All about the (G)Reed Bank: From Ferdinand Marcos Sr.

to Albert del Rosario

After the Arbitration Decision was released, former US Senator and U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel was interviewed.
He said that by signing UNCLOS, China gave up its historical rights, and the Arbitral Decision “gives all those countries in that part
of the world the high ground here and has isolated China.” Hagel’s recent pronouncement indicates that the US has already abandoned
its position in the 70s on the South China Sea territorial disputes.
According to the Memorandum From the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Scowcroft) to President Ford, during the
70’s, the Philippines and other claimants, except China, “have militarily occupied one or more of the Spratly Islands.”Just like the
Soviet Union, “the United States is not involved;” and declared that: The US has “no claims and we support nobody else’s claims.”
Reacting to suggestions to deploy troops during the naval battle between China and South Vietnam for the Paracels and the Spratly
Archipelago, then US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger didn’t approve of military intervention in the disputes. Perhaps because of
his intimate knowledge of China, he also didn’t regard “the Chinese claims to the Paracels and Spratlys as evidence that Peking
wished to dominate the region.”
The Memorandum also revealed that Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos wasn’t so happy about the neutral stance of the
Americans. Marcos used the Reed Bank, one of the disputed features in the Spratly’s and one of the central features of the subject of
the Philippines vs China arbitration case, as a bargaining chip.

In the 70’s, during the re-negotiations of the US bases in the Philippines, Marcos wanted the Americans to include the Reed
Bank under the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty. It was one of the two issues that stalemated the military base negotiations — the other
one is “the amount of military assistance [the US] will offer in exchange for use of Philippine bases.” Marcos wanted the Americans
“for a clear written statement of whether we will respond under the Mutual Defense Treaty if his forces are attacked while operating in
the Reed Bank.”
Despite the Reed Bank being a disputed feature, Marcos “granted concessions to a private consortium headed by [US-based] AMOCO
to explore and drill for oil.” The Washington Post reported that “several leading Manila entrepreneurs, including Marcos’ friend and
in-law Herminio Disini, have invested in the oil exploration” conducted with the Swedish and Americans (14 March 1978,Washington
Post). The US Embassy in Manila actually “discouraged U.S. firms from exploration in [the] disputed area.” The US State Department
actually requested “AMOCO to use non-U.S. drill ship.” Frank Osment, the Vice President of AMOCO, “did not commit
himself…but said that it shouldn’t be too difficult to find foreign-flag ship.”
As a way out of the negotiation stalement, both the US State and Defense department recommended that the US “would consider
Philippine units operating in the Reed Bank as covered by…treaty ‘as long as their presence is consistent with the provisions of the
Mutual Defense Treaty, particularly Article I regarding peaceful settlement of disputes and refraining from the threat or use of force.”
This position gave the US some “flexibility.” It “neither expand nor contract [the Defense Treaty] obligations; and allow [the US] to
avoid the significant risks that both of the other options present.”
The Reed Bank is once again implicated in the disputes. And one of the key players in the Philippine move to file an arbitration case
against China is connected to the company that got gas and oil exploration in the Reed Bank: former foreign affairs secretary, Albert
del Rosario.

Manuel V. Pangilinan is the chairman of Philex Mining Corporation, the company that has 60.49% stakes in Forum Energy.
Forum Energy is London-based oil won a contract to explore for oil in the Reed Bank. It has a 70% interest in Service Contract 72 ,
which covered part of the Reed Bank; Enrique Razon’s Monte Oro Resources and Energy Inc. has the remaining 30 percent. Albert
del Rosario was profiled by Inquirer as a “longtime business ally of tycoon Manuel Pangilinan, as evidenced by his directorships [in
several Pangilinan-controlled companies including] Philex Mining Corp.” Mar Roxas, one of the 2016 presidential candidate, actually
has declared financial interests in Philex Mining Corporation. (http://bit.ly/29HVHIg).
In January 2013, the Inquirer reported that the Department of Energy “deferred to the Department of Foreign Affairs the decision to
grant permits concerning the exploration and drilling activities at the highly contested Recto Bank because the area was part of the
disputed waters being claimed by China.” This effectively gave the authority to grant concessions on Reed Bank to Albert del Rosario,
the former director of Philex Mining Corporation, the partner of the company that got the concessions, the London-based Forum
Energy!
Albert del Rosario is touted as “the key strategist” of the Philippines approach towards China. In December 2012, under his
leadership, the Philippines “strongly” supported “a rearmed Japan shorn of its pacifist constitution as a counterweight to the growing
military assertiveness of China.” He has been called “the brain of filing an arbitration case against China,” which the Philippines filed
in January 2013. He also spearheaded and defended “the PH-US Enhanced PH-US Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement
(EDCA),” concluded in April 2014. The Military Times reported that EDCA paved “the way for a new permanent American military
presence across five bases that will support rotational deployments near the contested South China Sea.” Antonio Bautista Air Base is
among them, and it is “strategically located near the contested Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.”
Albert del Rosario accomplished what Marcos failed to achieve for the Reed Bank. The Hague tribunal declared the Reed Bank within
the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Philippines and found that “China had interfered with Philippine petroleum exploration at Reed
Bank” and it concluded that “China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights with respect to its exclusive economic zone and
continental shelf.” This gave the US, which now has an airbase near the Reed Bank, a legitimate reason to intervene militarily in case
China continued its interference.
 From the US’s neutral and prudent approach in the 70’s, the US is now more belligerent and possesses a reason, legitimated
by the Tribunal in The Hague, to get involved in the conflict. And the most probable flashpoint of US-China armed conflict that would
also involve Japan is the Reed Bank, which is being explored and exploited by Pangilinan’s Philex Mining Corporation, formerly
helmed by Albert del Rosario. And indeed, Pangilinan is one of those who rejoiced on the outcome of the arbitration case: he said his
company is ready anytime to resume operations in the Reed Bank, and they would possibly look for a new “foreign partner.” US gets
a presence in the South China Sea, the throat of China’s maritime-dependent economy, Pangilinan gets to exploit the oil in the Reed
Bank, with the guaranteed protection of American and Japanese military, Roxas gets richer.

