised both effective occupation andeffective jurisdiction over Bajo de Masinloc since its independence.
The name Bajo de Masinloc (translated as “under Masinloc”) itself identifies the shoal as a particular political subdivision of the Philippine Province of Zambales, known as Masinloc.
One of the earliest known and most accurate maps of the area, named Carta Hydrographical y Chorographica De Las Yslas Filipinas by Fr. Pedro Murillo Velarde, S.J., and published in 1734, included Bajo de Masinloc as part of Zambales.
The name Bajo de Masinloc was a name given to the shoal by the Spanish colonizers. In 1792, another map drawn by the Alejandro Malaspina expedition and published in 1808 in Madrid, Spain, also showed Bajo de Masinloc as part of Philippine territory. This map showed the route of the Malaspina expedition to and around the shoal. It was reproduced in the Atlas of the 1939 Philippine Census.
The Mapa General, Islas Filipinas, Observatorio de Manila published in 1990 by the US Coast and Geodetic Survey, also included Bajo de Masinloc as part of the Philippines.
Philippine flags have been erected on some of the islets of the shoal, including a flag raised on an 8.3-meter high flag pole in 1965 and another Philippine flag raised by Congressmen Roque Ablan and Jose Yap in 1997. In 1965, the Philippines also built and operated a small lighthouse in one of the islets in the Shoal. In 1992, the Philippine Navy rehabilitated the lighthouse and reported it to theInternational Maritime Organization for publication in the List of Lights (currently this lighthouse is not operational).
Bajo de Masinloc was also used as an impact range by Philippine and US Naval Forces stationed in Subic Bay in Zambales for defence purposes. The Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources together with the University of the Philippines has also been conducting scientific, topographic, and marine studies in the Shoal. Filipino fishermen have always considered it as their fishing grounds owing to their proximity to the coastal towns and areas of Southwest Luzon.
In 2009, when the Philippines passed an amended Archipelagic Baselines Law fully consistent with UNCLOS, Bajo de Masinloc was classified under the “Regime of Islands” consistent with the Law of the Sea.
“Section 2. The baseline in the following areas over which the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction shall be determined as "Regime of Islands" under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS):
a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No. 1596; and
b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal.”
COMMENTS ON CHINESE CLAIMS
Question:
But what about the historical claim of China over Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal)? Does China have a much superior right over Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) on the basis of it so-called historical claim? China is claiming Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) based on historical arguments, claiming it to have been discovered by the Yuan Dynasty? China is also claiming that Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) has been reflected on various official Chinese Maps and has been named by China in various official documents?
Answer:
Chinese assertion based on historical claims must be substantiated by a clear historic title. It should be noted that under public international law, historical claims are not historical titles. A claim by itself, including historical claim, could not be a basis for acquiring a territory.
Under international law, the modes of acquiring a territory are: discovery, effective occupation, prescription, cession, and accretion. Also, under public international law, for a historical claim tomature into a historical title, a mere showing of long usage is not enough.
Other criteria have to be satisfied such as that the usage must be open, continuous, adverse or in the concept of an owner, peaceful and acquiesced by other states. Mere silence by other states to one’s claim is not acquiescence under international law. Acquiescence must be affirmative such that other states recognize such claim as a right on the part of the claimant that other states ought to respect as a matter of duty. There is no indication that the international community haveacquiesced to China’s so-called historical claim.
In relation to name giving and maps, name-giving (or names in general) and placing of land features on maps, these are also not bases in determining sovereignty. In international case law relating to questions of sovereignty and ownership of land features, names and maps are not significant factors in the determination of international tribunals’ determination of sovereignty.
Question:
What about China claims that Bajo de Masinloc as traditional fishing waters of Chinese fishermen?
Answer:
Under international law, fishing rights is not a mode of acquiring sovereignty (or even sovereign rights) over an area. Neither could it be construed that the act of fishing by Chinese fishermen is a sovereign act of a State nor can be considered as a display of State authority. Fishing is aneconomic activity done by private individuals. For occupation to be effective there has to beclear demonstration of the intention and will of a state to act as sovereign and there has to be peaceful and continuous display of state authority, which the Philippines has consistently demonstrated.
