DERICO, ABDUL HATTA B.

PIL 1 - Section 2

China and The Philippines: A Perspective on the Struggle of People’s Republic of

China and the Republic of the Philippines over Territorial Asseveration

“The United States stands with our Philippine allies in upholding the rule-based
International Maritime Order.” - Jake Sullivan, U.S. National Security Adviser1

The International Community began to take notice of the growing territorial dispute
between the Philippines and China over archipelagos located in the West Philippine Sea.
The tension heightened when the Philippines sought International Intervention and filed
and won an Arbitration case2 against China before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in
Hague, Netherlands, seeking for the ejection and stoppage of all Chinese vessels and
activities within the maritime zones of the country. The Philippines challenged the
historic-based claims by China of sovereignty over the disputed territories in the West
Philippine Sea, the latter claiming that these territories are the traditional fishing areas of
their ancestors. The Philippines countered and asserted its legally-owned islands and
territories that are within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Any form of entry without
consent of the latter is considered a violation and intrusion of its sovereignty over such
islands and maritime zones. China on the other hand, questioned the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal claiming that the issue is on the sovereignty of the two states over the disputed
territories and not the interpretation of the UNCLOS. Such issue accordingly therefore,
is beyond the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of Arbitration hence, the decision is not
legally binding. It also pointed out the fact that the Philippines agreed to settle their
dispute through negotiations3 and it is a betrayal that the Philippines sought a third-party
intervention by filing an arbitrary case before the tribunal. However, after careful
consideration, the PCA in its 2016 Decision awarded Philippines with all the rights to
sovereignty over the disputed territories in the West Philippine Sea.

Despite winning the Arbitrary case, the Philippines still struggles to exercise control
over its maritime zones with China rejecting the decision made by the Permanent Court
of Arbitration (PCA) and continuing its activities in the disputed region.

________________________________________________
1. The U.S. promised to uphold the Mutual Defense Treaty it signed with the Philippines in 1951.
2. Philippine Arbitration case against China filed in January 2013 under the Dispute Settlement Procedures of Annex VII to the 1982
UNCLOS. The case was decided in 2016, in favor of the Philippines.
3. A Bilateral Agreement was signed known as the 2002 ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea
(DOC), in which they agreed to solve maritime issues through negotiations alone. (www.imoa.ph)
 Five years after the decision was made by the PCA, the Philippines having no means
to fight back massive Chinese vessels still exploiting its territorial seas and archipelagos,
the International Community, particularly its history-long ally the United States, has
spoken their side and declaring its stand with the country against the Chinese threats in
the West Philippine Sea. The rampant exploration of Chinese vessels and continued
activities on the islands within the EEZ of the Philippines is a blatant disregard of the
International Law, Particularly that of the UNCLOS4.

In the recent Political course of the Philippine Government, it had drastically

changed its strategy by making closer ties with the Chinese Government. This was maybe
an attempt to diplomatically settle the two countries’ territorial dispute, but such received
a lot of criticisms from the public. Personally, I believe that the attempt to have closer
relation through vaccine donations and in like manners with China significantly brought
misconception to the minds of the Chinese leaders. They have thought that such close
relation has given them leeway to continue violating the UNCLOS evident by the
increasing and alarming activities of the Chinese vessels on territories within the EEZ of
the country. Though this close relation has brought us advantages such as having donated
with millions of COVID-19 Vaccines, this has tremendously altered the condition of our
claim of sovereignty over island territories in the West Philippine Sea and critically
endangered more territories. Apparently, looking at how the government tried to resolve
this issue, it has intriguingly failed to protect what the country validly and legally owns,
and consequently violating the Constitution particularly Article 1 on National Territory5.
the Philippine Government failed to ultimately fulfill its role as the Parens Patriae6 of the
country by having no concrete plans and strategy in the protection and preservation of our
territories in the West Philippine Sea. It is but a dismay that what is validly and legally
ours, are let loose in the hands and for the advantage of the Chinese people.

The Philippines could have a better way to resolve this issue not only by allowing the
Chinese Government to freely exploit our natural resources. The government could have
been more firm and stand on what is right and legal recognised under International Law.

________________________________________________
4. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was signed on 1982 and took effect on November of 1994.
5. Article 1 of the Constitution states that: “The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters
embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial
and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters
around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal
waters of the Philippines.
6. The Doctrine of Parens Patriae (father of the country) is most commonly applied to cases regarding the custody of minors and
disabled adults. However, it is also applied in lawsuits between the states and in suits dealing with the well being of a state’s entire
population, e.g. protection of the environment. (www.thoughtco.com)
 The failure of the government has led to the recent invasion of Chinese vessels in the
island territories of the country which is now a controversy in the International
Community. As the United States had pronounced its stand over this issue, a greater risk
of having another World War is now open to possibility. If only the government was able
to control the problem five years ago after it had won the arbitration case, our local
fishermen could have fished in our seas freely, without fear of being attacked by the
Chinese Coast guards and vessels.

Finally, given all factors in the dispute between China and The Philippines, it is a
priority that we oblige and comply with the laws that are binding our relations. Being a
member of the International Community, having been sworn to adapt International Law
as part of the Law of the land7, the Philippines should be more assertive and firm in terms
of its interaction and relations with other states so that other states, like that of China,
cannot easily maneuver its way to disturb the peace and security of the country. Though
we shall not provoke China to do more harm against the country, a protective measures
should be in place so that the country’s sovereignty is not disregarded. The Philippines
could go and strengthen its relations with its other allies, conduct more activities in the
achievement of its foreign policy goals, create a more harmonious relation with other
neighboring states, and neutralize its relation with China by asserting what is legally ours.
Otherwise, what I could only think of, is to seek International aid in the preservation of
our territorial seas and resources as if the current situation continues or even escalates,
time will come that the country could no longer exercise its right to interact
internationally due to the oppressive actions of China. This is in no way a manifestation
of using War as an instrument of Diplomacy, but is a genuine attempt of protecting and
preserving the country; free from harm and danger from outside forces.

In the end, all actions of the government should be for the people; for the interest and
welfare of the majority, not of the interest of anyone, or of any other country. Doing
otherwise is an utter betrayal of the public trust. Hence, the government should be
reminded of this, and remember to always prioritize the benefit of the general public.

What the country needs right now is a clever government - one that will essentially
bring the best of both worlds for its people, and not a puppet government of another state.

________________________________________________

7. Aritcle II Section 2 of the Constitution states: “The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice,
freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.”