Benham Rise: PH's new territory off Aurora

Bigger than Luzon, the 13-M hectare Benham Rise has been approved by the UN as part of Philippine territory.

MANILA, Philippines – Imagine an area bigger than the Philippines' biggest island, Luzon, that potentially contains steel-producing
minerals and natural gas for domestic consumption or exportation.

This is Benham Rise, a 13-million hectare area off the coast of Aurora province, which the United Nations (UN) recently confirmed as
part of the Philippines' continental shelf and territory.

“We own Benham Rise now,” Environment Secretary Ramon Paje said in a media interview, quoted in a Philippine Daily
Inquirer story Saturday, April 28. “This is for future Filipinos.”

Unlike Scarborough Shoal and other portions of the South China Sea, no other country claims the area that is almost a quarter bigger
than the 10.5-million hectare Luzon.

The UN approval means Benham Rise, an underwater plateau by definition, is an extension of the Philippines' continental shelf, an
area rich in living and non-living resources like minerals and gas.

Based on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the continental shelf comprises the seabed and subsoil of the
submarine areas 200 nautical miles (NM), or 370 kilometers, from a State's baselines or “edges.” Parts of the continental shelf that are
not covered by the 200 NM provision, according to UNCLOS, need to be claimed and defended before the UN Commission on the
Limits of the Continental Shelf (UNCLCS).

The UNCLCS approved Benham Rise as the Philippines' extended continental shelf 3 years after the country filed a claim and
defended it before the UN commission. (The UNCLCS was formed under UNCLOS.)

With this, he said, the Philippines can explore and exploit resources in a bigger area of seabed.

“The larger your shelf, the larger your potential resources are,” explained Batongbacal, a University of the Philippines professor
who took part in the technical team that prepared and defended the Philippines' claim over Benham Rise.

Batongbacal said based on two initial samplings in the area, Benham Rise keeps a large amount of heavy metals like manganese,
whose accumulation into manganese nodules can help in the production of steel, among other things.

Considering the area is a seabed, which is known to contain gas hydrates, Benham Rise is also potentially a rich source of natural gas,
he said.

He noted, however, that Benham Rise – which is 2,000 to 5,000 meters deep – “has not really been explored.”

In an earlier interview, Paje trumpeted the region's oil-rich potential. “We've been saying this in the past. This country can provide for
its own energy,” the secretary said.

He added it can also open opportunities for the Philippines to export natural gas.

This is the Philippines' first successful validation of a territorial claim under UNCLOS, according to a paper on Benham Rise prepared
by parties privy to the claim.

UNCLOS, incidentally, is the same UN convention the Philippines is invoking in its ongoing dispute with China over Scarborough
Shoal. (Read: Scarborough Shoal according to Manila, Beijing.)
Regarding Scarborough Shoal, China has repeatedly rejected the Philippines' invitationto bring the two countries' dispute to the
International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea, another body formed under UNCLOS.

Batongbacal, for his part, sees hope in the recent UN approval. (Below is the information the Philippines submitted to the UN in
claiming Benham Rise.)

“In terms of demonstrating our country's capability to make and prove claims to areas under international law, this is positive proof
that we can do it, given the right people, resources, and adequate preparation and time,” Batongbacal said. – Rappler.com

Filipinos conquer new territory: Benham Rise

MANILA, Philippines – While China blocks the Philippines from reaching disputed territories in the West Philippine Sea (South
China Sea), a group of Filipinos conquered the virgin, crystal-clear, and coral-rich depths of the newest part of their country.

For the first time, Filipinos reached the shallowest portion of Benham Rise, the underwater plateau off the coast of Aurora that the
Philippines fought for – and won – before the United Nations (UN).

The leader of the Department of Science and Technology's Benham Rise Program, Dr Cesar Villanoy, said the expedition was like the
one by Ferdinand Magellan, the Portuguese explorer who discovered the Philippines for Westerners in 1521.

“It felt a lot like what Magellan felt. It was exploring. Being able to touch Benham's bottom was very exciting for many of us,” said
Villanoy, a professor at the University of the Philippines Marine Science Institute (UP-MSI), in an interview with Rappler.

Bigger than the Philippines' biggest island, Luzon, the 13-million-hectare Benham Rise is now part of the Philippines' continental
shelf – an underwater area rich in resources such as minerals and natural gas.

While most of it remains unexplored, Benham Rise is believed to contain steel-producing minerals and natural gas, which the
Philippines can even export.

The UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf approved the Philippines' undisputed claim to Benham Rise on April 12,
2012.

This is the Philippines' first validated claim under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the Philippines
also invokes in its historic case against China.

