UN COURT RULES: CHINA VIOLATED PHILIPPINE RIGHTS

(The Philippine Star) - July 13, 2016 - 12:00am

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.

Common fishing ground

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.
CARPIO REBUTS DUTERTE: CHINA 'NOT IN POSSESSION' OF WEST PHILIPPINE SEA

(UPDATED) Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio hits President Rodrigo Duterte's
assumption that China has dispossessed Filipinos of the West Philippine Sea

JC Gotinga
Published: 10:53 AM July 23, 2019
Updated: 12:09 AM July 24, 2019

PAG-ASA ISLAND. An aerial view of the Philippines' largest outpost in the West Philippine Sea. Photo
from the Center for Strategic and International Studies/Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative
MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) – President Rodrigo Duterte in his State of the Nation Address (SONA)
on Monday said the Philippines is “not in the position” to assert its rights in the West Philippine Sea
(WPS) because China “is in possession” of it.

Wrong, said Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio.

“China is not in possession of the WPS. China is in possession of 7 features in the Spratlys plus
Scarborough Shoal. In addition, during the Duterte administration, China seized Sandy Cay from the
Philippines. The total area of these geologic features, including their territorial seas (if any), is less than
7% of the WPS,” Carpio said in a statement sent to reporters after the SONA on July 22.

China has reclaimed and built military installations on the following reefs in the West Philippine Sea:
Kagitingan (Fiery Cross), Calderon (Cuarteron), Mabini (Johnson South), Zamora (Subi), McKennan
(Hughes), Panganiban (Mischief), and Burgos (Gaven).

These were declared to be either rocks or low tide elevations within the Philippines’ 200-nautical-mile
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) by the July 12, 2016 international arbitral award based on the United
Nations Convention on the law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Rocks and low tide elevations do not entitle the country that owns them to an EEZ. In effect, even if
sovereignty over those 7 reefs remains unresolved, the Philippines retains sovereign rights in the vast
waters of the West Philippine Sea.

This is evidenced by the fact that other countries carry out “freedom of navigation and overflight
operations” (FONOPs) in the area, said Carpio.

“Foreign naval powers (US, UK, France, Australia, Japan, and Canada) continuously sail and conduct
naval drills in the South China Sea, including the WPS, demonstrating that China is not in possession of
the WPS," he said.

Carpio earlier said that it would help the Philippines assert its legal victory over China if the Philippine
Navy joined these other navies on FONOPs in the West Philippine Sea.

Duterte has consistently rejected the idea, saying it would lead to war with China.

“I am not ready or inclined to accept the occurrence of more destruction, more widows and more
orphans, should war, even on a limited scale, break out. More and better results can be reached in the
privacy of a conference room than in a squabble in public,” Duterte said in his SONA.

However, critics including Carpio have pointed out that the possibility of war is remote because China
itself would not risk its standing in the international community were it to turn into an aggressor.
Besides, the Philippines’ Mutual Defense Treaty with the US would come into force, and China would
think twice before triggering an armed confrontation with the US.

Fishing deal questioned

In his SONA, Duterte tried to justify allowing Chinese fishing vessels free rein in the WPS. He said the
UNCLOS allows for fishing agreements among sovereign states, and recognizes “traditional fishing rights
of the natives.”

Carpio refuted this, too.

“Traditional fishing applies only in the territorial sea and archipelagic waters. There is no traditional
fishing in the EEZ. This is very clear in the arbitral award of 12 July 2016. Reed Bank is part of Philippine
EEZ. There can be no traditional fishing in Reed Bank,” Carpio said, referring to the incident on June 9 in
which a Chinese ship – a trawler – hit a Philippine fishing boat and abandoned its 22 Filipino crew at sea.

The Filipino boat, the Gem-Ver, foundered at the impact from the larger, sturdier vessel.

“Traditional fishing is artisanal fishing using small, simple fishing boats like the wooden boats, with
outriggers, of Filipino fishermen. The Chinese steel-hulled trawlers cannot qualify for traditional fishing,”
said Carpio.

In a statement on Tuesday, former foreign secretary Albert del Rosario and former ombudsman
Conchita Carpio Morales echoed this, saying Duterte had no authority to grant foreigners fishing rights
in the Philippines' EEZ. This is because the Constitution is clear about its duty to protect the EEZ for
Filipinos.

"No presidential agreement with China or any other country can override the explicit constitutional
mandate that the ‘use and enjoyment’ of our EEZ is ‘reserved…exclusively to Filipino citizens.’ The
agreement between President Duterte and China is therefore illegal, null and void,” they said.

Del Rosario and Morales added the supposed deal was also void as international law says a treaty would
be illegal if it was brought about by a threat of war. This is according to the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties, which both the Philippines and China are parties to.

