Patricia Lourdes Viray 

(Philstar.com) - September 13, 2019 - 11:43am

MANILA, Philippines — Following President Rodrigo Duterte's declaration of setting aside the
Philippines' victory in the South China Sea arbitration, Malacañang said that the proposed joint
oil and gas exploration with China is not yet final.

Earlier this week, Duterte said the Philippine government will "ignore" the arbitral award in
order to pursue economic activity in the West Philippine Sea, the portion of South China Sea that
is within the country's exclusive economic zone.

Presidential spokesperson Salvador Panelo said the technical committees of both the Philippines
and China have yet to meet to discuss the terms of reference of the possible joint exploration.

Aside from negotiations on the possible joint exploration, Panelo said Manila and Beijing are
also discussing the West Philippine Sea issue. China refuses to acknowledge the 2016 arbitral
award that invalidated its nine-dash line claim over the disputed South China Sea.

"Dito muna tayo mag-concentrate sa mga areas of concern na maaaring magbenepisyo ang ating
dalawang bansa kasama na nga iyong joint exploration," Panelo told radio dzMM Friday.

(Let us concentrate first in areas of concern that will benefit both of our countries, including the
joint exploration,)

Panelo stressed that the maritime dispute and the proposed joint exploration in the West
Philippine Sea are separate issues.

'It cannot be set aside'

The Malacañang mouthpiece also stressed that the arbitral ruling cannot be set aside, despite
Duterte's earlier statement.

"From the very beginning the president has been saying that the arbitral ruling is final, binding...
So it cannot be set aside. It's always there," Panelo said.

In a press briefing last Tuesday night, Duterte said Chinese President Xi Jinping told him that
Beijing would agree to a 60-40 sharing scheme if the Philippines would set aside the arbitral
ruling.

"Set aside your claim. Then allow everybody connected with the Chinese companies,” Duterte
said, recalling his conversation with his Chinese counterpart.

Duterte also recalled how Xi refused to "budge" when he brought up the arbitral award in their
bilateral meeting last month.
"You know, China is there. He holds the property under the claim of ownership. 'Yan ang sagot
niya. It is ours, we will not budge," Duterte said.

Duterte hasn’t given up claim in South China Sea

https://www.bworldonline.com/duterte-hasnt-given-up-claim-in-south-china-sea/
PRESIDENT Rodrigo R. Duterte had not agreed to ignore an arbitration court ruling that voided
China’s claims to more than 80% of the South China Sea, in exchange for a joint oil and gas
exploration of the disputed waterway dangled by its neighbor, his spokesman said yesterday.
“He did not say that the Philippines will drop the claim,” presidential spokesman Salvador S.
Panelo told reporters, referring to Mr. Duterte’s discussion with Chinese President Xi Jinping
during his recent visit to Beijing. What the president meant was that “the arbitral ruling is still
subject to peaceful talks,” he added.
Mr. Panelo said there’s an impasse so people should let the two leaders talk about the planned
joint exploration.
Mr. Duterte has said Mr. Xi had told him that if he ignored the 2016 United Nations ruling
favoring the Philippines, China would agree to be the junior partner in a joint venture to develop
gas deposits at the Reed Bank, which is within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The tribunal in The Hague clarified maritime boundaries and the Philippines’ sovereign
entitlements, and in doing so, invalidated China’s claims to almost the entire South China Sea.
China has rejected the ruling.
The decision came after the Philippines under then President Benigno S.C. Aquino III sued
China before the international court.
Mr. Duterte has sought to befriend Mr. Xi, hoping to secure billions of dollars of investments. He
has avoided challenging China over its reclamation activities in the South China Sea, including
its militarized artificial islands.
Meanwhile, Vice President Maria Leonor G. Robredo said ignoring the arbitral ruling is
“profoundly disappointing and extremely irresponsible.”
“Entering into any agreement should not come at the expense of upholding our rights to the West
Philippine Sea,” she said, referring to parts of the South China Sea that are within the
Philippines’ exclusive economic zone.
Ms. Robredo said the Constitution allows the government to enter into agreements with foreign
entities for exploration and development of oil and gas resources, but these should benefit the
people.
“Ultimately, how the president handles the delicate issue of the West Philippine Sea will have
implications, not only for the remainder of his term, but for all subsequent administrations,” the
vice president said.
“We must take great care in ensuring that we are not trading away the long-term interests of our
nation and our children for short-term profit,” she added.
The UN court in 2016 said the Philippines had legal rights to exploit gas deposits that China also
claims at the Reed Bank, about 85 miles (140 kilometers) off the Philippine coast.
The Philippines’ only accessible gas resources at the Malampaya fields will run out by 2024. A
joint project with China has been talked about for decades, but has gone nowhere due to the
competing claims.
Joint activity could be deemed as legitimizing the other side’s claim, or even relinquishing
sovereign rights. — V.A.C. Ferreras and A.L. Balinbin