Besides when UNCLOS took effect, it has precisely appropriated various maritime zones to coastal states, thus eliminating so called historical waters and justly appropriating the resources of the seas to Coastal States to which said seas are appurtenant. “Traditional fishing rights” is in fact mentioned only in Article 51 of UNCLOS, which calls for archipelagic states to respect such rights, if such exist, in its archipelagic waters.
It should also be noted, that in this particular case, the activities of these so-called fishermen can be hardly described as fishing. The evidence culled by the Philippine Navy showed clearly that these are poaching activities involving the harvesting of endangered marine species which is illegal in the Philippines and illegal under international law, specifically the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
B. Waters Outside and Around Bajo de Masinloc: Basis of Philippine Sovereign Rights under UNCLOS
As earlier indicated, there is a distinction between the rock features of Bajo Masinloc and the waters within its vicinity. The question of who owns the rocks is a matter governed by the principles of public international law relating to modalities for acquiring territories. On the other hand, the extent of its adjacent waters is governed by UNCLOS. In like manner, the waters outside of the maritime area of Bajo de Masinloc are also governed by UNCLOS.
As noted, there are only about five rocks in Bajo de Masinloc that are above water during high tide. The rest are below water during high tide. Accordingly, these rocks have only 12 NM maximum territorial waters under Article 121 of UNCLOS. Since the Philippines has sovereignty over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc, it follows that it has also sovereignty over their 12 NM Territorial Waters.
Question:
But what about the waters outside of the 12 NM Territorial Waters of the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc, what is the nature of these waters including the continental shelves? Which State has sovereign rights over them?
Answer:
As noted, Bajo de Masinloc is located approximately at latitude 15⁰08’ N and longitude 117⁰45’E. It is approximately 124 NM miles off the nearest coast of the Philippine Province of Zambales. Clearly, the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are within the 200 NM EEZ and CS of the Philippine archipelago.
Therefore, the waters and continental shelves outside of the 12 NM Territorial Waters of the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc appropriately belong to the 200 EEZ and CS of the Philippine archipelago. As such, the Philippines exercises exclusive sovereign rights to explore and exploit the resources within the said areas to the exclusion of other countries under UNCLOS. Part V of UNCLOS, specifically provides that the Philippines exercises exclusive sovereign rights to explore, exploit,conserve, and manage resources whether living or non-living, in this area.
Although, other states have the right of freedom of navigation over the said areas, such rights could not be exercised to the detriment of the internationally recognized sovereign rights of the Philippines to explore and exploit the resources in its 200 NM EEZ and CS. To do otherwise would be in violation of international law specifically UNCLOS.
Therefore, the current action of the Chinese surveillance vessels in the said 200 NM EEZ of the Philippines that are law enforcement in nature is obviously inconsistent with its right of freedom of navigation and in violation of the sovereign rights of the Philippines under UNCLOS.
It must also be noted that the Chinese fisherman earlier apprehended by Philippine law enforcement agents may have poached not on Bajo de Masinloc per se, but likely on the EEZ of the Philippines. Therefore, these poachers have likewise violated the sovereign rights of the Philippines under UNCLOS.
PRESENCE OF PHILIPPINE-REGISTERED ARCHEOLOGICAL VESSEL
The Philippine National Museum has been undertaking an official marine archaeological survey in the vicinity of the Bajo de Masinloc.
The archaeological survey is being conducted by the Philippine National Museum on board the Philippine-flag motor yatch M/Y Saranggani.
Chinese Maritime Surveillance vessels have been harassing the M/Y Saranggani. The Philippines has strongly protested these harassments by the Chinese side. Said actions by the Chinese vessels are in violation of the sovereign right and jurisdiction of the Philippines to conduct marine research or studies in its Exclusive Economic Zone.
ENDANGERED SPECIES FOUND IN CHINESE FISHING VESSELS
The Philippine Navy, during a routine sovereignty patrol, saw eight (8) fishing vessels moored at the Bajo de Masinloc on 10 April. The Philippine side inspected these vessels and discovered that they were Chinese fishing vessels and on board were illegally obtained endangered corals and giant clams in violation of the Philippine Fisheries Code
The Philippines is a staunch advocate in protecting its marine environment from any form of illegal fishing and poaching. It is a state party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) and Convention on Biological Diversity.
