“We cannot allow misinformation to weaken our sovereign rights”
THE West Philippine Sea is more than just a coordinate on a map; it is the ultimate test of the Philippines’ resolve to uphold international law.
Recently, the national conversation has been muddied by interpretations of maritime incidents—such as a Chinese Navy vessel allegedly assisting a Filipino fisherman—that attempt to rewrite our legal standing.
In a recent column, Charlie V. Manalo echoed positions often favored by Beijing, suggesting the term “West Philippine Sea” lacks legal weight, that our Exclusive Economic Zone is essentially a free-for-all, and the 2016 Arbitral Ruling is non-binding.
As a matter of national interest, these claims must be corrected. We cannot allow misinformation to weaken our sovereign rights.
The name is administrative; the right is legal
Critics argue that because “West Philippine Sea” was established by Administrative Order 29 in 2012, it lacks international standing. This is a fundamental misunderstanding.
The name itself is an administrative tool for national standardization.
Our maritime rights, however, do not spring from a presidential order—they flow directly from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a binding treaty to which both the Philippines and China are signatories.
Names do not confer rights; treaties do.
Whether we call it the West Philippine Sea or the South China Sea, the law dictates that the resources within our EEZ belong to the Filipino people.
The EEZ has clear, non-negotiable boundaries
The 2016 Arbitral Award was categorical: Recto Bank and its surrounding features fall within the Philippine EEZ.
UNCLOS defines the EEZ as extending 200 nautical miles from a coastal state’s baselines.
The boundaries are not ambiguous.
Foreign vessels operating within these waters cannot claim ignorance or uncertainty.
When foreign entities perform law enforcement functions or resource extraction in our EEZ, they are not exercising “freedom of navigation”—they are committing a legal transgression.
The EEZ is not territory, but it is not ‘open’
A common distraction is the argument that the EEZ is not “sovereign territory.”
While technically true—it is a maritime zone rather than land territory—it carries exclusive sovereign rights.
Under UNCLOS, the Philippines has the sole right to fish, extract minerals, and manage the environment within this 200-nautical-mile zone.
Other nations enjoy freedom of navigation and overflight, but they do not have the right to conduct military intimidation or exploit resources.
Freedom of navigation is a right of passage, not a license for coercion.
Humanitarian acts are not a substitute for sovereignty
We must distinguish between the universal duty to assist mariners in distress and the geopolitical reality of militarization.
Assistance at sea is a legal obligation under international law, but it does not justify a persistent, unauthorized military presence in another nation’s EEZ.
A single act of “aid” does not wash away years of systematic harassment of Filipino fisherfolk.
The 2016 arbitral award: Binding and final
There is a persistent myth that the Arbitral Ruling is invalid because China did not participate.
However, UNCLOS explicitly states that the absence of a party does not prevent the proceedings from moving forward or diminish the finality of the decision.
The ruling’s authority comes from the treaty itself.
To suggest the ruling is “just a piece of paper” is to suggest that international law only applies when it is convenient for the powerful.
That is a dangerous precedent that the Philippines, and the rest of the world, must reject.
Diplomacy must be anchored in law
Diplomacy is the preferred path to peace, but it must be anchored in truth.
Abandoning the Arbitral Award in the name of “cooperation” would be a surrender of our strongest legal asset.
Diplomacy without law is not peace; it is weakness.
We must engage with our neighbors, but we must do so from a position of legal clarity. If we compromise on the law today, we lose the sea tomorrow.
Conclusion
The West Philippine Sea is not an emotional invention or a political stunt.
It is a legally defined reality affirmed by the highest international maritime authorities.
As misleading claims gain traction, we must remain vigilant. Not every reasonable-sounding argument is true, and not every call for “quiet” serves the interest of peace.
Defending our waters is a collective duty.
True patriotism requires a firm, measured, and unwavering defense of our rights through the rule of law.
(The writer, who holds Juris Doctor, PhD degrees, is Chairman Emeritus of Alyansa ng Bantay sa Kapayapaan at Demokrasya, People’s Alliance for Democracy and Reforms, Liga Independencia Pilipinas, and the Filipinos Do Not Yield Movement. He holds advanced degrees including an MNSA, MPA, and MBA).
