The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) is mulling over the filing of a diplomatic protest over the reported landing of two Chinese military transport planes on Panganiban Reef.
The Panganiban Reef, internationally known as Mischief Reef is located within the 370-kilometer exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the South China Sea (SCS).
Presidential Spokesman Harry L. Roque Jr. said, “They [DFA officials] are exploring the idea, the possibility of a diplomatic protest. Obviously if we consider a diplomatic protest, then you consider the other state to be in breach of an international obligation…somehow.”
The consultative committee (Con-com) tasked to review the 1987 Constitution also announced in a briefing on Thursday that the committee has agreed in principle to adopt proposed revisions to Article I National Territory to strengthen the country’s claims in the disputed areas and to consolidate and strengthen the sovereign rights over EEZ and extended continental shelf.
But the Con-com said the draft provisions, which are still subject to an en banc voting, will still be further discussed with the DFA.
Proposed revisions include the change in the article title from National Territory to Sovereignty Over Territory and Sovereign Rights, intended to cover two aspects, which are sovereignty over territory and sovereign rights over maritime expanse.
According to Con-com member Fr. Ranhilio Aquino, who is also the proponent of the revised provisions, these revisions “give constitutional status to our arbitral judgment.”
Although Aquino gave credit to the framers of the 1987 Constitution, he enumerated some weaknesses of a one-paragraph provision under Article I of National Territory of the 1987 Constitution, as he cited “wrong use of the words internal waters,” and leaving out the words “historic rights and legal title.”
“That was in the 1973 [Constitution]. I really don’t understand why it was left out of the 1987 Constitution. We have returned that up,” he said.
“And similarly there’s was no provision on sovereign rights in the 1987 Constitution. There is that provision now,” Aquino added.
Asked to elaborate on the implication of putting the two sections under the article in the proposed constitution, Aquino said: “We’re obligating the government to assert our sovereignty rights, leaving of course the details…to the government because those are things that you cannot put in the Constitution.”
The proposed wording for Section 1 states, “The Philippines has sovereignty over its territory, consisting of the islands and waters encompassed by its archipelagic baselines, its territorial sea and its airspace. It has sovereignty over islands and features outside its archipelagic baselines pursuant to the laws of the Federal Republic, the law of nations, and the judgments of competent international courts or tribunals. It, likewise, has sovereignty over all the other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title.”
Section 2, on the other hand, states, “The Philippines has sovereign rights over that maritime expanse beyond its territorial sea to the extent reserved to it by international law, as well as over its extended continental shelf, including the Philippine [Benham] Rise. Its citizens shall enjoy the right to all resources to which they are entitled by historic right.”
Aquino added that they have assured themselves that these provisions do not necessarily contradict the conduct of foreign policy at the moment.
“It is however obvious that the moment this provision finally finds its way into the Constitution, the President and the government will be guided with the provisions in the constitution,” he said.