This illicit activity has also undermined the work of the Philippine government as a member of the Coral Triangle Initiative.
The coral colonies in Bajo de Masinloc have been in existence for centuries.
CURRENT SITUATION
The Philippines is committed to the process of consultations with China towards a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the situation.
As the DFA works towards a diplomatic solution, the Philippine Coast Guard is present in the area and is continuing to enforce relevant Philippine laws.
(Statement released to media 18 April 2012)
Bajo de Masinloc is an integral part of the Philippine territory. It is part of the Municipality of Masinloc, Province of Zambales. It is located 124 nautical miles west of Zambales and is within the 200 nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Philippine Continental Shelf.
A Philippine Navy Surveillance aircraft monitored eight (8) Chinese fishing vessels anchored inside the Bajo de Masinloc (Panatag Shoal) on Sunday, 8 April 2012, in the conduct of its maritime patrols and its enforcement of the Philippine Fisheries Code and marine environment laws. On 10 April 2012, the BRP Gregorio del Pilar, in accordance with the established Rules of Engagement, dispatched an inspection team that reported that large amounts of illegally collected corals, giant clams and live sharks were found in the compartments of these fishing vessels.
The actions of the Chinese fishing vessels are a serious violation of the Philippines’ sovereignty and maritime jurisdiction. The poaching of endangered marine resources is in violation of the Fisheries Code and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES).
BASIS OF PHILIPPINE SOVEREIGNTY OVER BAJO DE MASINLOC AND THE WATERS WITHIN ITS VICINITY
Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) is not an island. Bajo de Masinloc is also not part of theSpratlys.
Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) is a ring-shaped coral reef, which has several rocksencircling a lagoon. About five of these rocks are above water during high tide. Of these five rocks, some are about 3 meters high above water. The rest of the rocks and reefs are below waterduring high tide.
Bajo de Masinloc’s (Scarborough Shoal’s) chain of reefs and rocks is about 124 NM from the nearest coast of Luzon and approximately 472 NM from the nearest coast of China. Bajo de Masinloc is located approximately along latitude 15⁰08’ N and longitude 117⁰45’E. The rocks of Bajo de Masinloc are situated north of the Spratlys.
Obviously therefore, the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc are also within the 200 NM Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and 200 NM Continental Shelf (CS) of the Philippines.
A distinction has to be made between the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc and the larger body of water and continental shelf where the said geological features are situated. The rights ornature of rights of the Philippines over the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc is different from that which it exercises over the larger body of water and continental shelf.
The Philippines exercises full sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc, and sovereign rights over the waters and continental shelf where the said rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are situated.
The basis of Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc isdistinct from that of its sovereign rights over the larger body of water and continental shelf.
A. The Rock Features of Bajo de Masinloc: Basis of Philippine Sovereignty under Public International Law
The rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are Philippine territories.
The basis of Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc is not premised on the cession by Spain of the Philippine archipelago to the United States under the Treaty of Paris. The matter that the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are not included or within the limits of the Treaty of Paris as alleged by China is therefore immaterial and of no consequence.
Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc is likewise not premised on proximity or the fact that the rocks are within its 200 NM EEZ or Continental Shelf (CS) under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Although the Philippines necessarily exercise sovereign rights over its EEZ and CS, nonetheless, the reason why the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are Philippine territories is anchored on other principles of public international law.
As decided in a number of cases by international courts or tribunals, most notably the Palmas Island Case, a modality for acquiring territorial ownership over a piece of real estate is effective exercise of jurisdiction. Indeed, in that particular case, sovereignty over the Palmas Island was adjudged in favor of the Netherlands on the basis of “effective exercise of jurisdiction” although the said island may have been historically discovered by Spain and historically ceded to the US in the Treaty of Paris.
In the case of Bajo de Masinloc, the Philippines has exercised both effective occupation andeffective jurisdiction over Bajo de Masinloc since its independence.
