WE ADD our voice to the statement of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines which declared the Philippines has sovereign rights over its 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone in the West Philippine Sea.
The area, which has seen Filipinos being harassed by Chinese during humanitarian missions, has been the site of rising tensions despite the grant by the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Seas to states sovereign rights over their exclusive economic zones.
This means 200 nautical miles from the baselines of the countries: the disputed territory of Ayungin (Second Thomas) Shoal is 105 nautical miles from Palawan and 621 miles from China’s southern Hainan island.
The other day, the mandatory association of lawyers, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which has nearly 79,000 members, said the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas, to which the Philippines and China are both signatories, “granted coastal states sovereign rights over their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ), extending up to 200 nautical miles from their baselines.”
“Therefore, the West Philippine Sea is inside the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone to the extent of 200 miles measured from our country’s archipelagic baselines,” the IBP said.
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. himself continues to stand firm in defending the country’s sovereignty in the West Philippine Sea amid reports the Chinese increased their electronic communication jamming activities against Philippine vessels in the area.
In an earlier interview, President Marcos expressed his apprehension over the aggressive maneuvers of Chinese nautical assets in the WPS, saying China is now deploying its Navy ships to support the Chinese Coast Guard vessels already deployed there.
The IBP backed its support for the Marcos’ administration’s stance with the 2016 decision by the Permanent Court of Arbitration confirming the Philippines has sovereign rights over its EEZ in the West Philippine Sea.
We endorse the IBP’s observation the area disputed by China is well within Manila’s exclusive economic zone and Filipino fishermen are exercising their right to a livelihood within the country’s EEZ.
The IBP was to the point in bold and clear letters of its statement when it said it also “supports the legitimate stand of the Philippine government in asserting our country’s lawful and sovereign rights over the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone in the West Philippine Sea.”.
It cited the cited the Treaty of Paris of 1898 and the Spanish-United States Treaty of Washington in 1900 as the basis for its argument.
The IBP said Article III of the Treaty of Paris “clearly delineated the territorial boundaries of the Philippine archipelago” when Spain ceded to the US all rights of sovereignty over the Philippines, including the waters surrounding the islands.
The Spanish-US Treaty of Washington supplemented this by clarifying and affirming the cession of additional islands to the US as part of Philippine territory, it said.
The Treaty of Washington documented Spain’s cession to the US “of any and all islands of the Philippine Archipelago lying outside of the lines described in Article III of the Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898.”
“When the Philippines gained independence, all these islands covered by the Treaty of Paris and Treaty of Washington that form part of the Philippine archipelago became part of our country’s territory,” it said.
IBP also said the Permanent Arbitration Court ruling “clarified the Philippines shall enjoy all economic rights within its EEZ, including fishing, resource exploration and marine conservation.”
