On the import side, the Philippines imported 1,100 metric tons (MT) in 2002/03, 1,890MT in 2003/04, 1,791MT in 2004/05, 1,900MT in 2005/06, 1,900MT in 2006/07 and 1,900 in 2007/08MT. We had only 6 percent of the total imports but we still topped Nigeria, (1,500MT) Ghana and Indonesia (1,100MT), Saudi Arabia (1,015MT) and Bangladesh (1,000MT). Twenty-five other countries also import, but none are in the 1,000MT level.

The Philippines has topped all rice importing countries since 2003/04.

***

Senator Edgardo Angara has filed a bill in the Senate that seeks to redefine the country’s archipelagic baselines with a view of protecting and asserting the country’s right over the strategic and resources-rich Kalayaan Group of Islands.

One wonders why the legislature – both Senate and House – are only now doing this considering that we have all known what should be done since 1982 when the United Nations Convention on the Law and the Sea was ratified.

The UNCLOS gives archipelagic nations such as the Philippines until May 13, 2009 to pass a law defining its baselines and provide supporting scientific data within a period of ten years from May 13, 1999.

UNCLOS – which will expire on May 2009 –also established the 12-mile nautical territorial sea, the 24-mile contiguous zone and the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone as the limits of the archipelagic jurisdiction.

Our1987 Philippine Constitution states that "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."

Angara says that if we fail to meet the UNCLOS deadline, the Philippines might fail to claim the extended continental shelf, of which Kalayaan is a part, before the expiry of the United Nations Convention on the Law and the Sea. Angara said that should the Philippines fail to meet the UN deadline, the extended continental shelf areas which the country is claiming can either be considered part of the International Seabed Area, or the "Common Heritage of Mankind" or, worse, awarded to a neighboring state possibly to Vietnam or China which have been eying this resource-rich part of the China Sea.

***

A great loss to the Senate on the baseline issue is the fact that Senator Antonio Trillanes IV is being prevented by the military and the courts from attending the Senate’s sessions. If anyone knows this issue well, it is Senator Trillanes.

He first learned about the UNCLOS, baselines and our territorial limits at the Philippine Military Academy. Then, in the Navy, he was using maps provided by our National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) where he narrates in his position paper on this issue:

"After graduation, however, the new Navy officers were surprised to find out that the NAMRIA-supplied nautical charts used aboard Philippine Navy ships defined the territorial limits of the country as those stated in the Treaty of Paris plus the attached KIG borders defined by PD 1596, and not the UNCLOS definitions as taught to them at PMA. To be fair, NAMRIA has no other basis than the Treaty of Paris because our country, precisely, has yet to pass a new baselines law that would amend the pre-UNCLOS baseline law, the RA 5446, which is not compliant with the UNCLOS criteria. To complicate matters, the Navy uses PD 1599, a pre-UNCLOS unilateral declaration of our country’s EEZ, as a mandate to enforce maritime laws in these areas. As a consequence, the author remembers that when their ship patrolled as far east as the Anson Shoal in the Pacific, they used the Treaty of Paris as reference. And when they patrolled as far west as the Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea, they used PD 1599. In short, as of the moment, we have two sets of boundaries (PD 1599 and Treaty of Paris with PD 1596) and we will yet define another one (UNCLOS).

"1. PD 1599, as mentioned above, is a unilateral declaration by the Philippines of its EEZ as measured from the baselines as defined by RA 5446. It was signed by then President Ferdinand Marcos on 11 June 1978.

"2. The Treaty of Paris is a peace treaty forged between the US and Spain in 10 December 1898. It detailed, among others, the territorial limits of the Philippine archipelago as being ceded by Spain to the US. These same limits were then used to define our national territory when we eventually gained independence from the US in 1946.

"3. The UNCLOS, formally known as the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or UNCLOS III and also called the Law of the Sea Convention, refers to the international agreement that came out of the UN conferences from 1973 to 1982. The agreement consists of 320 articles and 9 annexes. To date, 155 countries have already ratified the UNCLOS and it officially came into force in 16 November 1994. The Philippines became the 11th country to ratify UNCLOS on 08 May 1984. It defines, among others, the limits of the territorial sea, contiguous zone and the EEZ of a coastal or archipelagic State.

"Each of the above reference options has its own strengths and weaknesses, but if we are to consider both the validity in International Law and the area covered, the UNCLOS option is superior to the other two.

"PD 1599, while almost as vast as the UNCLOS option in terms of area, has practically no binding effect in International Law by virtue of its being a unilateral declaration in the pre-UNCLOS era. Moreover, since we have ratified UNCLOS and, therefore, agreed to its provisions, we are obliged to rescind PD 1599.

"The Treaty of Paris, meanwhile, may still have a binding effect in International Law, notwithstanding the UNCLOS ratification. However, its total area covered is significantly smaller because it cannot avail of the EEZ provisions of the UNCLOS.

"As to the legal alternative of retaining the Treaty of Paris while availing of the UNCLOS option, we, as a self-respecting people living within a community of nations, should not have two sets of boundaries that we can use for our own convenience. It is simply not fair; it is simply not right. Therefore, it is in our country’s best interest to adopt solely the UNCLOS option."

This is only a small part of Senator Trillanes’ position paper on the issue. The paper talks sense and is perhaps something that should be mandatory reading material for all those who must think about our territorial boundaries, the UNCLOS and the China lobby on how China wants our baselines to be defined!