It took two years after this for Filipinos to dive into Benham Bank, the underwater plateau's shallowest portion that is 50 meters deep.

Their mission: to see if the Benham Bank, as well as the waters around it, is “biologically productive.”

Biological productivity, Villanoy said, essentially points to the water's capacity to support organisms.

For this unprecedented project, a team of 28 researchers and divers embarked on a two-day journey to Benham Rise on May 3. They
boarded a research vessel owned by the Philippines' Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR). Villanoy and the leader for
this survey, Dr Hildie Nacorda of the UP Los Baños School of Environmental Science and Management (UPLB-SESAM),
spearheaded the activity. Researchers from the UP-MSI, BFAR, UPLB-SESAM and Institute of Biological Sciences, UP Mindanao,
UP Baguio, and Xavier University, as well as students from the Ateneo de Manila University and UP-MSI, joined the risky trip.

Their “main concern,” Villanoy said, involved the depth of the sea.

The 50-meter-deep Benham Bank, after all, goes “beyond the normal depths for scuba diving,” which is around 30 meters.

The team had to assess the dive site first. From their ship they lowered, using weights, a GoPro mini-camera into the sea. To this they
attached a dive computer, which measures the depth of the sea, to help ensure the divers' safety.

They didn't even know if the GoPro would make it; they thought it could take a depth of only around 40 meters. (It turned out the
GoPro they used could take a 60-meter depth, but Villanoy learned this after their trip.)
“The first time, it was a risk we took. But when we saw it could be done, we became more confident,” he said.

They did their first dive in the morning of May 6. Two of their most experienced divers did it.

Holding on to a line anchored on their ship, the divers braved the strong currents and dove 50 meters deep. They stayed at that depth
for only 5 minutes. Then, for the next 30 minutes, the divers slowly ascended back to the surface.

They did the dives every other day.

In between, the team collected water samples to analyze nutrients, among others.

his expedition, which lasted from May 6 to May 16, yielded never-before-seen videos and photos.

“We were surprised at how extensive the corals are. But surprisingly, the fish are few. So there are many corals, few fish.... We were
also surprised about the clarity of the water. It was very clear from the surface; you could see the bottom, at 180 feet,” Villanoy said in
a mix of English and Filipino.

While he has seen many other seas, Villanoy, who holds a doctorate in physical oceanography from the University of Sydney, said the
area is definitely unique.

He said it is, after all, the deepest that Filipino divers have explored in Philippine seas. “We don't know much about the deeper areas
in the Philippines.”

There is much more to explore.

Villanoy explained the team did 5 dives only for around 5 minutes each, at least in the lowest part they reached – a total of around 25
minutes.

To begin with, the 50-meter-deep site they explored isn't even one-fifth of the plateau's depth.

Villanoy said the main plateau from which the Benham Bank protrudes is 3,000 meters deep. The depth of the sea floor is 5,000
meters.

It will “definitely take several years” to complete a more substantial study.

“Going out to these deep water areas is very expensive, and you need specialized equipment and specialized people to be able to study
those areas. Maybe the government should also support marine research even more,” Villanoy said.

Since they're "barely scratching the surface," the scientist said it could be much richer in "fisheries and geological resources."

On the other side of the Philippines, China claims the same things. Benham Rise is out of China's reach. – Rappler.com

Carpio suggests 'formula' for enforcing arbitral award without going to war

MANILA, Philippines — Responding to the challenge of President Rodrigo Duterte, Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio
Carpio enumerated ways to enforce the Philippines' arbitral victory without going to war.
The president has been consistent on his position that the country will not go to war with China over the West Philippine Sea row.

"Xi Jinping (said) there will be trouble. So answer me, justice, give me the formula and I'll do it," Duterte earlier said, referring to
Carpio.

Manila can enter into an agreement with Hanoi on overlapping extended continental shelves beyond the Spratlys Islands and with
Kuala Lumpur on the adjoining exclusive economic zones (EEZs) between Borneo and Palawan.

The senior magistrate noted Vietnam had already proposed a sea boundary agreement but the Duterte administration has not acted on
it due to fear of offending China.
The Philippines, along with Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei, can also enter into a convention that no geologic feature in the
Spratlys generate an EEZ, leaving China the lone claimant claiming EEZ over the area.

"This convention can be open to accession by all coastal states of the world so that their right to freedom of navigation and overflight
in the Spratlys can be governed by this convention," Carpio said.
According to Carpio, the Philippines can file an extended continental sheld claim in the West Philippine Sea beyond the 200-nautical
mile EEZ off the coast of Luzon before the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

China is the only opposite coastal state in that area but it cannot invoke historic rights as it had already been ruled out by the arbitral
tribunal.

The UN commission will likely grant the extended continental shelf claim of the Philippines, similar with the case of Benham or
Philippine Rise.

"This will fortify and enforce, in accordance with the rule of law, the ruling in the arbitral award that in the West Philippine Sea the
Philippines has a full 22-nautical mile EEZ, from the outher limits of which the 150-nautical mile extended continental shelf of the
Philippines is measured," Carpio said.

The Philippines should send the coast guard's new multi-role response vessels to patrol the country's EEZ in the West Philippine Sea,

The 10 vessels donated by Japan could also be used to drive away poachers from other countries.

This move will also assert the country's soverieng rights over Philippine EEZ in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of
the Sea.

Aside from welcoming freedom of navigation and overflight operations (FONOPs) of other countries in the South China Sea, the
Philippines could send its own navy to join these operations.

