Where in the World is the Philippines?: Debating Its National Territory

3. The Territory of an Independent Nation

 tHE tErrItorY of An IndEpEndEnt nAtIon After the Philippines gained its independence from the United States on 4 July 1946, it continued to live under the 1935 Constitution, with its definition of the national territory. It did so until the promulgation by President Ferdinand E. Marcos of a new Constitution in January 1973. tHE 19 pHILIppInE conStItutIon A Constitutional Convention, with over 300 members, had been drafting the new Constitution, since June 1971, when Marcos declared martial law in September 1972. The Convention continued working under martial law conditions. The final text was ratified in a nationwide plebiscite in January 1973. Like the 1935 Constitution, the 1973 document went out of its way to define the national territory. Article 1 of the 1973 Constitution had this to say about the subject: 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 air space, the subsoil, the sea-bed, the insular shelves, and the 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, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.1 As in 1934, the 1971–72 Constitutional Convention debated the need to define the national territory in the new Constitution. Led by E. Voltaire The Territory of an Independent Nation  Garcia II, some of the delegates argued against the inclusion of such a definition. One of the grounds for the argument was that a definition would preclude the country from pursuing later territorial claims. Delegates also pointed out that questions of territory should be governed by international, rather than municipal, law. Related to this argument was the proposition that the actual exercise of authority over territory was a stronger basis for a claim than a unilateral declaration, which, in any case, was not binding on other nations. Moreover, basing territorial positions on treaties between colonial powers, as the original text of the proposed provision did, would only serve to remind Filipinos of their colonial past. Other delegates asserted that a provision defining the national territory would serve notice to the world of the country’s territorial jurisdiction and reaffirm its sovereignty over its internal waters and territorial sea. Some expressed the concern that references to future territorial claims as an argument for omitting a definition of the national territory would seem like an endorsement of imperialism. They also argued that the national territory needed to be defined in order to ensure that the national wealth was protected, security ensured, and national consciousness promoted. In the end, the Convention rejected the amendment calling for deletion, 25–141, and approved, 177–14, the inclusion of the article on the national territory in the new Constitution. Unlike the 1935 Constitution, however, the 1973 document made no reference to the Treaty of Paris or to other international agreements pertaining to the Philippines’ national territory. Rather, it referred more generally — and more flexibly — to “all the other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title”, but more specifically including the territorial sea, the air space, etc. The quoted phrase was meant to cover the Philippines’ claim to Sabah and other, future claims to territory, including those over which the country was not exercising sovereignty at the time. As some delegates had proposed, the new Constitution contained no explicit references to pre-independence treaties and legislation in order to avoid invoking agreements concluded between colonial powers. Nevertheless, Eduardo Quintero, chairman of the Convention’s Committee on National Territory, stated in response to a question from a colleague, that the phrase “historic right or legal title” encompassed such treaties and legislative acts. Significantly, the territorial definition in the 1973 Constitution referred to the “Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein”, thereby asserting the archipelagic principle that the Philippines had been espousing internationally. The 1935 Constitution had merely defined Philippine territory in terms of what had been encompassed under treaties 8 Where in the World is the Philippines? between the United States and Spain and between the United States and the United Kingdom. Again like the 1935 Constitution, and also like the 1987 Constitution, the 1973 charter was a rarity in that it included a definition of the national territory. The Singapore, Thai and Vietnamese...