During the First and Second Conferences of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea in 1958 and 1960, representatives of the Philippines and Indonesia, supported by a number of jurists, made of record their official proposal for recognition that an archipelagic State is composed of groups of islands, with the waters within the baselines as internal waters. Maritime states, however, resisted said claims as a threat to the mobility of their commercial, fishing and war vessels.

Long before the 1958 United Nations Conference, the archipelagic principle had already been considered by a number of international institutions. There were suggestions that islands forming a State should be considered as a single unit. However, no final agreement was made on the issue. 

In effect, an archipelagic State does not exist in international law. 

The Philippines is composed of more than 7,000 islands of different sizes and configurations, connected by straits, seas and other bodies of water of various breadth.

Before the adoption of UNCLOS, it was universally accepted that States shall have a belt of territorial sea, with a breadth of 3 nautical miles. This was also known as the "cannon-shot rule"; the extent to which a State could control its coastal waters was largely based on the reach of its cannons on the shore.

However, if this rule was adopted in the Law of the Sea Convention, the Philippines will have pockets of high seas between its islands, essentially breaking apart the archipelago into composite islands.

In the words of Senator Arturo Tolentino:

"An archipelago must be basically considered as an integral geographical entity, strengthened by political and economic unity, and, in some cases, sustained through the years by historical continuity, from which it derives its identity. Thus, an archipelago may have some or all of these factors but the fundamental consideration is that they must have always been identified as one state and one nation. Otherwise, the archipelago may be splintered into as many islands as  compose it, with the consequent fragmentation of the nation and the state itself.

It is because of this basic desire for unity that there should be international recognition of the right of archipelagic States to draw straight baselines connecting the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago from which the extent of the territorial sea of the archipelagic State is or may be determined; and within which baselines, the waters, which are archipelagic waters, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast, the seabed and subsoil thereof, and the superjacent airspace as well as their resources, belong to and are subject to the sovereignty and exclusive jurisdiction of the archipelagic State."

As a student, he was valedictorian of the Mapua High School (1928); valedictorian (cum laude) University of the Philippines College of Law (1934); a bar topnotcher (1934).  He obtained the degree of Bachelor of Philosophy (cum laude) with a gold medal award from the UP in 1938., and received the degrees of Master of Law (meritissimus) and Doctor of Civil Law (meritissimus) from the University of Santo Tomas.

As a lawyer, he has engaged in the practice of law since he passed the bar in 1934, and is a recognized legal luminary. He has been a law professor in the UP, UST, UE, UM, Arellano University, FEU, Manila Law College, Philippine Law School, San Beda College and the Quezon College.

As a public servant, he served as Foreign Affairs Secretary from July 1984 to February 1985. He was Congressman from 1949 to 1957 and was Senator from 1957 to 1972. He held the Senate Presidency from 1966 to 1967.  Never forgotten as a prominent statesman, he was reelected Senator in 1992 and served the term until 1995.

As a Senator, he led the Philippine Delegation to various sessions on UNCLOS and is well known as the father of the "archipelagic doctrine" and was an expert on the Law of the Sea. 

As early as 1955, in diplomatic notes of notification to various States and in a note to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Philippines submitted its position which stated, among others, the following:

 "All waters around, between and connecting the different islands of the Philippine Archipelago, irrespective of their width and dimension, are necessary appurtenances of its land territory, forming an integral part of the national or inland waters, subject to the exclusive sovereignty of the Philippines."

The Philippines advanced this  position in the First and Second Conferences on the  Law of the Sea in 1958 and 1960,  under the principle of historic waters.  However, this did not gain support from the participating States. As a result, the Philippines refused to sign the four Geneva Conventions of 1958 and abstained in the 1960  Convention.

To raise awareness on and get support for the archipelagic principle, Fiji, Indonesia, and the Philippines agreed on a joint proposal in a meeting in Manila in 1972.

This paper was submitted by Fiji, Indonesia, Mauritius and the Philippines for consideration by the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-bed and the Ocean Floor beyond the limits of national Jurisdiction Sub-Committee II on 14 March 1973 as Document A/AC.138/SC.II/L.15.

These principles were designed to accommodate not only the interests of archipelagic States but also other States and of the international community as a whole. They contain the definition of an archipelagic State, its rights over the waters of the archipelago, and the right of innocent passage for international navigation through the waters of the archipelago.

From 1972 to 1986, he served as a member of the legislative and executive for many years in a concurrent capacity.  He was Solicitor General from 1972 to 1986. He was Minister of Justice from 1984 to 1986. He was member of the Batasang Pambansa and a provincial governor of Pampanga for many years.