The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Japan, India and Canada have been conducting naval and aerial operations
in the South China Sea, including the West Philippine Sea.

Sending the Philippine Navy to join naval powers' FONOPs in the disputed waterway would also enforce the arbitral award.

The Philippines could also conduct joint FONOPs with Southeast Asian neighbors such as Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei
on their respective EEZs facing the South China Sea, Carpio added.

"All these naval and aerial operations, whether conducted by the naval powers or by the ASEAN coastal states, uphold that there are
high seas in the South China Sea, and around these high seas are the exclusive economic zones of the adjacent coastal states," Carpio
said.

The justice noted that the Duterte administration has been decrying the lack of enforcement mechanism of the UNCLOS but refuses to
join naval powers that enforce the ruling.

Carpio's last suggestion was for the Philippine government to support private individuals enforcing the landmark ruling.

Earlier this year, former Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario, former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales and their counsel
Anne Marie Corominas submitted a communication before the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The three of them accused Chinese President Xi Jinping and other Chinese officials of crimes against humanity for the massive
destruction of the marine environment in the West Philippine Sea.

The Philippines had withdrawn from the Rome Statute that established the ICC but the complaint was filed before the withdrawal took
effect.

If the ICC decides that it has jurisdiction over the case, "this will fortify and enforce the arbitral award," Carpio said.

Having said these measures, Carpio reiterated that the threat of going to war was meant to scare Filipinos into submitting to China.
"This false option should be discredited once and for all. This false option does not deserve any further space or airing in the nation's
political discourse," he said.

Duterte's remarks on sovereignty, EEZ 'erroneous' — ex-solgen Hilbay

MANILA, Philippines — President Rodrigo Duterte's latest pronouncements on the country's sovereignty and exclusive economic
zone (EEZ) are erroneous, former Solicitor General Florin Hilbay said.

Duterte claimed that no country in the world has sovereignty over its EEZ and the Philippine and Chinese governments have agreed to
allow fishermen from both countries to fish in the South China Sea, part of which is the West Philippine Sea.

"These statements are erroneous under international and domestic law," Hilbay said in a statement.

Hilbay cited the 2016 ruling of a United Nations-backed tribunal, which invalidated Beijing's nine-dash line claim over the South
China Sea.

Under Article 73 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, "The coastal State may, in the exercise of its sovereign rights to
explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive economic zone, take such measures, including boarding,
inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in
conformity with this Convention."

The 2016 ruling of the arbitral tribunal also indicated that the Philippines does not share any "overlapping entitlements" with China
over Recto Bank, wherein a Chinese trawler rammed a Filipino fishing boat.

Duterte called the incident near Recto Bank a "small maritime accident." Hilbay stressed that Recto Bank is within Philippine EEZ,
where Filipinos can exercise rights to the exclusion of others.

The Philippines' rights over its EEZ are also consistent with the Constitution and fisheries laws, according to the former solicitor
general.

"Under Rep. Act 8550, as amended by R.A. 10654: It shall be unlawful for any foreign person, corporation or entity to fih or operate
any fishing vessel in Philippine waters," Hilbay said.

"The entry of any foreign fishing vessel in Philippine waters shall constitute a prima facie presumption that the vessel is engaged in
fishing in Philippine waters," he added.

While investigations into the Reed Bank collision are ongoing, presidential spokesperson Salvador Panelo said it was unsure if the
Chinese vessel was in the area to fish or was just passing through.

The Chinese Embassy itself earlier admitted that fishing boat Yuemaobinyu 42212 was engaged in a "light purse seine operation" and
was berthed at the vicinity of Recto Bank on June 9.

Duterte is obligated to protect Philippine waters both in the territorial sea and the EEZ as mandated in the constitution, Hilbay said.

The 1987 Constitution states that the national territory is comprised of "the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters
embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction."

RA 8550 or the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 defines "Philippine waters" as "waters including other waters over which the
Philippines has sovereignty and jurisdiction, and the country's 200-nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone and continental shelf."

Whether in areas where the Philippines has sovereignty such as the territorial sea or sovereign rights over the EEZ, Duterte is
constitutionally mandated to enforce these rights, Hilbay said.

"Acts of the President inconsistent with these obligations are a culpable violation of the Constitution and a betrayal of the public
trust," the former solicitor general said.
Former Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario, meanwhile, said Duterte's position on allowing Chinese fishermen in Philippine
EEZ worsens the situation in the West Philippine Sea.

The former top diplomat warned that this would embolden Chinese fishermen in trawling within Philippine waters.

Del Rosario added that this could also be a basis for impeachment as the president, as well as the military, are obligated to secure
national territory, which covers the EEZ.

"To violate that is really a basis for impeachment of the president. He can be impeached," Del Rosario told ANC's "Headstart."

Section 2, Article XII of the Constituion states that, "The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic waters,
territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens."

Humility in victory
On the crest of an expected Philippine victory in the arbitration case filed by the Philippines against China over the South China Sea, I
agree with President Duterte that we must not “taunt [China] or flaunt” our triumph.

Preserve Chinese friendship. After all, the Philippines and China enjoy a long history of friendship as well as excellent diplomatic,
political and trade relations. This dispute is just one aspect of such a long relationship. Humility in victory is the better course as we
continue to engage our big neighbor in friendly dialogue. We should not, after our victory, rule out bilateral negotiation, as China has
always wanted.

