Territorial Dispute Over the West Philippine Sea

The defense of the country’s sovereign rights is one of the greatest challenges it is
facing today, more specifically when it comes to the West Philippine Sea (WPS). From the
standpoint of the Philippines, WPS forms part of its territory. However, some other countries
are also claiming sovereign rights over the same area. The People’s Republic of China,
Taiwan, and Vietnam have all made their claims of historical sovereignty of the Spratly’s
Islands for many years. China, in particular, claims ownership of the “South China Sea”
(SCS) with history as its basis. Accordingly, SCS/WPS has always formed part of China’s
traditional fishing grounds based on its “nine-dash line” that allegedly extends hundreds of
miles from the island of Hainan. The opposing country claims to have rights to the living and
nonliving resources like fisheries and petroleum found within the lines. Nevertheless, at
present, the Philippines remains to be at an advantageous position as it holds valid legal basis
for its claims of sovereign rights over WPS.
The supreme law of the land defines the Philippine national territory as comprising of
“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” (Art. I, 1987 Philippine Constitution).
Furthermore, “the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago,
regardless of their breadth and dimensions, [also] form part of the internal waters of the
Philippines” (Art. I, 1987 Philippine Constitution). This upholds the prior establishment of an
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) which measures 200 nautical miles or 370 kilometers from
the shores (Sec. 1, P.D. No. 1599, s. 1978). According to the law, the Philippines shall have
exclusive sovereign rights over the EEZ such as but not limited to the enjoyment of marine
resources, including oil and natural gas situated therein, as well as constructions and
authorization or regulation of constructions within the zone. The law also specifically
provides the right to explore and exploit resources for the concerned coastal state within the
EEZ. Installations, structures, research, protection and preservation of maritime resources,
and other rights and duties provided by laws are also some of the activities that could occur in
the same area.
The Philippines is also a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS), which provides for limitations of territorial seas and gives parties an
obligation to conform to the rules and regulations of the said treaty. The UNCLOS further
provides for a manner of arbitration in settling disputes over territories (Sec. 5). It can be
remembered that basing on this, the Philippines initiated arbitral proceedings against China
on the matter of the dispute over WPS back in 2013, specifically asking for maritime
entitlements and questioning the legality of China’s activities in the WPS/SCS. In July 2016,
the issues were addressed in a decision more famously known as the Hague ruling. Here, the
permanent arbitration decided in favor of the Philippines and debunked China’s nine-dash
line theory, further explaining that it overlaps with areas comprising the Philippine’s EEZ
(Global Challenges, 2017). Secondly, the tribunal assessed the status of the WPS maritime
features which China occupied. Particularly, it determined whether or not the construction of
installations and reclamation made by the country are all significant enough to enhance the
maritime features’ statuses- the tribunal ruled in the negative (Global Challenges, 2017).
Lastly, the international court found China’s activities within the SCS/WPS to be illegal,
claiming breach of UNCLOS provisions as the primary basis (Global Challenges, 2017).
China failed to stop from fishing in areas found within the Philippine EEZ and it also
continued to send vessels while preventing Filipino fisherfolks from engaging in fishing at
the Scarborough Shoal.
If one is to follow the above-cited laws, understand the treaty, and enforce the Hague
ruling, it can be concluded that the WPS forms part of the EEZ and therefore, the country
shall enjoy exclusive sovereign rights over the area and resources found therein.

