Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago ’s interview

Present in the Joint hearing of the Senate Committees on Foreign Affairs, and National Defense and Security were Senators Miriam Defensor Santiago, Rodolfo Biazon, and Juan Ponce Enrile. The panel of guests consisted of Prof. Merlin M. Magallona of the UP College of Law ; DFA Usec. Rafael Seguis for Special and Ocean Concern; Atty. Henry Bensurto, Secretary General of the Commission on Maritime and Ocean Affairs; Usec. Milo S. Ibrado of the National Security Council; and Mr. Diony Ventura, Administrator of the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority [DENR-NAMRIA]

We have reached a consensus in this committee hearing, both among the senators and members of the resource panel, that before we even try to discuss the pending bills about the archipelagic baselines in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, we must discuss the matter very carefully because it has many unintended consequences. It is not as if we never declared our claim to ownership over the Kalayaan Island Group. This has been done since 1978. So the international community cannot say that we have waived our rights over there, or that by our mere silence we have consented to ownership by other countries.

However, the point today is that if we include the KIG in our definition in our archipelagic baselines, that would be considered 1) a violation of international law since the drawing of baselines has never been an accepted method in acquiring territory. There are other methods like occupation, conquest, or cession. So if we include the disputed KIG and the Spratlys just by drawing archipelagic baselines we would already be violating international law.

Number two, we would also be violating the 2002 ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea which concerns the disputed KIG. In 2002, all the claimant countries agreed that they would simply observe the status quo, and not use force or threat of force in implementing their claims of ownership and sovereignty over these islands, but they would instead settle all their territorial disputes by means of negotiation and mediation, and that they would observe utmost self-restraint. So if we draw our baselines, and by that means try and claim ownership over the islands by including them within our baselines, that would be considered as an offensive act by our co-parties to the 2002 declaration. It would naturally be a source of irritants between our country and with China and other claimant countries.

During the hearing, we gave some examples of how complex the problem is if we declare ourselves as an archipelagic state. That is different from simply being an archipelago. An archipelago is a geological state. But if you declare yourself as an archipelagic state under the UNCLOS, then in the case of the Philippines, our territorial seas will immediately shrink by miles. In that case the waters around, between, and connecting out islands will no longer be our internal waters over which we have complete sovereignty. They would become archipelagic waters of which there would be a right of innocent passage by foreign vessels. There would be a right of archipelagic sealanes passage also by foreign vessels, perhaps of a military nature. We would have to allow in our archipelagic waters our immediate neighbors to continue to fish, if that was their practice before. So we suffer a lot of inhibitions and restrictions if we declare ourselves an archipelagic state by drawing our archipelagic baselines.

For that reason, since we don’t have the expertise to handle all these legal niceties, plus the scientific and technical knowledge to be able to draw the maps properly. Both the resource panel and the two committees decided to file a committee report to the Senate plenary session to establish a Joint Commission on National Territory. There is a counterpart resolution in the House, so if the two chambers concur, then all it needs is the signature of the President. The only problem now is whether the Office of Maritime and Ocean Affairs of the Office of the President support the establishment of the Commission or will instead claim that the Commission should operate under them. In other words, should we have a Commission on National Territory that is legislative in character as I have proposed, or should it be executive in character. Even if it becomes an executive agency, I have no strong objection. I just want a complete, scientific, and scholarly study and analysis of the impact of the archipelagic doctrine on our national territory.

On the JPEPA

The senators are asking for time to study the full committee report. In this case, the senators told me that they find it hard to understand the resolution and its annexes. I don’t blame them because it is so technical. That is why, in anticipation, I already told my secondary chair that each of us should prepare a bound volume. Mine was finished. I thought that I would publish one volume combining the work of the two committees. Mine was thick, but his was even thicker. So we have to issue two volumes next week, and I will not sponsor it yet because the senators find it a very strange and new territory for them.