China opted not to participate in the proceedings and the Philippines was allowed by the Arbitration Tribunal to present its case ex-
parte. However, in various “diplomatic Notes Verbale,” position papers, media announcements and letters to members of the Tribunal,
China has repeatedly argued that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction and that, consequently, it would not abide by any decision issued.

In an earlier 151-page “Award” or ruling, dated Oct. 29, 2015, the Tribunal already held that, contrary to these arguments, it has
jurisdiction to hear and decide the case notwithstanding China’s absence or default. In fact, the Tribunal formally announced that it
would issue its decision on the merit this Tuesday.

Despite China’s absence, the Tribunal said it would copy China with all communications, arguments and documents in the case, give
it notice of all hearings, grant it adequate time to respond to or comment on the pleadings filed by the Philippines (if it so desires), and
remain open to China’s participation at any stage of the proceedings.

Extent of victory. In its “Memorial” (or final written arguments), the Philippines prayed for 15 “submissions” or reliefs. Although a
victory is generally conceded in our favor, we do not know, at this point, how many of these 15 would be granted by the Tribunal.

In an earlier column (11/8/15), I summarized these 15 submissions into three basic claims:

First, the Philippines “seeks declarations that the Parties’ respective rights and obligations in regard to the waters, seabed, and
maritime features of the South China Sea are governed by Unclos (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) and that China’s
claims based on ‘historic rights’ encompassed within its so-called ‘nine-dash line’ are inconsistent with the Convention and therefore
invalid.”

Second, it “seeks determination as to whether, under the Convention, certain maritime features claimed by both China and the
Philippines are properly characterized as islands, rocks, low tide elevations, or submerged banks.”

Consequently, if these are “islands,” they could generate an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or entitlement to a continental shelf
extending as far as 200 nautical miles. If, however, these are “rocks,” they could generate a territorial sea no greater than 12 nautical
miles. If they are neither islands nor rocks, but merely low-tide elevations or submerged banks, they would be incapable of generating
any such entitlements. No amount of artificial reclamation work can change the status of such features.

Third, it “seeks declarations that China has violated the Convention by interfering with the exercise of the Philippines’ sovereign
rights and freedoms under the Convention and through constructions and fishing activities that have harmed the marine environment.”

Benefits from decision. A grant in full by the Tribunal of the first set of submissions would mean the invalidation of the nine-dash
line, undoubtedly a big embarrassment and legal setback for China. Under this “line,” China claims sovereignty and jurisdiction over
almost all of the vast South China Sea.
Consequently, a Philippine victory on these submissions will mean freedom of navigation for all countries. Thus, the navy and air
force of the United States, Australia, Japan and the other big powers could continue to sail or fly freely in and above this huge body of
water.

The second set of submissions is very important to us, although it may not be as important to other countries. Our victory would mean
that we could freely explore, develop, extract and utilize the marine and natural resources, particularly oil and gas deposits, in the EEZ
of 200 nautical miles outward from the coastlines of the Philippines and would, as a necessary consequence, legally bar China from
asserting any authority over these mineral and gas resources.

One problem in this regard is Itu Aba (called Taiping Island by China), which is about one-half square kilometer (about 46 hectares)
of soil formation lying a little over 200 nautical miles off the coast of Palawan and occupied by Taiwanese soldiers. If this is ruled to
be an “island,” then it could generate its own EEZ that will overlap with our Palawan EEZ.

Since we recognize only one China, then the Taiwanese occupation is deemed to be that of China. Despite its small size, Itu Aba could
generate a huge EEZ extending very close to Palawan, an EEZ that China could exploit with the protection of its navy.

Finally, a victory on the third set of submissions would mean that China can no longer legally use its naval vessels to chase our
fishermen, or ruin the reefs and ecological structures in our EEZ.

Note that the Philippines did not ask for, and the Tribunal will not grant, any sovereign or ownership rights over any land mass.
Reason: The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited only to maritime rights recognized under the Unclos.

Justice Carpio refutes Duterte gov't: China can't fish in PH

MANILA, Philippines (3rd UPDATE) – Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio refuted the Duterte government on
Tuesday evening, June 25, and said it cannot allow Chinese fishermen to fish in the West Philippine Sea.

Carpio issued this statement after Malacañang, interpreting President Rodrigo Duterte, said the Philippines "will allow" China to fish
in the West Philippine Sea "because we're friends."

"The Philippine government cannot allow Chinese fishermen to fish in Philippine exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the West
Philippine Sea because it will violate the Constitution," said Carpio, one of the Philippines' leading experts on the West Philippine
Sea.

He added: "The Constitution mandates, 'The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its...exclusive economic zone, and
reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.' This means that the Philippine government cannot allow Chinese
fishermen to fish in our EEZ in the West Philippine Sea. This also means that the 'use and enjoyment' of the fish in our EEZ is
reserved exclusively to Filipinos."

The West Philippine Sea is part of the South China Sea that belongs to the Philippines based on a 2016 international ruling.

Duterte addressed the Recto Bank incident in an interview with reporters on Monday, June 24.

A journalist asked the President: "Will you prevent China from fishing within our EEZ? Iyong pwede po bang… kasi 'yun 'yung
request ng mga fishermen?" (Will you prevent China from fishing within our EEZ? Can it be... because that's the request of the
fishermen?)

