JUST days before 2025 ended, we were treated to an exchange of barbs between some Philippine government officials and the Chinese Embassy here in Manila. Ironically, this started when a Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy ship assisted a Filipino fisherman whose boat got stranded somewhere in the contested areas in the South China Sea. Aside from the help it extended to the fisherman, the Chinese Navy contacted the Philippine Coast Guard via radio to facilitate the fisherman’s rescue.
Right after the incident, PCG Commodore Jay Tarriela issued a statement not only denying the radio contact made by the Chinese Navy ship but also dismissing its act of assistance to the Filipino fisherman as mere propaganda. Tarriela even went on to say China has no business sailing on the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone.
When the Chinese Embassy in Manila released a video footage complete with audio recording of the exchange of communication between the PLA ship and the PCG, Tarriela backed off but insisted on his propaganda and EEZ narrative.
A few days later, Sen. Francis Pangilinan echoed Tarriela’s pronouncement, saying China should just stay out of the Philippines’ 500-square-kilometer EEZ.
Firstly, I would like to clarify why I keep on referring to that particular area as SCS and not the West Philippine Sea. The directive to use the term WPS instead of SCS is contained in the Administrative Order 29 series of 2012 issued by the late president Noynoy Aquino.
What is an administrative order? An AO is more of an internal directive, focusing on specific implementation, processes, or personnel within an agency, and in the case of AO 29, the executive department. It has no effect, unlike a republic act or a law that we would be compelled to abide by or adhere to.
Further, AO 29 did not specify a defined parameter for the WPS, just referring to it as the western side of the Philippine archipelago, which in effect could refer to the whole SCS. Following that line, we could rename the eastern side of the Philippine archipelago as the Eastern Philippine Sea, which would encompass the whole Pacific Ocean.
Just a brief backgrounder on the territorial claim. When countries all over the world, including China and the Philippines, signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, both China and the Philippines also excluded arbitration through other means. And under the joint statement between the two parties concerning consultations on the South China Sea and on “other areas of cooperation,” signed on Aug. 10 1995, China and the Philippines “agreed to abide by” the principles that “disputes shall be settled in a peaceful and friendly manner through consultations on the basis of equality and mutual respect.”
Disputes concerning maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, and military and law enforcement activities are excluded from arbitration proceedings.
China in particular deposited, pursuant to Article 298 of the Convention, with the secretary-general of the United Nations a written declaration, stating that, “The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in section 2 of part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.”
In view of this, former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in 2004, entered into a tripartite agreement — the joint marine seismic undertaking, or JMSU — with China and Vietnam. Unfortunately, Aquino III called off the agreement and the Supreme Court later declared it as unconstitutional.
Further, the Aquino III administration elevated the issue of the territorial claim against China before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which reneged on the earlier agreement that issues such as the territorial dispute should be settled in a peaceful and friendly manner and not through arbitration.
To aggravate matters, PCA is not an official UN body, just a mere tenant in a building occupied by some UN offices, and has nothing to do with permanent international judicial bodies such as the International Court of Justice or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
In fact, after the 2016 PCA ruling, a spokesperson for the then UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon, stated that the UN had “no position on the legal and procedural merits” of the South China Sea arbitration case. The ICJ also made it clear that it had no involvement in the PCA.
And since China did not participate in the said arbitration, plus the fact that the PCA is not officially recognized by UN bodies, the PCA ruling could not be considered official and binding.
Now, on the EEZ. EEZ is not part of a national territory. The surface waters of the EEZ, which extends from 12 to 200 nautical miles from the baseline, are considered international waters where freedom of navigation applies; thus, we cannot tell anyone to stay off our EEZ. We only exercise sovereign rights over our EEZ and explore the resources provided for underneath the surface of our EEZ — the fishes and mineral resources.
They claim the Chinese act of helping the Filipino fisherman was mere propaganda. But China, under Unclos, is obligated to extend assistance. Just like the US Navy ship, which also offered help to another group of Filipino fishermen days later, also well within our EEZ (wonder why Pangilinan and Tarriela are mum on this).
The problem with Pangilinan and Tarriela is that they are stepping on matters of foreign policy and diplomatic affairs, which should be best left to the executive. They are not helping resolve the issue but even contribute to worsening it, as it appears they don’t have a full grasp of the matter. Just a false sense of patriotism.
It would be better if we go back to the negotiating table and resolve the issues peacefully. Last September, I saw first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos at a Chinese Embassy event. I believe her presence there could usher in a new round of talks between the two countries.