"Thus, if the Philippines agrees to share its resources in its exclusive economic zone because China is
threatening to use force or wage war against it, such an agreement is illegal, void, and does not bind the
Filipino people," they said.

Duterte had claimed in his SONA 2019 that Chinese President Xi Jinping threatened the use of force if
the Philippines asserted its rights in the West Philippine Sea.

Del Rosario and Morales also warned that if Duterte allowed China to fish in Philippine waters, it could
deplete fishing stock that Filipino fishermen rely on. They added that while the UNCLOS award said a
country can enter into fishing agreement with another country, there was no obligation to do so.

They said: "The West Philippine Sea belongs exclusively to Filipinos, not to China. We must stop giving
China primacy over that of our own people. When will Filipinos be first and not last, in our own
country?" – with a report from Sofia Tomacruz/Rappler.com
Permanent Court of Arbitration
Ramon Farolan - 3 years ago

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.
JUSTICE CARPIO REFUTES DUTERTE GOV'T: CHINA CAN'T FISH IN PH

(3rd UPDATE) 'No government official can waive this sovereign right of the Filipino people without their
consent,' says Justice Antonio Carpio

Paterno Esmaquel II
@paterno_ii
Published 10:50 PM, June 25, 2019
Updated 11:31 PM, June 25, 2019

WEST PHILIPPINE SEA. Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio says the Philippine
government cannot allow China to fish in the West Philippine Sea. Photo by Angie de Silva/Rappler

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.

Other Stories

Vietnam says China ships have left disputed sea after month-long standoff
Hanoi confirms the Chinese vessels had left its exclusive economic zone, after weeks of repeated
demands to vacate

Philippines files another diplomatic protest vs China

'Got it, General. DFA firing off diplomatic protest,' says Foreign Secretary Teodoro Locsin Jr after Defense
Secretary Delfin Lorenza urged the government to ask China why its ships were in Philippine waters

Another Chinese survey vessel found operating in PH waters

Map images show Chinese survey ship 'Dong Fang Hong 3' operating in Philippine waters a day after
Chinese ship 'Zhanjian' was seen operating off the country's east coast

The West Philippine Sea issue heated up again after a Filipino fishing boat was sunk by a Chinese ship in
Recto Bank (Reed Bank), a potentially oil-rich region in the country's waters.

'Because we're friends'

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
HUMILITY IN VICTORY

Protesters flash thumbs-down signs as they shout slogans during a rally near the Chinese Consulate in
the financial district of Makati city, Philippines, to denounce the alleged deployment of surface-to-air-
missiles by China on the disputed islands off South China Sea, Friday, Feb. 19, 2016. The protesters are
calling on China to halt its island-building on some of the disputed islands and its alleged increasing
militarization. (AP Photo/Bullit Marquez)

Protesters flash thumbs-down signs as they shout slogans during a rally near the Chinese Consulate in
the financial district of Makati city, Philippines, to denounce the alleged deployment of surface-to-air-
missiles by China on the disputed islands off South China Sea, Friday, Feb. 19, 2016. The protesters are
calling on China to halt its island-building on some of the disputed islands and its alleged increasing
militarization. (AP Photo/Bullit Marquez)

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.
DUTERTE'S REMARKS ON SOVEREIGNTY, EEZ 'ERRONEOUS' — EX-SOLGEN HILBAY

Patricia Lourdes Viray (Philstar.com) - June 27, 2019 - 3:00pm

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.

Related Stories
Duterte sorry Recto Bank fishermen feel belittled
Duterte's remarks on Chinese fishermen in Philippine EEZ worsens situation — Del Rosario
"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."
CARPIO SUGGESTS 'FORMULA' FOR ENFORCING ARBITRAL AWARD WITHOUT GOING TO WAR

(Philstar.com) - July 15, 2019 - 12:57pm

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.

Related Stories
Naval operations of foreign powers refute China's claim, enforce arbitral award
Raising war with China over arbitral award meant to 'scare' Filipinos
"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.

Speaking at the graduation ceremony of Ateneo Law School onSunday, Carpio shared ways on to
enforce the arbitral ruling without going to war with China and using only the rule of law.

Agreements with other claimant states

Carpio's first two suggestions were entering into sea boundary agreements with Vietnam and Malaysia.

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.

Extended Continental Shelf claim

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.

Send Coast Guard vessels to EEZ

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.

Encourage, welcome FONOPs with other countries

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.

Support private sector in enforcing arbitral award

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.
FILIPINOS CONQUER NEW TERRITORY: BENHAM RISE

'It felt a lot like what Magellan felt,' says the leader of the team exploring this underwater plateau bigger
than Luzon

Paterno Esmaquel II
@paterno_ii
Published 1:30 PM, May 31, 2014
Updated 9:47 PM, June 03, 2014

'LIKE MAGELLAN.' Researchers explore Benham Rise, an underwater plateau off the coast of Aurora.
Photo courtesy of Dr Gil Jacinto/UP-MSI

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). (READ:
Benham Rise: PH's new territory off Aurora)

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.

