Upholding Philippine Sovereign Rights

IT IS alarming how some Philippine news agencies consistently describe former Senator Francis N. Tolentino’s arguments regarding the West Philippine Sea as mere maritime “claims,” when these are, in fact, “rights” established by international law.

This distinction is not mere semantics; it has substantial legal implications. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, “claims” are legal assertions demanding remedies for violations, whereas “rights” signify legal entitlements and protections.

Initially, the Philippine position in the West Philippine Sea was indeed a claim. However, the landmark Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruling on July 12, 2016, transformed this claim into an affirmed legal right.

Recent headlines have reignited attention on this issue after China sanctioned former Senator Tolentino, barring him from entry into China, Hong Kong, and Macau The sanction serves as an opportune moment to revisit the PCA’s findings and emphasize why the Philippine position stands on solid legal ground.

Firstly, the PCA categorically invalidated China’s ‘Nine-Dash Line,’ under which China claims sovereignty over vast portions of the West Philippine Sea, including areas within the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

The tribunal explicitly stated that China’s historical claims are incompatible with international law. It emphasized that China’s assertion of historic rights within the Nine-Dash Line exceeds permissible limits outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Moreover, historical rights were effectively extinguished upon China’s accession to UNCLOS, underscoring the illegality of their expansive maritime claims.

Secondly, China has systematically violated Philippine sovereign rights, breaching multiple provisions under UNCLOS. China’s marine surveillance vessels have allowed Chinese fishing vessels to operate unlawfully within the Philippines’ EEZ, particularly around Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal, violating Article 58(3) of UNCLOS.

Additionally, since May 2012, China’s official vessels have unlawfully restricted Filipino fishermen from traditional fishing grounds around Scarborough Shoal, breaching established fishing rights.

Further compounding these violations, China has facilitated environmentally destructive fishing practices within Philippine waters, particularly in Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal. These actions constitute breaches of Articles 192 and 194(5) of UNCLOS, highlighting obligations to protect marine environments and endangered species.

China’s aggressive construction of artificial islands and installations, notably at Mischief Reef, further infringes upon Philippine rights.

Mischief Reef, a low-tide elevation within the Philippines’ EEZ, cannot be appropriated or claimed under international law.

China’s unilateral development violates Articles 60 and 80 of UNCLOS, directly challenging Philippine sovereign rights and jurisdictional authority. This expansionist policy should provoke collective international outrage and a coordinated diplomatic pushback.

These are not mere diplomatic grievances but clear-cut legal breaches with substantial consequences for Philippine sovereign rights and international law. Labeling these rights merely as claims weakens international understanding of the legal clarity established by the PCA.

It is critical that we, as Filipinos, consistently assert our legal rights rather than diminish them as mere claims.

Upholding accurate terminology reflects not only legal precision but also the resolute defense of our nation’s sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea.

Let us reinforce these rights decisively, ensuring they remain central to our national discourse, policy decisions, and diplomatic engagements. Our sovereign rights and dignity depend on our unwavering commitment to these principles.