Mutatis mutandis

A Study Guide for Article I: The National Territory

This study guide was prepared by Mychal Sajulga.

If it helped you on your studies, you have the option to

Buy Me a Coffee

or send me Good Karma in the form of

GCash: 09162278309

so that I can buy ADHD meds

ARTICLE I: THE NATIONAL TERRITORY

Study Guide for Constitutional Law I

I. CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT

Article I, Section 1 (1987 Constitution)

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.

II. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF TERRITORIAL DEFINITION

A. Constitutional Nature

Cruz Commentary:

Cruz explains that a constitution is a municipal law binding only within the territorial limits of the sovereignty promulgating it. For purposes of actual exercise of sovereignty, it is important for the sovereign state to know the extent of territory over which it can legitimately exercise jurisdiction.

Bernas Commentary:

Bernas notes that Philippine constitutionalism accepts the principle that it is not the Constitution which definitively fixes the extent of Philippine territory. This principle ran through the debates during the 1935 Constitutional Convention. The existence of a territorial definition in Article I of the 1935 Constitution was not a denial of this principle. Rather, Article I reflected a historical purpose.

The determinative factor which persuaded the 1935 Convention to include an article on national territory was the intent to use the Constitution as an international document binding on the United States. The possibility of transforming the Constitution from a municipal law into an international document arose from the Tydings-McDuffie Law, which prescribed that the effectivity of the Philippine constitution would depend partly on acceptance of its provisions by the United States Government.

B. Evolution Across Constitutions

1935 Constitution:

1973 Constitution:

1987 Constitution:

Bernas Commentary:

The 1971 Convention spent considerable time debating whether the new Constitution should contain a definition of Philippine territory. Delegate Voltaire Garcia argued that territorial definition was a subject of international law, not municipal law, and that Philippine territory was already defined by existing treaties. However, the majority view prevailed that a constitutional definition was necessary to avoid forfeiture of territorial claims by their omission from the constitutional definition.

III. COMPONENTS OF NATIONAL TERRITORY

A. The Philippine Archipelago

Definition and Scope

Bernas Commentary:

An archipelago may be defined, depending on one's utilitarian preference, either as:

  1. A cluster of islands forming a territorial unity, OR
  2. A unit of water studded with islands

The Committee preference during the 1971 Convention was for the second definition. Committee Chairman Quintero stated: "The correct definition of archipelago is, it is a sea studded with islands. In other words, an archipelago means sea plus islands. The sea seems to be more important than the islands."

Historical Delineation

Bernas Commentary:

Report No. 01 of the Committee on National Territory was explicit in its delineation:

"Now if we plot on a map the boundaries of this archipelago as set forth in the Treaty of Paris, a huge or giant rectangle will emerge, measuring about 600 miles in width, and over 1,200 miles in length. Inside this giant rectangle are the 7,100 islands comprising the Philippine Islands. From the east coast of Luzon to the eastern boundary of this huge rectangle in the Pacific Ocean, there is a distance of over 300 miles. From the west coast of Luzon to the western boundary of this giant rectangle in the China Sea, there is a distance of over 150 miles."

The delineation must be understood in the context of modifications made by:

The Batanes Question

Bernas Commentary:

Although the evident intent of the Convention was to secure the inclusion of the Batanes group, the definition of the archipelago did not explicitly include the Batanes Islands. Even the map distributed by the Committee on National Territory placed the Batanes Islands outside the boundaries of the Philippine archipelago as set forth in the Treaty of Paris.

However, since both geographically and historically these islands form a unity with the Philippine archipelago of the Treaty of Paris, they should be considered part of the Philippine archipelago for purposes of the Constitution. The last clause of Article I of the 1935 Constitution ("all territory over which the present Government of the Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction") was specifically intended to ensure the inclusion of the Batanes Islands.

Bernas Commentary (1987 Constitution):

Under the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea definition of an archipelago (Article 46), Batanes should be considered part of the archipelago and not just of "other territories" outside the archipelago. This conclusion has implications for the application of the archipelagic principle with reference to the waters between Batanes and other islands of the territory.

Purpose of the Provision

Bernas Commentary:

The phrase "all other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title" was a catch-all clause used to cover areas linked to the Philippines with varying degrees of certainty and firmness. It covered:

  1. Batanes - which undisputedly belonged to the Philippines
  2. Sabah - over which the Philippines had filed a formal claim
  3. Marianas Islands and Freedom Land - over which claims were under investigation
  4. Any other territory which the Philippines might acquire in the future through accepted international modes of acquisition

Committee Chairman Quintero explained:

The word "belonging" was used both in the present and future sense: "now or later may belong."