Duterte answered: "I don't think that China would do that. Why? Because we're friends. And they are of the same view that that should
not result in any bloody confrontation."

Interpreting Duterte's words, Presidential Spokesperson Salvador Panelo said on Tuesday: "He said they will not allow it, but as far as
they're concerned, they have historical right to that. Number two, we will allow it kasi we're friends naman, 'di magbigayan muna tayo
– parang ganoon ang punto ni Presidente (because we're friends, so let's give way to each other – that seems to be the President's
point)."

Carpio in his statement Tuesday stressed the role of Duterte as Commander-in-Chief.

"The Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces is the President, who has the constitutional duty to direct the Armed Forces to protect
the nation’s marine wealth in its exclusive economic zone," said the justice.
Carpio pointed out, too, that an international tribunal "ruled with finality" in 2016 that the Philippines "has 'jurisdiction' over its
exclusive economic zone in the West Philippine Sea, including the Reed Bank."

"The Philippines has exclusive sovereign right to exploit all the fish, oil, gas and other mineral resources in its exclusive economic
zone. This sovereign right belongs to the Filipino people, and no government official can waive this sovereign right of the Filipino
people without their consent," Carpio said. – Rappler.com

5 more Chinese warships spotted in Philippine waters in July, August

The military says this is in addition to the passage of 4 Chinese vessels earlier this year, all without permission from the Philippine
government

MANILA, Philippines – Five more Chinese warships were recently spotted venturing into the country’s southernmost territorial
waters, according to the Armed Forces of the Philippines Western Mindanao Command (AFP Westmincom).

Coastal patrols monitored the passage of 2 Chinese naval vessels in July and 3 this month, said Lieutenant General Cirilito Sobejana,
AFP Westmincom Commander, on Wednesday, August 14.

The warships were seen passing through Sibutu Strait, considered an international sea lane where foreign ships have the right of
innocent passage. However, customary maritime law requires warships to notify the government of the coastal state beforehand.

“Since these are warships, their entry to our territory should be coordinated [with Philippine authorities],” Sobejana said in an
interview provided to reporters.

Besides, the 5 Chinese warships’ passage cannot be considered “innocent” because they were on a curved course, Sobejana said.

“Hindi naman sila hostile. Ang ano lang ‘dun, it was not an innocent passage kasi ang innocent passage, straight line lang ‘yun. ‘Pag
nagkurba ka, that is no longer considered innocent passage,” Sobejana said.

(They were not hostile. But the thing is, it was not an innocent passage because innocent passage should be in a straight line. Once you
curve, that is no longer considered innocent passage.)

The Chinese warships immediately changed course and exited Philippine territorial waters after Philippine naval aircraft and other
assets came within their view, Sobejana added.

On July 25, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said the military reported 4 instances of Chinese naval vessels traversing the Sibutu
Strait in the waters of Tawi-Tawi province since February.

On August 6, the AFP Western Command (Wescom) said 4 Chinese warships passed through the waters near Balabac Island in
Palawan province on June 17 without permission, and virtually ignored radio communications from Philippine patrols.

The reported passage of the 3 Chinese warships in August came after Chinese Ambassador Zhao Jianhua supposedly said he would
tell the Chinese Navy to give notice before having their warships enter Philippine waters.

Lorenzana said Zhao made the commitment on July 22, the day of President Rodrigo Duterte’s State of the Nation Address.

On July 31, AFP spoksperson Brigadier General Edgard Arevalo said there was “duplicity” in the passage early this year of the first 4
reported Chinese warships because their automatic identification systems must have been deliberately turned off to avoid detection by
radar.

Arevalo called it a “deception.”

Lorenzana has questioned the presence of Chinese naval and survey vessels in Philippine seas.

Sobejana said the Westmincom has informed the national leadership about the latest 5 Chinese warships they spotted so that "they can
engage with their counterparts in the Department of Foreign Affairs or with their attachés in Manila.”
 Advertisement
The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) recently said it filed diplomatic protests against the presence of Chinese vessels around
Pag-asa Island in the West Philippine Sea, and of two Chinese survey vessels in different parts of the country.

It is unclear whether the DFA has officially protested the clandestine passages of Chinese warships through Philippine territorial
waters. – Rappler.com

Permanent Court of Arbitration

FOR THE past week, the South China Sea ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague has been covered by
media on a daily basis. In many of the articles written on the decision, the court has often been referred to as a “UN court,” a “UN
arbitral tribunal,” a “UN arbitration court,” a “UN-backed tribunal,” and a “UN Permanent Court of Arbitration.”

Perhaps, because the case has something to do with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos), we assume that the PCA is a
UN body or agency. Perhaps, it also provides a sense of familiarity for many readers to associate the court with the United Nations.
But in fact, the PCA is not a UN agency and terms like “UN tribunal” or “UN-backed court” are misleading and incorrect.

The PCA was established by the first Hague Peace Conference in 1899 some 15 years before the start of World War I, while the
United Nations came into being after World War II, or almost half a century after the PCA. It is an intergovernmental organization
that provides a variety of dispute resolution services to the international community. It is based in the Peace Palace at The Hague,
Netherlands, sharing a common home with the International Court of Justice which happens to be a UN agency.

While the PCA is one of the oldest institutions for the settlement of international disputes, it is not in the strict sense of the word, a
court. What it does is organize arbitral tribunals to resolve conflicts between member-states (now numbering 119), international
organizations, or even private parties within an organization.