The name Bajo de Masinloc (translated as “under Masinloc”) itself identifies the shoal as a particular political subdivision of the Philippine Province of Zambales, known as Masinloc.
One of the earliest known and most accurate maps of the area, named Carta Hydrographical y Chorographica De Las Yslas Filipinas by Fr. Pedro Murillo Velarde, S.J., and published in 1734, included Bajo de Masinloc as part of Zambales.
The name Bajo de Masinloc was a name given to the shoal by the Spanish colonizers. In 1792, another map drawn by the Alejandro Malaspina expedition and published in 1808 in Madrid, Spain, also showed Bajo de Masinloc as part of Philippine territory. This map showed the route of the Malaspina expedition to and around the shoal. It was reproduced in the Atlas of the 1939 Philippine Census.
The Mapa General, Islas Filipinas, Observatorio de Manila published in 1990 by the US Coast and Geodetic Survey, also included Bajo de Masinloc as part of the Philippines.
Philippine flags have been erected on some of the islets of the shoal, including a flag raised on an 8.3-meter high flag pole in 1965 and another Philippine flag raised by Congressmen Roque Ablan and Jose Yap in 1997. In 1965, the Philippines also built and operated a small lighthouse in one of the islets in the Shoal. In 1992, the Philippine Navy rehabilitated the lighthouse and reported it to theInternational Maritime Organization for publication in the List of Lights (currently this lighthouse is not operational).
Bajo de Masinloc was also used as an impact range by Philippine and US Naval Forces stationed in Subic Bay in Zambales for defence purposes. The Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources together with the University of the Philippines has also been conducting scientific, topographic, and marine studies in the Shoal. Filipino fishermen have always considered it as their fishing grounds owing to their proximity to the coastal towns and areas of Southwest Luzon.
In 2009, when the Philippines passed an amended Archipelagic Baselines Law fully consistent with UNCLOS, Bajo de Masinloc was classified under the “Regime of Islands” consistent with the Law of the Sea.
“Section 2. The baseline in the following areas over which the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction shall be determined as "Regime of Islands" under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS):
a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No. 1596; and
b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal.”
COMMENTS ON CHINESE CLAIMS
Question:
But what about the historical claim of China over Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal)? Does China have a much superior right over Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) on the basis of it so-called historical claim? China is claiming Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) based on historical arguments, claiming it to have been discovered by the Yuan Dynasty? China is also claiming that Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) has been reflected on various official Chinese Maps and has been named by China in various official documents?
Answer:
Chinese assertion based on historical claims must be substantiated by a clear historic title. It should be noted that under public international law, historical claims are not historical titles. A claim by itself, including historical claim, could not be a basis for acquiring a territory.
Under international law, the modes of acquiring a territory are: discovery, effective occupation, prescription, cession, and accretion. Also, under public international law, for a historical claim tomature into a historical title, a mere showing of long usage is not enough.
Other criteria have to be satisfied such as that the usage must be open, continuous, adverse or in the concept of an owner, peaceful and acquiesced by other states. Mere silence by other states to one’s claim is not acquiescence under international law. Acquiescence must be affirmative such that other states recognize such claim as a right on the part of the claimant that other states ought to respect as a matter of duty. There is no indication that the international community haveacquiesced to China’s so-called historical claim.
In relation to name giving and maps, name-giving (or names in general) and placing of land features on maps, these are also not bases in determining sovereignty. In international case law relating to questions of sovereignty and ownership of land features, names and maps are not significant factors in the determination of international tribunals’ determination of sovereignty.
Question:
What about China claims that Bajo de Masinloc as traditional fishing waters of Chinese fishermen?
Answer:
Under international law, fishing rights is not a mode of acquiring sovereignty (or even sovereign rights) over an area. Neither could it be construed that the act of fishing by Chinese fishermen is a sovereign act of a State nor can be considered as a display of State authority. Fishing is aneconomic activity done by private individuals. For occupation to be effective there has to beclear demonstration of the intention and will of a state to act as sovereign and there has to be peaceful and continuous display of state authority, which the Philippines has consistently demonstrated.