In 1971, he was a Philippine delegate to the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea Bed and Ocean Floor, where he spearheaded discussion on the rights of archipelagic nations like the Philippines over the open seas that eventually led to agreement over a 200-mile exclusive economic zone for maritime countries.

I shall begin by conveying to the Government and people of this beautiful island country of Jamaica the appreciation of my Government for the warm hospitality and cordial attention that we have received here since our arrival. I also congratulate you, Mr. President, for the success of this Conference and for a job well done. Because of your diplomatic skill, your absolute dedication and your untiring efforts in guiding the course of this Conference in its most difficult period, we will now be able to sign the Final Act and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

We remember too with gratitude the able leadership of Mr. Amerasinghe during the first part of this Conference. We are also indebted to the Chairmen of the Committees, the working groups and the negotiating groups for the progress in the work of this Conference over the nine-year period. 

Lastly, but not least, we must acknowledge the efficient and admirable assistance given to us by Mr. Zuleta, by Mr. David Hall and by the staff of the Secretariat.

We are happy that we have reached the conclusion of our labours. In utmost candour, however, I must say that my Government and my delegation are not fully satisfied with the text of the Convention that we have approved. In the course of our negotiations during this long period we put forth some proposals dictated by peculiar circumstances relating to my country. We attached - and we still attach - great importance to those proposals in the light of my Government’s concerns. Some of them, which we considered very vital to us, were not accepted by the Conference.

This notwithstanding, impelled by a spirit of compromise and accommodation and in the interest of ensuring the rule of law and international order in the seas and oceans of the world, my Government, after deliberation and consideration at the highest levels, has decided and has accordingly instructed my delegation to sign the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

We regard this Convention as a triumph of the conscience of mankind in the field of international law. It represents the collective decision of an overwhelming number of members of the family of nations, as shown by the vote on 30 April 1982, when we approved it with 130 votes in favour, 4 against and 17 abstentations.

In the past the rules of international law were framed and dictated by the big Powers, to be observed by the rest of the nations of the world. For the first time in the history of international law we shall have in the present Convention a set of rules formulated by the combined will of the great majority of States, regardless of size or power, in an assembly where equality and freedom in the making of decisions prevailed as a guiding principle.

This Convention therefore is a historic milestone in the progressive development of international law, a monumental achievement of co-operation and goodwill among nations. Its provisions, many of them introducing new concepts, will govern the seas and the resources of the world for generations to come, even long after the individuals who participated in this Conference are long gone and forgotten. Any State acting outside or in defiance of the terms of this Convention would be doing so without any legal basis for its actions.

Among the new concepts of the Convention is that of the archipelago. The Philippines advanced the archipelago principle as early as 1956, and we have established it in our national legislation. We are therefore happy that the principle has finally been recognized and accepted as part of public international law. Although we would have been much happier if our proposed amendments in this area had gained general acceptance, we are satisfied, principally because of the inclusion of two basic considerations on archipelagos in the text of the Convention.

The first of these is the recognition of the concept that an archipelago is an integrated unit in which the islands, waters and other natural features form an intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity. No longer will the various islands of an archipelago be regarded as separate units, each with its own individual maritime areas, and the waters between them as distinct from the land territory.

The second welcome basic consideration that gives us satisfaction is the recognition of the sovereignty of the archipelagic State over the archipelagic waters, the air space above them, the sea-bed and subsoil below them and the resources contained therein. The text states explicitly in clear terms the only qualification to this sovereignty by providing that this sovereignty is to be exercised “subject to this Part”- referring to Part IV of the Convention, on “archipelagic States”. No qualification or limitation, therefore, outside of Part IV, on the exercise of sovereignty by the archipelagic States over the archipelagic waters would be valid. To make provisions outside of Part IV applicable to the archipelagic waters, the Convention expressly so provides in several of its parts.

One consequence of this is that the archipelagic waters are subject only to two kinds of passage by foreign ships, provided in Part IV of the Convention, namely innocent passage and archipelagic sea-lanes passage. This refers to all archipelagic waters or waters inside the archipelagic baselines, wherever located, whether around or between islands, and whatever their breadth or dimensions. Transit passage therefore, available to foreign ships in straits used for international navigation under Part III of the Convention, would not be available to them in these national or domestic straits entirely within the archipelagic baselines.

Such national straits could be subject to sea-lanes passage if the archipelagic State so decided. Of course the elements of sea-lanes are practically the same as those of transit passage. But while transit passage is imposed by the Convention on the waters of the coastal States concerned, sea-lanes passage can be exercised by foreign ships in archipelagic waters only in such sea lanes as the archipelagic State may designate and establish.

Sea-lanes passage does not impair the sovereignty of the archipelagic State over the waters of the sea lanes. Incident to this sovereignty, the archipelagic State could validly enact legislation to ensure compliance of ships exercising sea-lanes passage with the obligations and duties imposed on them by the Convention. Among these duties is that of refraining from any threat or use of force against sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the  archipelagic State.