Bernas Commentary:

The clause was nothing more than an insurance clause which could be meaningful only if supported by title extraneous to the Constitution. This was in answer to the clamor to protect and ensure Philippine claim to territories not covered by prior treaties, avoiding forfeiture of these claims by their omission from the constitutional definition.

C. Terrestrial, Fluvial, and Aerial Domains

Scope of Sovereignty

Cruz Commentary:

The Constitution comprehensively describes the national territory as consisting of terrestrial (land), fluvial (rivers, inland waters), and aerial (airspace) domains. This reflects the complete sovereignty of the Philippines over all aspects of its territory.

D. Territorial Sea

Definition and Extent

Bernas Commentary:

The territorial sea of a state, as distinct from its inland and internal waters, consists of a marginal belt of maritime waters adjacent to the base lines extending twelve nautical miles outward. Outside the territorial sea are the high seas.

The traditional length of territorial waters, according to the cannon-shot rule formulated in 1702, was three miles—the effective range of 18th century defensive shore batteries. The three-mile rule has now been discarded in favor of the twelve-mile rule as found in Article 3 of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea.

State Sovereignty Over Territorial Sea

A state exercises sovereignty over its territorial sea subject to the right of innocent passage by other states. Innocent passage is understood as passage not prejudicial to the interests of the coastal state nor contrary to recognized principles of international law.

Overlapping Claims

Where the application of the twelve-mile rule to neighboring littoral states would result in overlapping, the rule now established is that the dividing line is a median line equidistant from the opposite baselines, unless historical title or other special circumstances require a different measurement.

E. Baselines

Normal Baseline Method

Bernas Commentary:

The baseline is "the low-water line along the coast as marked on large scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State." The width of the territorial sea is measured from the baseline.

The "normal" baseline is one drawn following "the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State." This line follows the sinuosities of the coast and therefore would normally not consist of straight lines.

Straight Baseline Method

Bernas Commentary:

Instead of following the sinuosities of the coast, straight lines are drawn connecting selected points on the coast without appreciable departure from the general shape of the coast. This method was first upheld in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case (U.K. v. Norway, ICJ 1951), which validated the straight baseline unilaterally adopted by Norway.

R.A. No. 3046 and R.A. No. 5446 have drawn "straight baselines" around the Philippines.

The rule now is that in localities where the coastline is deeply indented and cut into, or if there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity, the method of straight baselines joining appropriate points may be employed in drawing the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.

Archipelagic Baselines (1982 LOS)

Article 47 of the 1982 Convention provides that an archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago, with certain limitations:

F. Internal Waters and the Archipelagic Principle

Definition of Internal Waters

Bernas Commentary:

Internal waters mean those waters landward from the baseline as well as inland rivers and lakes. All of them are subject to the sovereignty of the state to the same extent that the land domain is. Unlike territorial waters, they are not subject to the right of innocent passage by other states.

The Archipelagic Principle

Bernas Commentary:

The assertion that "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," together with the "straight base line method," form the "Archipelagic Principle."

This assertion over internal waters was a statement of an aspect of the archipelagic principle which the Philippines, along with Indonesia, began advocating in the 1950s. The principle was eventually recognized in the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The significance of this assertion lies in treating all waters within the archipelagic baselines as internal waters over which the Philippines exercises full sovereignty, not merely territorial sea rights.

G. Seabed, Subsoil, Insular Shelves, and Submarine Areas

Bernas Commentary:

The provisions on the sea-bed and sub-soil were based on Article 2, Section 1 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone adopted in Geneva in 1958.

While sovereignty is claimed over the air space, sub-soil, sea-bed, the insular or continental shelves and other submarine areas, the physical extent of these areas and the degree of control claimed over these areas were left undefined. This indeterminate stance was preserved in the 1987 Constitution. Determination, in other words, was left to other modes than by constitutional precept—specifically, to international law conventions and domestic legislation.

Committee Report No. 02 explained that the Convention on the Continental Shelf adopted by the Geneva Conference in 1958 allows a coastal state to exercise over the continental shelf sovereign rights for certain purposes. The control which the Philippines should exercise in the contiguous zone and in the superjacent waters of the continental shelf was left to study by technical bureaus and to the National Assembly for future decision.