Besides when UNCLOS took effect, it has precisely appropriated various maritime zones to coastal states, thus eliminating so called historical waters and justly appropriating the resources of the seas to Coastal States to which said seas are appurtenant. “Traditional fishing rights” is in fact mentioned only in Article 51 of UNCLOS, which calls for archipelagic states to respect such rights, if such exist, in its archipelagic waters.
It should also be noted, that in this particular case, the activities of these so-called fishermen can be hardly described as fishing. The evidence culled by the Philippine Navy showed clearly that these are poaching activities involving the harvesting of endangered marine species which is illegal in the Philippines and illegal under international law, specifically the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
B. Waters Outside and Around Bajo de Masinloc: Basis of Philippine Sovereign Rights under UNCLOS
As earlier indicated, there is a distinction between the rock features of Bajo Masinloc and the waters within its vicinity. The question of who owns the rocks is a matter governed by the principles of public international law relating to modalities for acquiring territories. On the other hand, the extent of its adjacent waters is governed by UNCLOS. In like manner, the waters outside of the maritime area of Bajo de Masinloc are also governed by UNCLOS.
As noted, there are only about five rocks in Bajo de Masinloc that are above water during high tide. The rest are below water during high tide. Accordingly, these rocks have only 12 NM maximum territorial waters under Article 121 of UNCLOS. Since the Philippines has sovereignty over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc, it follows that it has also sovereignty over their 12 NM Territorial Waters.
Question:
But what about the waters outside of the 12 NM Territorial Waters of the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc, what is the nature of these waters including the continental shelves? Which State has sovereign rights over them?
Answer:
As noted, Bajo de Masinloc is located approximately at latitude 15⁰08’ N and longitude 117⁰45’E. It is approximately 124 NM miles off the nearest coast of the Philippine Province of Zambales. Clearly, the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are within the 200 NM EEZ and CS of the Philippine archipelago.
Therefore, the waters and continental shelves outside of the 12 NM Territorial Waters of the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc appropriately belong to the 200 EEZ and CS of the Philippine archipelago. As such, the Philippines exercises exclusive sovereign rights to explore and exploit the resources within the said areas to the exclusion of other countries under UNCLOS. Part V of UNCLOS, specifically provides that the Philippines exercises exclusive sovereign rights to explore, exploit,conserve, and manage resources whether living or non-living, in this area.
Although, other states have the right of freedom of navigation over the said areas, such rights could not be exercised to the detriment of the internationally recognized sovereign rights of the Philippines to explore and exploit the resources in its 200 NM EEZ and CS. To do otherwise would be in violation of international law specifically UNCLOS.
Therefore, the current action of the Chinese surveillance vessels in the said 200 NM EEZ of the Philippines that are law enforcement in nature is obviously inconsistent with its right of freedom of navigation and in violation of the sovereign rights of the Philippines under UNCLOS.
It must also be noted that the Chinese fisherman earlier apprehended by Philippine law enforcement agents may have poached not on Bajo de Masinloc per se, but likely on the EEZ of the Philippines. Therefore, these poachers have likewise violated the sovereign rights of the Philippines under UNCLOS.
PRESENCE OF PHILIPPINE-REGISTERED ARCHEOLOGICAL VESSEL
The Philippine National Museum has been undertaking an official marine archaeological survey in the vicinity of the Bajo de Masinloc.
The archaeological survey is being conducted by the Philippine National Museum on board the Philippine-flag motor yatch M/Y Saranggani.
Chinese Maritime Surveillance vessels have been harassing the M/Y Saranggani. The Philippines has strongly protested these harassments by the Chinese side. Said actions by the Chinese vessels are in violation of the sovereign right and jurisdiction of the Philippines to conduct marine research or studies in its Exclusive Economic Zone.
ENDANGERED SPECIES FOUND IN CHINESE FISHING VESSELS
The Philippine Navy, during a routine sovereignty patrol, saw eight (8) fishing vessels moored at the Bajo de Masinloc on 10 April. The Philippine side inspected these vessels and discovered that they were Chinese fishing vessels and on board were illegally obtained endangered corals and giant clams in violation of the Philippine Fisheries Code
The Philippines is a staunch advocate in protecting its marine environment from any form of illegal fishing and poaching. It is a state party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) and Convention on Biological Diversity.
