A foreign commercial ship was spotted by the Philippine Coast Guard dumping garbage and toxic waste 20 nautical miles from Nasugbu, Batangas, the nearest coastline of the Philippines. The officers of the ship were arrested and charged in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas for violation of environmental laws of the Philippines. The officers of the ship filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that Philippine courts do not have territorial jurisdiction over the case since the vessel was sailing outside the territorial sea of the Philippines when the arrest was made. Is the ground to dismiss correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
No, the ground to dismiss is incorrect. Under Article 33 of UNCLOS, the Philippines exercises control in its contiguous zone, up to 24 nautical miles from baselines, to prevent and punish infringements of its
Unlock the full Political Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Does a Philippine court possess jurisdiction over a foreign vessel dumping toxic waste 20 nautical miles off Batangas?
Philippine courts possess jurisdiction because the incident occurred within the 24-nautical-mile contiguous zone and Exclusive Economic Zone.
Under Article 33 of UNCLOS, what is the maximum breadth of the contiguous zone measured from baselines?
Under UNCLOS Article 33, the contiguous zone extends up to twenty-four nautical miles from the archipelagic baselines.
For which matters may a coastal State exercise control within its contiguous zone under UNCLOS?
Article 33 of UNCLOS authorizes control in the contiguous zone to prevent and punish infringements of customs, fiscal, immigration, or sanitary laws.
Under Article 56 of UNCLOS, what jurisdiction does a coastal State exercise in its Exclusive Economic Zone?
Choices available with full access.
Why is the foreign vessel officers' motion to dismiss for lack of territorial jurisdiction untenable?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Contiguous Zone Authority
Under Article 33 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the coastal State may exercise necessary control within its contiguous zone, extending up to twenty-four nautical miles from baselines. This control allows the coastal State to prevent and punish infringements of its customs, fiscal, immigration, or sanitary laws committed within its territory or territorial sea. Discharging garbage or toxic waste into coastal waters violates national sanitary and environmental protection laws, authorizing coastal enforcement officers to arrest offenders and enforce domestic penal statutes within the contiguous zone.
2. EEZ Environment Protection
Under Article 56 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the coastal State possesses sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the protection and preservation of the marine environment within its Exclusive Economic Zone, extending up to two hundred nautical miles. Coastal States retain authority to enforce environmental protection legislation against foreign vessels dumping hazardous substances or pollutants. Consequently, domestic trial courts possess jurisdiction to adjudicate environmental law violations committed by foreign vessels operating within the Exclusive Economic Zone.
3. Enforcement Coastal Jurisdiction
Foreign commercial vessels navigating beyond the territorial sea remain subject to coastal State jurisdiction for specific statutory violations occurring within recognized maritime zones. While innocent passage applies in the territorial sea, dumping toxic waste within twenty nautical miles infringes upon sanitary and environmental regulations governing the contiguous zone and Exclusive Economic Zone. Coastal authorities possess legitimate power to board, inspect, arrest, and prosecute foreign vessel officers, rendering motions to dismiss based on lack of territorial jurisdiction legally untenable.