IV. SOVEREIGNTY AND JURISDICTION

A. Nature of State Sovereignty

Cruz Commentary:

Within the state's territorial limits, its jurisdiction is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction.

Bernas Commentary:

Bernas quotes extensively from People v. Wong Cheng (46 Phil. 729):

"Sovereignty is the power of a state to command and enforce obedience to its will from people within its jurisdiction, relation with its family of nations, power to declare and wage war, to make peace, to form alliances or enter into economic relations, and the like. There is no portion thereof that is beyond its power. Within its limits, its decrees are supreme, its commands paramount. Its laws govern therein, and everyone to whom it applies must submit to its terms. That is the extent of its jurisdiction both territorial and personal. Necessarily, likewise, it has to be exclusive."

However, a state may, by its consent (express or implied), submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights. This is the concept of sovereignty as auto-limitation—the property of a state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-determination and self-restriction.

B. Jurisdiction vs. Sovereignty

Key Distinction

Bernas Commentary:

The Constitution speaks of territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty OR jurisdiction. This recognizes that there may be areas where the Philippines exercises jurisdiction without full sovereignty, or where sovereignty is shared or limited by international agreements.

V. JURISPRUDENCE

Note: This section includes only cases directly relevant to Article I (National Territory) doctrines.

A. MAGALLONA v. ERMITA, G.R. No. 187167 (August 16, 2011)

Facts: Petitioners challenged the validity of R.A. 9522 (An Act to Amend Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 3046, as Amended by Republic Act No. 5446, to Define the Archipelagic Baselines of the Philippines) on the grounds that:

  1. The law reduces Philippine maritime territory under the Treaty of Paris
  2. It abandons Philippine sovereignty over Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and Scarborough Shoal
  3. It violates national security
  4. It compromises the constitutional ban on nuclear weapons

Issue: Whether R.A. 9522 diminishes Philippine sovereignty or territory as defined in Article I of the Constitution.

Held: R.A. 9522 is constitutional. The law does not reduce Philippine territory but implements the Philippines' obligations under UNCLOS III and clarifies the country's maritime zones.

Key Doctrines on Article I:

1. Constitutional Definition vs. International Law

The Court affirmed that Article I does not create territorial rights but recognizes existing ones under international law:

"While the Constitution outlines the basic principles regarding the national territory, it is international law that governs the limits and extent of archipelagic waters, territorial waters, and aerial domains."

Bernas Commentary (cited by the Court):

The Constitution is a municipal law binding only within Philippine territory. While silence about territory doesn't deprive the state of territory entitled to under international law, neither does constitutional definition legitimize territorial claims not founded on legal rights protected by international law.

2. UNCLOS Compliance Does Not Diminish Sovereignty

The Court held that compliance with UNCLOS III is an exercise, not a waiver, of sovereignty:

"R.A. 9522 is not about limiting territory but implementing the multilateral treaty governing rights over maritime zones. Far from surrendering the Philippines' claim over the KIG and Scarborough Shoal, Congress' decision to classify them as 'Regime of Islands' consistent with Art. 121 of UNCLOS III manifests the Philippine State's responsible observance of its pacta sunt servanda obligation."

Section 2 of R.A. 9522 explicitly provides:

"The baselines 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 Art. 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."

3. Regime of Islands Doctrine

The Court explained that under Article 121 of UNCLOS, a "Regime of Islands" means:

"A naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide."

This differs from "rocks" which cannot sustain human habitation. Islands generate their own applicable maritime zones (territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, and continental shelf), while rocks do not.

Why KIG and Scarborough Shoal Could Not Be Enclosed:

The Court noted that KIG and Scarborough Shoal lie at an appreciable distance from the nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipelago, such that any straight baseline connecting them from the nearest basepoint would inevitably depart to an appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago, violating Article 47 of UNCLOS.

4. Treaty of Paris Not the Sole Basis

The Court rejected the argument that the Treaty of Paris exclusively defines Philippine territory:

"The Treaty of Paris is not the sole basis of Philippine territory. Article I of the Constitution includes 'all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains.'"

The phrase "all other territories" serves as an insurance clause covering territories acquired through internationally recognized modes, whether existing at the time or acquired in the future.

5. Archipelagic Doctrine Preserved

The Court affirmed that R.A. 9522 preserves and strengthens the archipelagic doctrine:

"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 law draws archipelagic baselines around the main Philippine archipelago in full compliance with UNCLOS Article 47, thereby securing the Philippines' status as an archipelagic state.