On Political Dynasties
Political dynasties remain to be another problem faced by many countries, not
excusing democracies like the Philippines. Technically, a political dynasty refers to the
concentration, consolidation, or perpetuation of public office and political power by persons
who are related to one another (Limos, 2019). They are traditional political families who
monopolize political power and public offices are passed from generation to generation. This
practice undermines the electoral process by eliminating genuine political competition and
election by the people. According to research, the situation in the country has worsened in the
past three decades. There is a recorded increase of 29% in “fat” political dynasties, or those
where a family of politicians simultaneously hold public office, as of 2017 (Mendoza et al.,
2019). Similarly, in the prior 2013 elections, the dominance of political dynasties was
highlighted because an estimated 74% of elected members in the House of Representatives
alone came from such families (Encarnacion-Tadem & Tadem, 2016). These and many other
similar situations are manifestations that the Philippines is a long way from being a true, ideal
democratic country.
Political clans have succeeded through various means. One variant is “rent-seeking”
political dynasties, or those who use commercial and legal skills to become the leading
entrepreneurs in the country (Encarnacion-Tadem & Encarnacion, 2016). An example would
be the Lopezes whose political base is well-maintained by business and entrepreneurship.
The second one resorts to political violence, a kind which is more commonly referred to as
bossism. In the Philippines, “bosses” include mayors, governors, congressmen, and even
national-level politicians like the President (Encarnacion-Tadem & Encarnacion, 2016).
These heads of political dynasties use their power and authority to control state resources and
apparatuses. Another power base of political clans are electoral politics and networks, or
political machinery in general. These families have learned to build their name on
bureaucracy or even military and economic positions, using legitimate means as coat to their
true intentions.
The implications of this issue on Philippine politics and governance are often not
given enough attention. Because positions are being held by members of the same family
from generation to generation, public office is merely treated as a personal property and not
as a responsibility and obligation. As political dynasties also continue to rule and expand,
democracy in the Philippines also continue to decay. Political dynasties manifest the
dominance of patronage politics instead of a genuine electoral system. Rather than being
elected by the people through their free wills, there is a high tendency of putting people in
public position merely because of fame and name, influenced by the families they come from.
Both the exercise of politics and suffrage have been distorted to favor clans, concentrating
power and authority to a few, and as an effect, gravely threatens the very essence of the
Philippine democratic system. Since choosing candidates are not based on credentials
anymore, the resulting performance of elected officials also tends to fall below the right
standard. The succession of incumbent officials is also adversely affected, as the people
cannot really choose the appropriate people for certain positions. As a further effect, slow
progress and underdevelopment is at hand, with poverty, unemployment, and low-quality
education perpetuating the lower bases of society. Political and socio-economic inequality is
also propagated. Finally, the most imminent effect of such as system would be the continuing
prevalence of corruption in public offices.
Analysts cite three different factors from which the problem on political dynasty roots
namely: political and socio-economic foundations, the inability to effectively implement the
Constitution and other applicable laws, and lastly, a weak opposition to the concept
(Encarnacion-Tadem & Encarnacion, 2016). While the presence of political dynasties is
recognized by many, authorities do not seem to have taken substantial steps to address the
problem. Various movements from the civil society and progressive groups continue their
call to topple political clans. Without enabling laws and regulations from the government
itself, however, such initiatives would only be put to waste. At present time, scholars see the
challenge to eliminate political dynasties in the Philippines as a difficult feat. It will take a lot
more effort from more individuals and concerned groups to make it possible.

The Principle of Separation of Powers

The Philippines follows a presidential form of government. One basic characteristic of the
presidential system of government is the principle of separation of powers. To observe this,
three separate and equal branches are established by the 1987 Constitution: the legislative
which makes the law, the executive which enforces the law, and the judiciary which
interprets the law. These powers are enshrined in Articles 6, 7, and 8 of the Constitution,
respectively.
The legislative branch is authorized to create, alter, and repeal laws through the Congress.
Other powers include regulating interstate and foreign commerce, control taxation, and craft
spending policies (Official Gazette, n.d.). The Congress is the collective term for the Senate
and the House of Representatives who work hand-in-hand to conform with its obligations.
According to the Constitution, twenty-four senators shall make up the Senate while the House
of Representatives shall be composed of not more than 250 members unless otherwise altered
by another law. It also provides that 20% of these House members shall be Party-list
representatives. Article 6 also provides for the qualifications for becoming a member of
Congress. The legislative branch is responsible for enabling laws that uphold the Constitution
and if needed, change the Constitutional provisions per se. Article VII provides that executive
power shall be vested on the President of the Philippines who shall then exercise control over
all executive departments, bureaus, and offices (Official Gazette, n.d.). He is elected by the
people for a term of six years and cannot be re-elected. The Administrative Code of 1987
outlines the power of the President which are: power of control, ordinance power, power over
aliens, power of eminent domain, power of appointment, general supervision power over
local governments, among others. All other government officials not otherwise falling under
the legislative and judicial branches form part of the executive department. Lastly, Article 8
of the 1987 Constitution provides that judicial power rests on the Supreme Court and the
lower courts whose duties include the settlement of “actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable” (Official Gazette, n.d.). This branch enjoys
fiscal autonomy but appointments are made by the President.
While these branches are considered separate and independent from each other, the
Constitution also provides for the principle of checks and balances. Here, the executive,
legislative, and judiciary are all empowered to prevent actions by each other making them
induced to share power. For instance, the Congress pass laws but are subject to the
President’s approval (i.e. bills will only be laws when the President signs them). The latter is
given the power to veto bills within a certain period upon receipt. Vetoing in this context
means the constitutional right to reject a bill passed by the Congress and the President may
choose not to sign. In the same way, the judicial branch can declare laws passed by Congress
and approved by the President to be unconstitutional and are therefore, void.
On Constitutional Change

