Reporting UNCLOS
Foundering in the Shallows
by Don Gil K. Carreon and Kathryn Roja G. Raymundo

Shallow is a fitting description for most of the reports on the proposals to amend the country’s archipelagic baseline laws. A monitor of selected newspapers, news programs and news websites showed that most reports on the issue focused on the political squabbles showing the press’s failure to fully appreciate the implications of the bill. The reports on the proposed amendments to the baseline law were treated as a side note to the more controversial Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) agreement of Spratly Islands the Arroyo administration signed with China and Vietnam.

The press’s decision to zero in on the more controversial JMSU, which critics said was unconstitutional, limited the discussion on the baselines bill which has implications as far-reaching as the JMSU agreement. 

To determine  how the media covered the issue, PJR Reports monitored from  March 15 to May 15 The Philippine Star, The Philippine Daily Inquirer, TV Patrol World, 24 Oras, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, News-break, and VERA Files. 

Where were the experts?

Most of the reports on the baseline bills were in the usual he-said, she-said format and centered on government official’s bickering, which only served as a distraction from the real issues: whether it would bolster the Philippine claim to the Spratlys or shrink Philippine territory. The views of experts who could have better explained these issues were lacking. The public would have had a better understanding and appreciation of the baseline bills if the media had given it more attention.

For instance, the Inquirer published several reports on the disagreement between Sen. Miriam Santiago and the proponents of  House Bill (HB) 3216, the Archipelagic Baselines Law of the Philippines, authored by Cebu Rep. Antonio Cuenco, but failed to provide information on whether citizens should support the bill or not.

Last March 26, the Inquirer reported Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago’s remarks that the new baseline bill would shrink Philippine territory if it became an archipelagic state following UNCLOS guidelines (“Esperon admits RP lacks firepower to defend Kalayaan, pins hope on UN”).

Santiago was quoted in the report as saying that if the bill is passed, the Philippines would have less jurisdiction over foreign vessels in matters of national security and marine pollution and would lose sovereignty over Sabah. In the next day’s report (“House to pursue baselines bill”), the paper did not provide the reactions of the bills’ proponents to these statements. Neither did they try to seek expert opinion or past studies to confirm whether Santiago’s claims are valid or not. Santiago cited Merlin Magallona, a former foreign affairs undersecretary and dean of the University of the Philippines College of Law, as her source for her claims, but the Inquirer did not get Magal-lona’s reactions.

In another report, the Inquirer highlighted Santiago’s statements that the proponents of the baseline bills in the House of Representatives were tarantado (idiots) for not understanding the impact of changing the country’s territorial limits(“Santiago calls lawmakers idiots over baselines bill,” April 23). In the follow-up report (“Santiago draws solons’ ire,” April 24), the Inquirer simply focused on Cuenco’s response to Santiago’s tarantado statement. His refutation of the senator’s claim was relegated to the last paragraph and did not say why his bill would not be disadvantageous to the Philippines as Santiago claimed.

Unexplained terms

Like the Inquirer, the Philippine Star also resorted to the he-said, she-said format in reporting the proposed baseline laws. Whilethe Star was less prone to highlighting the squabbles, it failed to explain some of the technical provisions of the baseline bills. On more than one occasion, the paper mentioned such terms as “archipelagic baselines,” “exclusive economic zone,” “continental shelf,” and “regime of islands” without explaining what these terms mean.

The reports also frequently mentioned the amendments being proposed for the Philip-pines’s baselines law to conform with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a treaty on the legal order for the use of the oceans ratified in 1982. But there was little explanation of UNCLOS and how this related to the baselines bill.

The Star was also remiss in following up leads that could have expanded the discussion on the subject.  In an April 22 report, the paper quoted Cuenco, who said the House version is the correct one as those who crafted the bill had the advantage of hearing the arguments of the experts for and against it. But the Star did not present the views of any of these experts.

The reports mentioned that there are several versions of the archipelagic baselines bill in the Senate and the House but did not explain the differences and similarities among them. Aside from Cuenco’s bill, already approved for third reading in the House, Sens. Juan Ponce Enrile, and Antonio Trillanes IV have their own versions. Ilocos Sur Rep. Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is set to introduce another bill which would classify the disputed Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal under a “regime of islands” (“New baselines bill to be filed Monday,” April 26).

The TV news programs reviewed did not fare any better. The highly-technical baselines bills were largely ignored by the networks, which did not devote a single report to it. News on rice shortage fears and the government’s efforts to gain control of Meralco dominated the airwaves during the monitor period.

Very few commendable reports

The Star, however, redeemed itself by publishing on March 24 and 25 some of the few laudable reports on the issue, a two-part special by The VERA Files.

The first part of this special detailed how neglect and infighting within the Arroyo government have jeopardized efforts to the define new baselines for the country. The second part reported the government’s last minute effort to meet the UN deadline for countries to identify their continental shelves—an effort to which an archipelagic baseline law is crucial—to gain exclusive rights to exploit natural resources there. The Vera Files report also provided one of the crucial facts missing from most reports: the size of the area the Philippine stands to gain if the baseline bills were implemented (“Arroyo neglect, gov’t infighting jeopardize RP’s territorial claim,” March 24). 

But although much better than most stories on the issue, the VERA Files reports missed out too in providing the perspective of those experts opposed to UNCLOS who are not necessarily politically motivated.