Relevance to Article I:

This landmark case establishes several critical principles:

  1. Constitution and International Law Relationship: Article I must be read in harmony with international law, particularly UNCLOS
  2. Sovereignty Through Compliance: Observing international obligations is an exercise of sovereignty, not its abandonment
  3. Flexible Territorial Definition: The "all other territories" clause allows for territories beyond the main archipelago
  4. Maritime Zones Framework: Constitutional territory includes not just land but maritime zones governed by international law
  5. Archipelagic Principle Implementation: Proper baseline drawing is essential to preserve archipelagic status

Bernas Commentary (as applied in this case):

The Court extensively cited Bernas' explanations that:

B. REAGAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, G.R. No. L-26379 (December 27, 1969)

Facts: A crime was committed inside the U.S. Embassy in Manila. The accused argued that Philippine courts have no jurisdiction because U.S. Embassy grounds are not part of Philippine territory.

Issue: Whether premises occupied by a foreign embassy constitute territory of the foreign state or of the host state.

Held: The premises occupied by foreign embassies do not constitute territory of the foreign state but of the host state (Philippines).

Key Doctrine on Territorial Sovereignty:

"The premises occupied by the United States Embassy do not constitute territory of the United States but of the Philippines. Crimes committed within them are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines."

Principle Established:

Diplomatic premises remain Philippine territory despite diplomatic immunity. The grant of extraterritorial rights through diplomatic immunity does not transform embassy grounds into foreign soil. The Philippines retains sovereignty; only jurisdiction is limited by international law.

Relevance to Article I:

This case clarifies an important aspect of territorial sovereignty:

  1. Territorial Integrity: Philippine territory remains Philippine regardless of diplomatic arrangements
  2. Sovereignty vs. Jurisdiction: Sovereignty over territory is distinct from exercise of jurisdiction
  3. International Law Limitations: While international law (via diplomatic conventions) limits Philippine jurisdiction over certain persons/premises, it doesn't diminish Philippine sovereignty over the land itself
  4. Auto-Limitation Principle: The Philippines voluntarily limits its jurisdiction as part of international comity, not because the land ceases to be Philippine

Connection to Bernas Commentary:

This illustrates Bernas' discussion of sovereignty as auto-limitation: The state may consent to restrictions on sovereign rights (like granting diplomatic immunity), but such limitations don't make the territory foreign. The land remains Philippine soil under Article I.

C. PEOPLE v. WONG CHENG, 46 Phil. 729 (1922)

Facts: This case involved questions of Philippine sovereignty and jurisdictional reach within Philippine territory during the American colonial period.

Issue: The nature and extent of sovereignty and jurisdiction over Philippine territory.

Held: The Court articulated fundamental principles of territorial sovereignty that remain applicable under Article I.

Key Doctrines on Sovereignty:

1. Nature of State Sovereignty

"Sovereignty is the power of a state to command and enforce obedience to its will from people within its jurisdiction, relation with its family of nations, power to declare and wage war, to make peace, to form alliances or enter into economic relations, and the like. There is no portion thereof that is beyond its power. Within its limits, its decrees are supreme, its commands paramount. Its laws govern therein, and everyone to whom it applies must submit to its terms. That is the extent of its jurisdiction both territorial and personal. Necessarily, likewise, it has to be exclusive."

2. Sovereignty as Auto-Limitation

The Court explained the concept crucial to understanding Article I's territorial provisions:

"It is to be admitted that any state may, by its consent, express or implied, submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights. There may thus be a curtailment of what otherwise is a power plenary in character. That is the concept of sovereignty as auto-limitation, which, in the succinct language of Jellinek, 'is the property of a state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-determination and self-restriction.'"

3. Territory and Sovereignty

"A state then, if it chooses to, may refrain from the exercise of what otherwise is illimitable competence. Its laws may as to some persons found within its territory no longer control. Nor does the matter end there. It is not precluded from allowing another power to participate in the exercise of jurisdictional right over certain portions of its territory. If it does so, it by no means follows that such areas become impressed with an alien character. They retain their status as native soil."

Application to U.S. Military Bases

The Court specifically addressed military bases leased to foreign powers:

"So it is with the bases under lease to the American armed forces by virtue of the military bases agreement of 1947. They are not and cannot be foreign territory. Its jurisdiction may be diminished, but it does not disappear."