The 1987 Philippine Constitution serves as the supreme law of the land for the reason
that all other laws, rules, and regulations are required to conform to it. Whenever a law, or a
part thereof, is found to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, the former
will be declared void and invalid by the courts. More notably, the Constitution embodies and
grants all the rights of the citizens as well as the obligations and responsibilities of their
government to them. Constitutional or charter change, or most commonly dubbed as cha-cha
in colloquial terms, refers to the process of revising or amending the constitution. In the
country, there have been several attempts for a charter change for various purposes, the most
recent being a move for federalism. This paper argues in favor of constitutional amendment
in general, but not in the context of changing the form of Philippine government. The first
reason for this is that many in power take advantage of the process to advance personal
interests. Specifically to federalism, the country seems to be not yet ready for a government
form change. Lastly, it’s not a good time for a cha-cha given the current global situation;
there are many more important concerns to be prioritized.
Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution provides for the different methods of proposing
amendments and revisions to the same namely: 1) by a ¾ vote of all the members of both
houses of Congress, a.k.a. a constituent assembly, 2) through a constitutional convention, or
3) direct propositions of the people through a process called initiative. While the idea of cha-
cha entails a noble purpose, that is, to change and update constitutional provisions as may be
necessary, some of those who are in authority take advantage of the process. For instance, a
lot of politicians in the Philippines’ history have tried to propose amendments to the
Constitution for their own benefits, more particularly to extend their term in office. Since the
said law provides for the ultimate guidelines for public offices including provisions on
qualifications, term limits, elections, power, authority, and other related regulations, there is a
need to revise its contents before the political system itself can be changed.
In the country, a lot of administrations have initiated proceedings aimed at changing the
supreme law of the land but all to no avail. It was in 1997 when former President Fidel
Ramos laid down a proposal for cha-cha, an act which sparked speculations and outrage from
the public who perceived it to be an attempt of prolonging the administration’s years in
office. His successor Joseph Estrada followed, even changing the term to Constitutional
Correction for Development trying to win the support of the people. Perhaps the most
controversial cha-cha proposition took place during Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s term, where
the famous Hello Garci scandal tape also became known. These attempts cited varying
reasons for proposing a constitutional change. The latest one emerged recently under the
present administration and focuses on an attempt to introduce a new form of government-
federalism. Unfortunately, the legitimacy of charter change is also used for the crooked
intentions of some. Speculations have it that like his predecessors, President Rodrigo Duterte
initiated the move for federalism in order to extend his term.
 This brings me to my second point: the Philippines is not yet ready for federalism.
The current form of government the Philippines follows is presidential. This is a kind of
unitary government where power and authority is centralized in a national government. On
the other hand, federalism is characterized by two levels of government- an overseeing
national government who is responsible for broader governance and smaller subdivisions of
states who take care of local concerns. In contrast to the first onem power in federalism is
divided into these levels and aims to preserve liberty so that there would be no monopoly and
domination by a few. A very good example of federal form of government would be the
United States. The problem here in the country is that many do not understand the real
purpose of federalism. Contrary to popular belief, federalism will not solve the problem of
unity because what we already have is a unitarian form of government. In fact in a federal
system, the power and authority will reside with local leaders, the counterpart of which are
the mayors and governors in our current system. The current pandemic also highlighted the
problems of incompetency in many local governments in the country. Rather than imposing a
total change, what the Philippine government needs to do is to refresh themselves with the
true intention of a unitary form of government. The most important thing for the citizenry to
do is to elect national and local leaders alike who have integrity and capability to interpret
and apply the Constitution as it was intended by the framers to be.