GEOPOLITICAL analyst and former diplomat Adolfo Paglinawan has accused retired Supreme Court justice Antonio Carpio of attempting to salvage his reputation by defending his ruling, which upheld the constitutionality of Republic Act 9522 or the Archipelagic Baselines Law. In an interview with The Manila Times, Paglinawan, vice president for international affairs of the Manila-based think tank Asian Century Philippines Strategic Studies Institute (ACPSSI), cited international law expert Melissa Loja in arguing that Carpio’s ponencia in the 2011 Magallona v. Ermita case effectively reduced the Philippines’ territorial sea and, in doing so, amended the Constitution without undergoing the process required under Article XVII. Paglinawan quoted Loja as saying that Carpio “not only amended Article I on the definition of the national territory, he now also wants to amend Article XVII on amendment and revision by declaring that mere customary international law can change the Constitution.” The commentary centered on the shift from the territorial sea limits under Republic Act 3046, enacted in 1961, to those under Republic Act 9522, passed in 2009, to align the Philippines with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos). Paglinawan said RA 3046 anchored the country’s territorial sea on the limits set by the 1898 Treaty of Paris, while RA 9522, as interpreted in Magallona v. Ermita, adopted a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea measured from archipelagic baselines consistent with Unclos. He cited figures presented in Carpio’s decision showing that under the old law, the territorial sea spanned 274,036 square nautical miles, while under the new regime it would contract to 32,106 square nautical miles. Paglinawan said this resulted in the loss of more than 242,000 square nautical miles of territorial sea, adding that Carpio “shrugged off our substantial territorial loss by saying it is more than compensated by a gain of 382,669 square nautical miles of exclusive economic zone.” Paglinawan cited international cases, including Nicaragua v. Colombia (2012) and Nicaragua v. Honduras (2007), to support the assertion that territorial sea “trumps” EEZ in international law. Carpio had previously argued that any contraction in territorial sea was offset by a gain of 382,669 square nautical miles of EEZ under Unclos. But Paglinawan, quoting Loja, said this comparison misunderstood the distinction between full sovereignty in territorial seas and limited economic rights in EEZs. Paglinawan further alleged that by applying Article 3 of Unclos, which allows states to establish a territorial sea up to 12 nautical miles, Carpio effectively grafted treaty provisions into domestic law in a manner that amended the constitutional definition of national territory. He maintained that constitutional amendments may only be undertaken through the modes provided under Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution — by constitutional assembly, constitutional convention, or people’s initiative, all subject to plebiscite approval. Paglinawan said Loja questioned Carpio’s recent statements advancing a broader Philippine claim over the Spratly Islands, arguing that his earlier ruling had already downgraded waters within the treaty limits and, by implication, weakened the constitutional foundation for external claims. Paglinawan said Loja’s views were shared by fellow Filipino scholars Jose Duke Bagulaya and Romel Bagares, whom he identified as co-resource persons on international law issues.