Skip to main content

The 2016 Arbitral ruling on the West Philippine Sea

 


I was the president of the  Maritime Law Association of the Philippines (MARLAW)  when the five-member Arbitral Tribunal released its July 12, 2016 decision in favor of the Philippines on most of its submissions on the West Philippines Sea (WPS)  issue.

 

MARLAW is an organization of lawyers and other professionals engaged in maritime practice and helps spur the development and advance the interests of the various stakeholders in the Philippine maritime industry, as well as the maritime interests of the Philippines.   MARLAW has been actively involved in the WPS campaign.

 

Since around  2009, China has steadily increased its efforts to consolidate its position in the  WPS  with varied tactics, including using its military, coast guard, and maritime militia to harass foreign ships; exploring and extracting resources in disputed areas; and constructing artificial islands and basing military and civilian assets there.

 

The Philippines initiated in January 2013 the arbitration case (Philippines vs. China, PCA Case No 2013-19) wherein it sought, among others, a declaration that the countries’ respective rights and obligations regarding the waters, seabed, and maritime features of the West Philippine Sea are governed by the  United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

 

The key findings of the July 12, 2016 ruling include:

 

(a)  China’s claims to historic rights and resources within its nine-dash line have no legal basis;

 

(b)  None of China’s claimed land features in the Spratly Islands are an island capable of generating a 200-nm exclusive economic zone;

 

(c)   China violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights by interfering with Philippine oil exploration activities, prohibiting Philippine fishing vessels from operating, failing to prevent Chinese fishing vessels from operating, and conducting land reclamation in areas where the Philippines enjoys sovereign rights to explore for and exploit natural resources;

 

(d)  China violated its marine environmental protection obligations under UNCLOS by causing “severe harm to the coral reef environment” with its land reclamation activities and harvesting of endangered species

 

China is legally bound by the tribunal’s ruling by virtue of its ratification of UNCLOS. But China reacted negatively to the ruling, maintaining it was “null and void.”

 

Former Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio said that that “the battle to defend the nation’s EEZ from China mirrors those our forebears waged against colonizers from the 16th to the 20th century, where the country’s best and brightest gave their lives to make the Philippines free”.  MARLAW has organized several public fora with Justice Carpio as the main speaker.

 

In an earlier published statement, MARLAW called on the national leaders to capitalize on the landmark Arbitral Award and to undertake a focused, determined and unwavering defense of our maritime jurisdiction and entitlements under the UNCLOS.

 

MARLAW noted that Congress must urgently and clearly define the limits of the maritime areas of Philippine archipelago as provided under UNCLOS by passing into law the pending Act to Define the Maritime Zones of the Republic of the Philippines.

 

MARLAW strongly believes that the rule of law, alliance with like-minded States and diplomacy especially with Asean are effective tools to achieve a peaceful resolution of the dispute in the WPS on the basis of the Philippine Constitution, UN Charter, UNCLOS and relevant principles of international law.

 

The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) said  that the arbitral decision  is a settled landmark and a definitive contribution to the progressive development of international law.

 

“Just as lighthouses aid vessels in navigating the seas, the award will continue to illuminate the path for all who strive toward not just the peaceful resolution of disputes but also the maintenance of a rules-based international order,” the DFA added.

 

The DFA said the tribunal ruling has “since facilitated the plotting of new paths and trajectories, reflecting the rich maritime heritage of our country and our people, firm in the conviction that our rights over our maritime jurisdictions are indisputable.”

 

Sen. Risa Hontiveros has filed a resolution to declare July 12 of each year National WPS  Victory Day to commemorate the landmark 2016 ruling.

 

“Let’s be proud of the courage and heart of every Filipino who stands up in China. Let’s fight for the Philippines,” says Hontiveros.

 

(Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan law offices. For comments, e-mail info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786.)

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Foreign debts and EDSA People Power Revolution

    EDSA People Power Revolution is linked with the foreign debt   that led to Philippine economy’s decline since the 1980s.     In Marcos vs Manglapus, (G.R. No. 88211 September 15, 1989),   the Supreme   Court said that “nor are the woes of the Republic purely political. The accumulated foreign debt and the plunder of the nation attributed to Mr. Marcos and his cronies left the economy devastated.   xxx We cannot ignore the continually increasing burden imposed on the economy by the excessive foreign borrowing during the Marcos regime, which stifles and stagnates development and is one of the root causes of widespread poverty and all its attendant ills.”   Ferdinand Marcos Sr. was the longest-serving president in Philippine history, holding office for over 20 years, from December 30, 1965, until he was ousted on February 25, 1986. His 21-year rule (7,362 days) included a period of martial law from 1972 to 1981, allowing him to s...
Post a Comment
Read more

The war of the crocodile marks

  The legal   battle of the crocodile marks   was used in   one of   the   three   questions on intellectual property law   in   the 2025 bar exams.      In Question no. 12, XYZ Inc. filed before the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) Trademark Application No. 1-2025-12345 for the mark “TURTLE AND DEVICE.” XYZ Inc.’s mark is an image of a turtle with the word “Turtle” on its side.   ABC Inc. opposed the application, alleging that XYZ Inc.’s mark is confusingly similar or identical to its own mark, which is an image of a tortoise sans any accompanying words.     In its defense, XYZ Inc. argued that the entirety or totality, not just the dominant part, of the marks should be considered in determining whether there is infringement.   The question was lifted from the case of Lacoste S.A. v. Crocodile International Pte Ltd., (G.R. No. 223270 November 6, 2023 ) wherein   French fashion giant...
Post a Comment
Read more

Strengthening intellectual property (IP) protection in the Philippines

The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) have formalized a partnership with   the Intellectual Property Association of the Philippines (IPAP)   and the Licensing Executives Society Philippines (LESP) that aimed at strengthening intellectual property (IP) protection in the country.   In two separate events, the IPO inked two memoranda of agreement (MOA) with the IPAP and LESP on March 2 and 6, 2026 respectively,  in Taguig City.   The term “intellectual property rights” consists of (a) copyright and related rights; (b) trademarks and service marks; (c) geographic indications; (d) industrial designs; (e) patents; (f) layout-designs (topographies) of integrate circuits; and (g) protection of undisclosed information.   IP laws lay down the remedies available to the IP owner in case of a violation of his rights through administrative, civil and criminal sanctions against violators.   The IP laws aim to protect and secure ...
Post a Comment
Read more