GOVERNMENT-FUNDED. The research team boards a vessel owned by the Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources. Photo courtesy of Dr Gil Jacinto/UP-MSI

“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.

Risky trip

UNDERWATER PLATEAU. Found near Aurora, the 13-million-hectare Benham Rise is part of the
Philippines' continental shelf. Screen grab from a document the Philippines submitted to UN

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.

IN ACTION. The team is about to transfer these UP-labeled rubber boats to another dive site. Photo
courtesy of Dr Gil Jacinto/UP-MSI
IN ACTION. The team is about to transfer these UP-labeled rubber boats to another dive site. Photo
courtesy of Dr Gil Jacinto/UP-MSI

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).

Other Stories

Vietnam says China ships have left disputed sea after month-long standoff
Hanoi confirms the Chinese vessels had left its exclusive economic zone, after weeks of repeated
demands to vacate

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.

MINI-CAMERAS. Using weights (right), researchers place a GoPro mini-camera (left) under the sea, along
with a dive computer. Photo courtesy of Dr Gil Jacinto/UP-MSI

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.

IN BETWEEN DIVES. The team uses automated water samplers to collect water samples underwater.
Photo courtesy of Dr Gil Jacinto/UP-MSI
'Extensive' corals

This 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.
(Watch the underwater video courtesy of UPLB-SESAM's Dr Hildie Nacorda below)

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.

DEEP SEA. This graphic, based on a sketch by UP's Dr Cesar Villanoy (inset: original sketch), shows the
depths that divers haven't reached. Graphic by Nico Villarete

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.

Advertisement
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."

MORE FISH HERE? Divers see tuna in the waters surrounding Benham Bank. Photo courtesy of Dr Hildie
Nacorda/UPLB-SESAM

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

In these changing times, courage and clarity become even more

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

Paterno Esmaquel II
@paterno_ii
Published 6:59 AM, May 02, 2012
Updated 1:03 PM, March 17, 2017

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. (READ:
Filipinos conquer new territory: Benham Rise)

UNDERWATER PLATEAU. Found near Aurora, the 13-million hectare Benham Rise is part of Philippine
territory. Screen grab from a document the Philippines submitted to UN

UNDERWATER PLATEAU. Found near Aurora, the 13-million hectare Benham Rise is part of Philippine
territory. Screen grab from a document the Philippines submitted to UN

“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.)

CONTINENTAL SHELF. This is a diagram of a continental shelf in its classical definition. UP's Jay
Batongbacal, however, says Benham Rise is different because it is an independent feature, an
underwater plateau, attached to the normal continental shelf. Screen grab from 'Continental Shelf: The
Last Maritime Zone,' www.unep.org

CONTINENTAL SHELF. This is a diagram of a continental shelf in its classical definition. UP's Jay
Batongbacal, however, says Benham Rise is different because it is an independent feature, an
underwater plateau, attached to the normal continental shelf. Screen grab from 'Continental Shelf: The
Last Maritime Zone,' www.unep.org

Other Stories

Another Chinese survey vessel found operating in PH waters

Map images show Chinese survey ship 'Dong Fang Hong 3' operating in Philippine waters a day after
Chinese ship 'Zhanjian' was seen operating off the country's east coast
WATCH: Forum on the 3rd anniversary of The Hague ruling on the West PH Sea
Watch the presentations and panel discussions here

Philippines loses to China 3 years after Hague ruling

'The present administration has done absolutely nothing to enforce the award,' says Justice Antonio
Carpio. Did the Philippine efforts go to waste?

It is now up to the Philippines to enact a law or executive order establishing the boundaries of its
continental shelf, marine law expert Jay Batongbacal told Rappler.

More resources

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.

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

FIRST VICTORY. This is the Philippines' first victory for territorial claims under the UN Convention on the
Law of the Sea. Screen grab from a document the Philippines submitted to UN

First for PH

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' invitation to 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

In these changing times, courage and clarity become even more important.
ALL ABOUT THE (G)REED BANK: FROM FERDINAND MARCOS SR. TO ALBERT DEL ROSARIO

By Sass Rogando Sasot - July 18, 2016 - in Opinion 0 Comments

Whose interests are we protecting - the Filipino people or Filipino businessmen?

(Note: Every researcher knows that you are only as good as your sources. Those who are saying I’m
biased towards the Chinese, check my sources. Here I used: US State Department historical documents,
US diplomatic cables, and reports from American and Philippine newspapers).

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.