MANILA, Philippines ? The Supreme Court has ordered Malacañang and several officials to comment within 10 days on allegations Republic Act 9522 or the Baselines Law violates the Constitution.

Among the respondents are Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo, Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya, National Mapping and Resource Information Authority administrator Diony Ventura, and Ambassador Hilario Davide Jr., permanent representative of the permanent mission of the Republic of the Philippines to the United Nations.

?Acting on a special civil action with prayer for issuance of preliminary prohibitory injunction and/or temporary restraining order, the Court resolves to require respondents to comment within non-extendible period of 10 days,? the high court said in its order.

Petitioners led by the Center for International Law (CenterLaw) asked the tribunal to stop the executive department from depositing the new law with the United Nations Secretary General.

If this is done, the statue will have the effect of international law and will bind the Philippines to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the petitioners said.

?The subsequent invalidation by the Honorable Court of the same law for being unconstitutional cannot undo the legal effect of its having been already registered and deposited with the UN-the dismemberment of the Philippine national territory,? the petitioners explained.

The new baselines law was enacted to meet the deadline set by the UNCLOS III regime for member-states to draw their baselines on or before May 13, 2009.

But the petitioners argued the new law cannot amend the 1987 Constitution?s definition of the Philippine archipelago, which is based on the Treaty of Paris, Treaty of Washington, and a 1930 convention between the US and Great Britain.

Under the Treaty of Paris, Philippine territory takes the form of a rectangle measuring 600 miles in width and 1200 miles in length. However, this area has been divided by RA 9522.

Under the new law, the petitioners said, the country has lost 1,500 square nautical miles of territorial waters.

?By surrendering the above-mentioned territorial waters through [the] passage of RA 9522 [and] excluding the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and Scarborough Shoal from the baseline, the State has reneged on its constitutional duty to protect our exclusive marine wealth and offshore fishing grounds of our subsistence fishermen,? the petitioners said.

The law excludes from the country?s baselines the Kalayaan group and Scarborough Shoal, which are also being claimed by other Asian countries, and defines them as a ?regime of islands under the Republic of the Philippines.?

The petitioners said this would strip the country of control over the preservation of natural resources in the disputed territories because the law technically makes these resources available to all parties.

They added that the final version of the law contradicted the 1987 Constitution when it declared the "waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago" subject to the use of foreign vessels, and opened airspace to foreign planes.

They claimed this would strip the country of control over the entry of foreign vessels, including constitutionally banned nuclear warships, into territorial waters.