Relevance to Article I:

This case establishes foundational principles for understanding Article I:

  1. Sovereignty Over Territory is Plenary: Within Philippine territory, Philippine sovereignty is supreme and exclusive
  2. Limitations Are Voluntary: Any restriction on sovereignty must come from Philippine consent
  3. Sovereignty vs. Jurisdiction: Limited jurisdiction doesn't equal loss of sovereignty
  4. Military Bases Doctrine: Foreign military presence by agreement doesn't make land foreign
  5. Territorial Integrity: Once Philippine territory, always Philippine territory unless sovereignty is transferred

Bernas Commentary (extensively cites this case):

Bernas quotes this case at length when discussing how the Philippines may enter into agreements (like the VFA) that limit jurisdiction without ceding sovereignty. The military bases remain Philippine territory under Article I even when foreign forces are present by treaty.

This principle directly relates to:

VI. SYNTHESIS OF JURISPRUDENTIAL PRINCIPLES

Core Doctrines from Case Law:

1. Constitutional Territory and International Law Are Interrelated

2. Sovereignty Can Be Limited But Not Eliminated

3. Article I's Flexible Framework

4. Archipelagic Principle Implementation

5. Diplomatic and Military Arrangements

Application to Current Issues:

West Philippine Sea/South China Sea Disputes:

Visiting Forces and Foreign Military Presence:

Maritime Zones and UNCLOS:

VII. INTERNATIONAL LAW PRINCIPLES

A. The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

Bernas Commentary:

The 1987 Constitution was formulated while the Philippines was already a party to the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. Important concepts from the Convention include:

Archipelagic State Definition (Article 46):

Implications for the Philippines:

Under this definition, Batanes should be considered part of the archipelago and not just of "other territories" outside the archipelago. This has implications for the application of the archipelagic principle with reference to the waters between Batanes and other islands.

B. Treaty Limitations on Sovereignty

Bernas Commentary (from People v. Wong Cheng):

A state may, by its consent, express or implied, submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights. There may thus be a curtailment of what otherwise is a power plenary in character. This is the concept of sovereignty as auto-limitation.

All exceptions to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source.

Application to Territory:

The state may allow limitations on its territorial jurisdiction through:

  1. Treaties and International Agreements: VFA, bases agreements, etc.
  2. Recognition of International Law Principles: Right of innocent passage
  3. Diplomatic Immunity: Foreign embassies and diplomats

However, such limitations do not change the fundamental sovereignty of the Philippines over its territory. As stated in cases involving US military bases: They are not and cannot be foreign territory. They retain their status as native soil.

VIII. KEY PRINCIPLES AND DOCTRINES

1. Archipelagic Doctrine

2. Baseline Methods

3. Constitutional vs. International Law

4. Sovereignty as Auto-Limitation

5. Internal Waters vs. Territorial Sea

6. Catch-All Clause Function

7. UNCLOS Compliance and Sovereignty

IX. EXAMINATION TIPS AND KEY CONCEPTS

A. Common Exam Topics

  1. Components of National Territory

    • Be able to enumerate all components
    • Explain archipelagic principle
    • Distinguish internal waters from territorial sea

  2. Evolution of Constitutional Provisions

    • Know differences between 1935, 1973, and 1987 versions
    • Understand why changes were made
    • Historical context (colonial past, national pride)

  3. International Law Integration

    • 1982 LOS Convention provisions
    • Baseline methods
    • Archipelagic state concept

  4. Sovereignty Questions

    • Distinguish sovereignty from jurisdiction
    • Explain auto-limitation concept
    • Foreign military presence issues

  5. Case Applications

    • Magallona v. Ermita: UNCLOS, baselines, regime of islands
    • Reagan v. CIR: embassy grounds, diplomatic immunity vs. territorial sovereignty
    • Wong Cheng: sovereignty as auto-limitation, military bases

B. Analysis Framework

When analyzing Article I questions:

  1. Identify the territorial component - Which part of territory is involved?
  2. Determine sovereignty vs. jurisdiction - Is it a question of full sovereignty or limited jurisdiction?
  3. Check international law - What does UNCLOS or relevant treaty say?
  4. Apply constitutional text - What does Article I specifically provide?
  5. Consider relevant jurisprudence - Which cases are on point?
  6. Distinguish domestic from international - Is this a matter of municipal or international law?