This illicit activity has also undermined the work of the Philippine government as a member of the Coral Triangle Initiative.
The coral colonies in Bajo de Masinloc have been in existence for centuries.
CURRENT SITUATION
The Philippines is committed to the process of consultations with China towards a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the situation.
As the DFA works towards a diplomatic solution, the Philippine Coast Guard is present in the area and is continuing to enforce relevant Philippine laws.
(Statement released to media 18 April 2012)
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Looking Back: My scattered concepts on student governance (2008)
Government should focus primarily on the
development of sustainable programs (a series of project designed to meet
one goal in a coordinated and effective way) which touch the 5 areas of
priority. These programs are clear cut, moving a chronological order, cyclical
in its nature and emphasis primarily on name recognition and branding. And
programs which has open participation to the entire student body.
The domestic policy simply implies that
internal programs of government should be geared towards for the aid of formation
rooted in Ignatian values. This government is designed to be a government that
does not solely focus on protection, promotion and preservation of students’
rights and welfare but equally emphasize the importance of our responsibilities
as Atenean students in the context of a larger community. This is the Xavier Way
One major challenge is to nurture an
environment of creative and critical thinking among students. This is one major
factor that government of high calibre needs to study. This could be done by
initiating open competitions, public debates, community forums and other
creative means.
The number one challenge of the government is
its self. It’s its size and the challenge of nurturing it and making it intact.
This is first and foremost the focus of our efforts. How we make ourselves
cohesive and develop systems that institutionalize that cohesiveness. We should
sit and think about how we can do this together.
For
external matters that seek our commitment in terms of manpower, strict internal
policies should be established.
How much
autonomy is autonomous? And never use “autonomy” as an excuse to escape the
hustle of protocols.
We should accept some facts as absolute truths
if we are to stand firm. One of these self-evident truths is we as the
government could never please every single one but at least we should know who
to please.
These policies are mainly checking mechanisms
that ensure proper documentation, proper channelling of communication, proper financing.
It also brings about a sense of respect to the line of command.
The last thing we need is to have the feeling
of animosity towards the administration. They are our parents and respect and
courtesy through following the policies and procedures are the least we can do.
At the end of this wonderful
experience, it made me appreciate more the Jesuit education I am intimately
dedicated in understanding and animating through my thoughts and actions. The
things I learned inside the classroom, the notes in my notebook and the
theories in my books should not remain in my head or in their static state. The
challenge is to translate or animate this knowledge into action – the very call
of magis. This action, directed by my faith and the call of my education to be
a man for others is where the value of my knowledge crystallizes. This
knowledge therefore should be used for the less fortunate others, those who are
powerless, those who are poor, those who can’t even think for themselves, those
who are vulnerable, those who don’t even care but all for the Greater of God.
You can’t solely depend on your
experiences of leadership per se. What completes the equation is the capacity
to digest these experiences and extract insights matched with a growing
commitment for finding the truth.
Be weary of ideologies, they could
be rotten tomatoes covered in a velvet shawl.
Leadership for me is a concrete form
of living out your faith. Leadership is an expression of faith because it is an
act of a transcended self.
I just offer you my attitude, my
character, my faith and a vision.
One service center policy – We should endeavour to establish
and develop a center which students can automatically recognize and approach if
they need assistance in categorized forms.
Reaching out policy – one of the strongest legacies of
the Diamond batch, this policy should be sustained and strengthened. The
department of information should study creative and innovative ways in reaching
out to our constituents and others.
Good will policy – giving out thank you cards is a
very good way of developing goodwill to
all
Having a simple easily memorized code that
summarizes our way of proceeding is quite ideal for everyday guidance and
inspiration.
The burden
of leadership is really seeing every bit of optimism in what ever challenge a
situation gives. Therefore, strength of character and a grounded conviction is
vital in any leader
-September
30, 2008
In its
core, leadership is really about character and attitude. Skills, influence,
achievements and drive are only secondary. These things should be anchored in
the very character and attitude of the person for it magnify.
Anybody can
use power; it takes a skill called leadership to make it work.