The full case name covering the dispute is “An Arbitration before an Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China.”

The presiding arbitrator is Judge Thomas A. Mensah of Ghana, who was the first president of the International Tribunal for the Law of
the Sea. The other members of the court are Judge Jean-Pierre Cot (France), Judge Rudiger Wolfrum (Germany), Prof. Alfred Soons
(Netherlands), and Judge Stanislaw Pawlak (Poland). All are distinguished scholars and jurists with extensive experience particularly
in maritime law.

In its Memorial submitted to the PCA, the Philippines requested action on 15 points; not all were acted upon.

Some of the findings in the dispositif portion of the South China Sea Arbitration Award of July 12, 2016, are as follows:

• China’s nonappearance in the proceedings does not deprive the tribunal of jurisdiction.

• The Philippines’ act of initiating this arbitration did not constitute an abuse of process.

• There is no indispensable third party whose absence deprives the tribunal of jurisdiction.

Among the more significant declarations in the award:

On China’s historic claims and the so-called “nine-dash line” that encompasses practically 80 percent of the South China Sea, the
tribunal declared that China’s claim to historic rights in the South China Sea is “contrary to the Convention (Unclos), and without
lawful effect.” It further declared that “the Convention superseded any historical rights or jurisdiction.”

On Mischief Reef and the Second Thomas Shoal (Ayungin Shoal where our Marines are stationed on the BRP Sierra Madre), the
tribunal declared that they are within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf of the Philippines.

On Scarborough Shoal (Panatag Shoal, which is a fishing ground of our people in Zambales and Pangasinan), the tribunal found that it
“has been a traditional fishing ground for fishermen of many nationalities and declares that China has unlawfully prevented fishermen
from the Philippines from engaging in traditional fishing at Scarborough Shoal.”

On the Reed Bank, the tribunal declared that China, through the operation of its marine surveillance, breached its obligations under
Article 77 of the Convention with respect to the Philippine sovereign rights over nonliving resources of its continental shelf in the area
of Reed Bank.
On the protection and preservation of the marine environment in the South China Sea, the tribunal found that fishermen from Chinese
vessels have engaged in the harvesting of endangered species on a significant scale; have engaged in the harvesting of giant clams in a
manner destructive of the coral reef ecosystem.

On China’s construction of artificial islands, installation, and structures at Mischief Reef, the tribunal declared that this was done
without the authorization of the Philippines.

With all these findings and declarations in our favor, should we rejoice and express feelings of joy and excitement, or should we
exercise “restraint and sobriety” as called for by the government?

In a recent TV talk show hosted by Karen Davila, Dindo Manhit, president of a local think tank named after former foreign secretary
Albert del Rosario, and former congressman Roilo Golez, expressed sadness and disappointment that there was no outpouring of joy
and happiness over the South China Sea decision. Manhit singled out an official of the Department of Foreign Affairs for his sad
demeanor in announcing the court verdict, while Golez mentioned that when Portugal won the European Cup, the entire nation was
ecstatic over the victory, with celebrations taking place all over the country. He added “that was just a football game, and here we had
won in a case involving our natural resources and territorial rights.”

This fight is not yet over. For one thing, China has always declared from the very beginning that it would not honor whatever are the
rulings of the court. And so our fishermen are still being bullied and kept away from their traditional fishing grounds. China is not
going to dismantle its installations and structures on Mischief Reef, and we are uncertain about proceeding with explorations at the
Reed Bank.

So, what must we do? We need to talk with the Chinese. We have the PCA rulings to support us and with help from the international
community in the form of world opinion, we might be able to resolve some of the issues that confront us, not all, just some. There is
no such thing as the perfect solution.

Finally, a word of gratitude to former president Noynoy Aquino, former secretary Albert del Rosario, Justices Antonio Carpio and
Francis Jardeleza, and former solicitor general Florin Hilbay, and many other people, for their efforts on behalf of the nation at The
Hague.

UN court rules: China violated Philippine rights

Highlights of ruling
• No legal basis for China to claim historic rights to a ‘nine-dash line’

• Panganiban (Mischief) Reef, Ayungin (Second Thomas) Shoal and Recto (Reed) Bank form part of the Philippines’ exclusive
economic zone and continental shelf

• Panatag (Scarborough Shoal) is a common traditional fishing ground; no country can prevent others from fishing in the area;
China violated traditional fishing rights of the Philippines by preventing Filipinos from fishing in the shoal

• China violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights by constructing artificial islands, interfering with Filipinos’ fishing and oil
exploration, and failing to prevent Chinese from fishing in the Philippine EEZ

• China’s island reclamation aggravated the dispute during arbitration and inflicted irreparable harm on the marine environment

THE HAGUE – China has no historic title to nearly the entire South China Sea, a UN-backed tribunal ruled yesterday, as it awarded
the Philippines “sovereign rights” over three disputed areas.

In a landmark unanimous ruling, the Permanent Court of Arbitration based in The Hague awarded the Philippines sovereign rights
over Panganiban or Mischief Reef, Ayungin or Second Thomas Shoal and Recto or Reed Bank off Palawan.

The court did not award sovereign rights to the Philippines over Panatag or Scarborough Shoal, which lies just over 120 nautical miles
from Zambales. But the court said it was a traditional fishing ground for several countries and neither China nor the Philippines had
the right to prevent anyone from fishing in the shoal.