I beg representatives’ indulgence for dwelling at length on this matter of sovereignty of the archipelagic State over the archipelagic waters, their air space, sea-bed and sub-soil, and resources. In one way, my emphasis indicates that this matter of sovereignty was the weightiest consideration leading to the decision of my Government to sign the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

But I must state that we have some problem with the Convention’s provisions on the limits of the territorial sea. During the sessions of the Conference my delegation, on various occasions, explained the unique nature and configuration of our territorial sea and tried to claim exception for it. We claim these waters under historic and legal title. Their outer limits were set forth in the Treaty of Paris between Spain and the United States of 10 December 1898 and the Treaty of Washington between the United States and Great Britain of 2 January 1930. These limits were expressly acknowledged by the United States in our Mutual Defence Treaty with that country of 20 August 1951 and its related interpretative documents. We have existing legislation, both of a constitutional and of a statutory character, confirming those limits. At one point-to show the peculiar character and configuration of our territorial sea - the outer limit of these historic waters is over 200 miles from the shore, but at several other points it is less than three miles.

One can readily see from that that we would really have some problem with the 12-mile limit on breadth of the territorial sea provided in the Convention. My Government has studied the problem; it is a very difficult one for us. But that notwithstanding, my Government decided that it will sign the Convention.

The determining factor in arriving at that decision, as we have repeatedly stated, has been the sovereignty of the archipelagic State over archipelagic waters, their air space, sea-bed and sub-sil, and their resources - because that sovereignty will bind together, in the eyes of international law, the islands, waters and other natural features of the Philippines as an intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity.

Our problem on the matter of our territorial sea is a difficult one indeed, but, in the opinion of our delegation and our Government, it is not insurmountable. Somewhat lightening this problem is the new concept of the exclusive economic zone provided as a new concept in the Convention. In the 200-mile belt of water around our archipelago the Philippines will have sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the sea-bed, the sub-soil and superjacent waters. In addition, the Philippines would have sovereign rights in the exclusive economic zone in regard to other activities of economic exploitation and exploration - such as the production of energy from the waters, current and winds - as well as sovereign jurisdiction over such matters as scientific research and the protection of the marine environment. 

Our satisfaction with the exclusive economic zone may be better appreciated when we consider that the Philippine exclusive economic zone is more than 132,000 square nautical miles bigger than our historic territorial sea and therefore, almost compensates for that territorial sea. This net gain in resources by virtue of the exclusive economic zone has contributed to the affirmative decision of my Government to sign the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which we shall do on Friday, 10 December.

In closing, may I state that when we sign the Convention we shall submit also a declaration in exercise of the right granted under article 310.

The Government of the Republic of the Philippines hereby manifests that in signing the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it does so with the understandings embodied in this declaration, made under the provisions of Article 310 of the Convention, to wit:

1. The signing of the Convention by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines shall not in any manner impair or prejudice the sovereign rights of the Republic of the Philippines under and arising from the Constitution of the Philippines;

2. Such signing shall not in any manner affect the sovereign rights of the Republic of the Philippines as successor of the United States of America, under and arising out of the Treaty of Paris between Spain and the United States of America of December 10, 1898, and the Treaty of Washington between the United States of America and Great Britain of January 2, 1930;

3. Such signing shall not diminish or in any manner affect the rights and obligations of the contracting parties under the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Philippines and the United States of America of August 30, 1951, and its related interpretative instruments; nor those under any other pertinent bilateral or multilateral treaty or agreement to which the Philippines is a party;

4. Such signing shall not in any manner impair or prejudice the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines over any territory over which it exercises sovereign authority, such as the Kalayaan Islands, and the waters appurtenant thereto;

5. The Convention shall not be construed as amending in any manner any pertinent laws and Presidential Decrees or Proclamations of the Republic of the Philippines; the Government of the Republic of the Philippines maintains and reserves the right and authority to make any amendments to such laws, decrees or proclamations pursuant to the provisions of the Philippine Constitution;

6. The provisions of the Convention on archipelagic passage through sea lanes do not nullify or impair the sovereignty of the Philippines as an archipelagic state over the sea lanes and do not deprive it of authority to enact legislation to protect its sovereignty, independence, and security;

7. The concept of archipelagic waters is similar to the concept of internal waters under the Constitution of the Philippines, and removes straits connecting these waters with the economic zone or high sea from the rights of foreign vessels to transit passage for international navigation;

8. The agreement of the Republic of the Philippines to the submission for peaceful resolution, under any of the procedures provided in the Convention, of disputes under Article 298 shall not be considered as a derogation of Philippine sovereignty."