We the affirmative side do hereby contend that the Philippines should enforce the arbitral ruling

(award) on the west Philippines sea. For on July 12, 2016, The Permanent Court Arbitration(PCA) ruled
in the Case No. 2013-19 (Also known as the case of China vs Philippines ) where the special arbitral tribunal
ruled in favor of the Philippines.

1. There was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas
falling within "nine-dash line"
2. UNCLOS does not provide for a group of islands such as the Spratly Islands to generate maritime
zones collectively as a unit
3. China had breached its obligations under the convention on the International Regulations for
Preventing Collisions at Sea and Article 94 of UNCLOS concerning maritime safety
4. China violated its obligations to refrain from aggravating or extending the parties disputes
during the pendency of the settlement process

It is well enshrined under the 1987 Philippine Constitution

Article 1 that all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories, consisting of its
terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular
shelves, and other submarine areas the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction in conjunction
with Article XII Section 2 of the same priovision. That All lands of the public domain, waters,
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or
timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. 

Citing the jurisprudence of Magallona vs. Ermita in conjunction with principles of the United Nations
Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to which the Philippines and China were a signatory,
explains that a state has a right to exercise its sovereign right to the extent of 200 nautical miles from
its territorial baseline.

China’s claim of historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within "nine-dash line"
has no legal basis as per the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Considering the fact that China’s
reclamation are within our 200 nautical miles to which we exercise sovereign rights, would
result to an intrusion to our sovereignty, freedom, security and Natural resources.

We the affirmative side do contend that China must obey Arbitral ruling and shall desist from its
act otherwise it will be in contravention with the international principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda

We would like to reiterate in the case of Calalang vs. William regarding the role the of state in
promoting social justice with special emphasis on the duty of the state to tilt the balance of social
forces by favoring the disadvantaged in life.

We hereby quote That “It is our lost if we surrender our rights”.

Conti provision

Pacta sunt servanda (archipelagic doctrine)

Unclos (Assignatory )

Historic title

9 dash line