C. Important Distinctions to Remember

Concept Key Distinction
Internal Waters vs. Territorial Sea Full sovereignty vs. subject to innocent passage
Normal vs. Straight Baselines Following coast vs. straight lines connecting points
Archipelago Definitions Land with water vs. water with land (Philippines adopts latter)
Sovereignty vs. Jurisdiction Complete authority vs. limited authority
Regime of Islands vs. Rocks Can sustain habitation vs. cannot (affects maritime zones)
Constitutional Definition vs. International Title Recognition vs. creation of rights
Treaty of Paris vs. "All Other Territories" Historical basis vs. insurance clause

D. Constitutional Commission Intent

From Bernas Commentary:

Key insights from the 1986 Constitutional Commission debates:

  1. Why define territory at all?

    • Not merely symbolic or patriotic
    • Practical need to secure territorial claims
    • Insurance against forfeiture by omission
    • Balance between detail and flexibility

  2. Why archipelagic principle?

    • Geographic unity requires legal unity
    • Economic and security considerations
    • Historical claim to surrounding waters
    • International law recognition

  3. Why "historic right or legal title"?

    • Cover present claims (Batanes, Sabah)
    • Allow future acquisitions
    • Avoid constitutional amendment for territorial changes
    • Based on Commissioner Quintero's explanations

E. Common Pitfalls to Avoid

  1. Don't confuse territory definition with territory creation

    • Constitution recognizes, doesn't create territory
    • International law determines valid territorial claims

  2. Don't treat all waters the same

    • Internal waters ≠ territorial sea ≠ high seas
    • Different rights and obligations for each

  3. Don't forget the insurance clause purpose

    • "Other territories" is not an unlimited claim
    • Must be supported by valid international title

  4. Don't overlook sovereignty vs. jurisdiction distinction

    • Philippine territory remains Philippine even with limited jurisdiction
    • Embassy grounds, military bases are Philippine soil

  5. Don't misunderstand UNCLOS compliance

    • R.A. 9522 implements rather than limits territory
    • Regime of Islands preserves rather than abandons claims

X. SUGGESTED STUDY APPROACH

Week 1: Foundation

Week 2: Historical Development

Week 3: International Law

Week 4: Jurisprudence

Week 5: Integration and Application

XI. PRACTICE QUESTIONS

Question 1

Discuss the archipelagic principle as embodied in Article I of the 1987 Constitution. How does it differ from traditional concepts of territorial waters? What is its significance for Philippine sovereignty?

Answer Guide:

Question 2

The Philippines claims Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) as part of its territory. Under what provision of Article I can this claim be justified? Explain fully.

Answer Guide:

Question 3

Distinguish between the concepts of sovereignty and jurisdiction as used in Article I of the Constitution. Give examples of each.

Answer Guide:

Question 4

Explain the significance of R.A. 9522 in relation to Article I. Did this law diminish Philippine territory or sovereignty? Support your answer with jurisprudence.

Answer Guide:

Question 5

A foreign military force is temporarily stationed in Philippine territory pursuant to a visiting forces agreement. Does their presence mean that the area they occupy is no longer Philippine territory? Explain using relevant case law.

Answer Guide:

XII. FINAL REVIEW CHECKLIST

✓ Memorized complete text of Article I, Section 1

✓ Can enumerate all components of national territory

✓ Understand archipelagic principle and its significance

✓ Know difference between internal waters and territorial sea

✓ Understand baseline methods (normal vs. straight)

✓ Can explain "historic right or legal title" clause

✓ Familiar with 1982 LOS Convention relevant provisions

✓ Understand relationship between Constitution and international law

✓ Know sovereignty vs. jurisdiction distinction

✓ Studied Magallona v. Ermita thoroughly

✓ Studied Reagan v. CIR and Wong Cheng cases

✓ Can explain evolution from 1935 to 1987 constitutions

✓ Understand Constitutional Commission intent from Bernas

✓ Can apply concepts to hypothetical situations

✓ Reviewed with classmates for different perspectives

XIII. CITATION FORMAT FOR EXAMINATION

For Cruz Commentary:

For Bernas Commentary:

For Cases:

END OF STUDY GUIDE

Prepared for Constitutional Law I Bukidnon State University Revised Edition - Focus on Article I Doctrines

Note: This study guide integrates constitutional text, scholarly commentary from Cruz and Bernas, and relevant jurisprudence directly related to Article I (National Territory). Cases dealing with other constitutional provisions (Articles II, III, IV, VII, IX-B, XII) have been excluded to maintain focus on territorial and sovereignty issues.