Practice question
A proposed law would extend the main Philippine archipelagic baseline enclosure around distant outlying features using connecting lines that materially depart from the archipelago’s general configuration and exceed Article 47’s maximum lengths. Its sponsor insists that otherwise the Philippines must lose its territorial claims over those features. Applying Magallona v. Ermita, which position is best?
- The sponsor is right because only enclosed land may be claimed as territory.
- The proposal is required because a territorial claim automatically overrides every baseline restriction.
- The proposal is valid whenever it adds water to the enclosure.
- The sponsor’s premise is mistaken: baseline compliance and territorial title are distinct, and outlying features may have applicable separate maritime zones.
- The Philippines must abandon every claim beyond its main archipelagic baselines.
Legal references
- Republic Act No. 9522, March 10, 2009, Sections 1–2: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/23187
- Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011, main decision, maritime baselines and regime of islands: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/29267
- UNCLOS, Articles 46–50, especially Article 47 (archipelagic baselines): https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part4.htm
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.