China therefore violated Philippine rights when it barred Filipino fishermen from entering the shoal, the court declared.
Noting that both the Philippines and China had ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, on which the court
ruling was based, the arbitral tribunal pointed out that UNCLOS provides that the “award… shall be complied with by the parties to
the dispute.”

China had refused to participate in the arbitration except to challenge its jurisdiction over the maritime dispute. But the court ruled last
year that it had jurisdiction over the case.

Ruling that Beijing’s so-called “nine-dash line” historic claim over nearly all of the South China Sea has “no legal basis,” the tribunal
also ruled that China violated Philippine sovereign rights by constructing artificial islands and interfering with Filipino fishing
activities.

China’s island reclamation also aggravated the maritime dispute and caused irreparable harm to the marine environment, the tribunal
ruled.

“The tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-
dash line’,” The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration said in a statement.

Manila – which had lodged the suit against Beijing in 2013 – welcomed the ruling, with Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay Jr.
saying the decision “upholds international law, particularly the 1982 UNCLOS.”

“In the meantime, we call on all those concerned to exercise restraint and sobriety,” he said.

China reacted furiously, saying it “does not accept and does not recognize” the decision. Beijing had refused to participate in the case,
saying the tribunal had “no jurisdiction” over the issue.

Beijing claims most of the South China Sea, even waters approaching neighboring countries, as its sovereign territory, basing its
arguments on Chinese maps dating back to the 1940s marked with a so-called nine-dash line.

But in its hard-hitting ruling, the PCA said Beijing “had no historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea” and that
“such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the
Convention,” referring to UNCLOS.

While “bad faith is not presumed” under the fundamental principle of international law, UNLOS provides that “award… shall be
complied with by the parties to the dispute,” it said.

“China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights in the exclusive economic zone by interfering with Philippine fishing and
petroleum exploration, by constructing artificial islands and failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing in the zone,” the PCA
said.

The tribunal further ruled that the disputed Spratly islands “cannot generate maritime zones collectively as unit” as claimed by China.

Yesterday’s judgment comes against the backdrop of frequent military brushes between China and its Asian neighbors the Philippines,
Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan, which ring the waters believed to hold untapped oil and gas reserves.

The tensions have also alarmed the US, which has key defense treaties with many regional allies, and in a show of strength last week
sent warships to patrol close to some of the reefs and islands claimed by China.

President Duterte had said he was optimistic of a favorable ruling, but offered to hold conciliatory talks with China and vowed he
would not “taunt or flaunt” any favorable ruling.

Referring to the UNCLOS, Manila contended the nine-dash line had no basis under international law and that Beijing had no
“historic” claim to the waters.

The court also held that fishermen from the Philippines and China had traditional fishing rights at the Scarborough (Panatag) Shoal
and that China had interfered with these rights in restricting access to the area.

The Chinese seized Panatag Shoal in 2012 after a standoff with the Philippine Navy which tried to arrest Chinese poachers in the area.
It also held that Chinese law enforcement vessels “had unlawfully created a serious risk of collision when they physically obstructed
Philippine vessels.”

The tribunal also cited the “harm to the environment” caused by China’s large-scale reclamation and island building activities in the
South China Sea. Such construction activities, the tribunal said, were “incompatible with the obligations of a state during dispute
resolutions proceedings,” citing China’s having inflicted “irreparable harm” to the marine environment, built artificial island in
Philippine waters and “destroyed evidence of natural condition of features in the South China Sea” that were being disputed.

“China had caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems and
the habitat of depleted, threatened or endangered species,” the ruling read.

It added Chinese authorities were aware of the poaching activities of Chinese fishermen but did not stop them.

The ruling also stated that Panganiban Reef, Ayungin Shoal and Recto Bank are submerged at high tide and form part of the
Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The tribunal said it found “as a matter of fact” that China had interfered with a
Philippine oil exploration at Recto Bank.

But the tribunal said it lacked jurisdiction to consider the implications of a standoff between Philippine marines and Chinese naval and
law enforcement vessels at the Ayungin Shoal, as such dispute involved military activities and therefore excluded from compulsory
settlement.

The court also ruled that none of the Spratly Islands is capable of generating extended maritime zones. It also held that the Spratly
Islands cannot generate maritime zones collectively as a unit.

“Having found that none of the features claimed by China was capable of generating an exclusive economic zone, the Tribunal found
that it could – without delimiting a boundary – declare that certain sea areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines,
because those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China.”

In light of limitations on compulsory dispute settlement under UNCLOS, the tribunal has emphasized that it does not rule on any
question of sovereignty over land territory and does not delimit any boundary between parties involved.

Throughout the proceedings, the tribunal said it has taken steps to “test the accuracy of the Philippines’ claims,” including requesting
further written submissions and thorough questioning of its representatives.

China has also made clear through the publication of a position paper in December 2014 and in other official statements that, in its
view, the tribunal lacks jurisdiction in this matter.

The Philippines, under former foreign secretary Albert del Rosario, is the first country to bring China to court and challenge Beijing’s
expansive and excessive claims in the South China Sea.

Sitting in the tribunal were H.A. Soons of the Netherlands and Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum of Germany. Judge Thomas A. Mensah served
as president of the tribunal.

Principal Philippine counsel Paul Reichler debunked China’s historic rights claim and how these purported historic rights, supposedly
derived from UNCLOS, in fact do not exist under the convention’s provisions.