Growth,
purpose, friendship: These are the basic ingredients that we volunteers ought
to seek if we wish to survive this part of our lives.
A great
government is the one that protects its people even to those who aim to
destabilize it. Kill them with kindness.
Too much
politicking results to a mindset of manipulation, blind assertion, and false
alliances.
If you say
what you think, don’t expect to hear only what you like.
The one
trouble with the world is that so many people who stand up vigorously for their
rights fall down miserably on their duties.
No leader
is exempt from criticism and his humility will no where be seen more clearly
than in the manner in which he accepts and reacts to it.
I may not
have gone far, but what I can offer you is simply my character, my attitude,
and our vision. Plain and simple. Anybody can use fame, achievement, power, but
it takes a skill called leadership grounded in character that makes it all
work.
-
Tonton
Learning from the practices of Ateneo de
Manila, I am deeply convinced that the prime ingredient for any successful long
term programs is through a concrete partnership with faculty or university
offices. This can somehow hardwire our efforts into the institution itself. One
good example is the Ateneo Environmental Management Coalition. This is one good
practice that I wish to develop in Xavier
University
Another important mission an Ignatian
government should focus is the leadership formation within and without campus.
A special team should be created to initiate a student led leadership
development program that accommodates potential student leaders in campus.
So if I become president, my basic priorities
clustered into Rights, Formation, and Community
RIGHTS
FORMATION
COMMUNITY
- Improvement
of student services (not just enrolment, XSAC, lockers, or insurance) that expands to involvement/formation
opportunities
- Student
Leadership formation
- Encourage
creativity and critical thinking (Alternative classes)
- tapping
the internet for active online community and online messaging
- Pooling
of diverse student talents
- Environmental
Care ( Formation of a student
coalition and department)
- development
of XSAC
Policies that proved to be very effective are
the reaching out policy in information dissemination. Here, I recommend the
formation of a permanent trained and confident mobile information patrol team.
They are the once who regularly go to the canteen to
“megaphone” people.
Monday, April 09, 2012
The Rise of the Third Reich
My research paper in 4th year high school was all about the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I find its brief enigmatic history very interesting as much as the leader who almost destroyed the world.
Sunday, April 08, 2012
XUCLA Immersion
Immersion is generally oftentimes
described as living in the life of others over a limited period of time to be
able to at least understand their reality and condition. Being in XUCLA, an immersion is an integral
part of our formation. It practically pulls us out of our comfort zones and places
us in an experience where our legal knowledge is humanized by real life
struggles of people whose simple hopes are hinged on the proper administration of
justice.
I can only share snippets of
thoughts and images that I gained in my immersion in Dansolihon, Cagayan de Oro
City. I just hope that these nuggets of thoughts would all form a greater image
that would deepen my commitment and engagement with law and development.
Our house is 2 meters by 3 meters
shed made of wood and bamboo. It is really more of a tool shed for the family’s
livelihood. There is no electricity and the water source is pumped from a well
which the father himself dug.
Going to the shed is so much a
challenge especially when the soil is wet. I had to go through steep trails
where I had to literally kiss the soil for me not transfer my weight away from
the steep edge. (Picture it nalang)
Our Nanay would collect the seeds
of the Nangka after we finished eating it.
Their legal issues revolve around
the ownership and classification of the land they are living on. There land is
their security. They are not just fighting for livelihood, they fighting for
their very dignity. A demolition order was restrained early last year thanks to
our resident lawyer. Now the case is on appeal.
My family earns their living from
a very controversial method – mining and they are concerned over the movement
to stop all forms of mining. This really opened a new perspective on my
understanding of the issue. My experience showed me the practical relationship
between law and economics. A hungry stomach respects no law as what the saying
goes as I can remember. However, I should also like to add that the law should
ensure that there is no hungry stomach. This framework of the relationship of
both livelihood and law should guide us in our future discourse.
Saw the remnants of Sendong when we were swimming in the CdeO river. I even saw some roots 5 meters above the riverbank.
It is good to be back in the
place where I had my first NSTP experience teaching pupils basic math and English.
I did this almost 5 years ago in their community day care center.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)