Malacañang: Robredo should be ‘more circumspect’ in commenting about South China

Sea issue
https://news.mb.com.ph/2019/09/13/malacanang-robredo-should-be-more-circumspect-in-
commenting-about-south-china-sea-issue/

By Genalyn Kabiling
Vice President Leni Robredo should be “more circumspect” in commenting about the South
China Sea issue and rely on her instincts as a lawyer and mother protective of the nation,
Malacañang said Friday.
Presidential Spokesman Salvador Panelo also urged Robredo to hire new political advisers who
are knowledgeable in geopolitics and diplomacy following her alleged “misplaced and
flamboyant” comments about the maritime issue.
Robredo earlier said it was “profoundly disappointing and extremely irresponsible” for President
Duterte to declare the Philippines will set aside the 2016 arbitral victory in the maritime dispute
with China to pave the way for a joint oil exploration project. Any agreement “should not come
at the expense of upholding our rights to the West Philippine Sea,” the Vice President added.
“We hope that the Vice President will be more circumspect in issuing statements on the matter
and rely more on her instinct as a lawyer and mother protective of those she is constitutionally
tasked to shepherd,” Panelo said.
“Like the usual detractors and critics of the President, VP Robredo may have been carried away
by their nitpicking and habitual engagement in useless and unproductive semantics,” he added.
Borrowing Robredo’s words, Panelo also found “profoundly disappointing and extremely
irresponsible” the Vice President’s penchant of” finding fault in every word the President says,
as well as issuing misplaced and flamboyant remarks against it.”
He suggested that Robredo should also replace her political advisers “with some erudite
intellectuals knowledgeable in geopolitics and in the art of diplomacy.”
“The problem with my friend Vice President Leni Robredo is the inability of her political
advisers to comprehend the complexities of our current situation with China,” he said.
Panelo told Robredo that President Duterte was not in any way surrendering the country’s rights
over the West Philippine Sea even as it would pursue a joint oil exploration project with China.
He insisted that the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling, that invalidated China’s excessively
claims in th South China Sea, was final, binding and unappealable.
He said such ruling would “be there forever and ever, as in forever.” “It has the permanence of
the Rock of Gibraltar whose extinction can come only when there is a massive geographical
movement of the earth’s surface,” he said.
“The President will not allow nor sit idly in silence respecting any action by the international
community in derogation thereof. He is fiercely protective of the country’s sovereignty,” he said.
He said when the President declared he will set aside the ruling, he would first focus on
exploring an area beneficial to the Filipinos “pending the continuing diplomatic and peaceful
negotiation of our territorial dispute with China.”
“Notwithstanding this impasse with China on our territorial conflict, wisdom, prudence, and
pragmatism dictate that we forge in strengthening our foreign relations on uncontested matters
that will invariably provide mutual benefit to our countries,” he said.
“Of particular note is the joint exploration of our natural resources in the West Philippine Sea,
which is outside the ambit of our difference with China over which our Constitution expressly
allows,” he added.
He said it would be the “height of folly and naïveté” if Manila were to ignore areas of investment
that the country needs to propel economic growth.
“As matter of sound foreign policy, our difference with China, or with any other country for the
matter, cannot be the sum total of our relationship with it or with any other,” he said

EXPLAINER: Philippines' 5 Arguments VS China

https://www.cfo.gov.ph/news/cfo-news-and-events/3248-explainer-philippines-5-arguments-vs-
china.html

https://www.cfo.gov.ph/news/cfo-news-and-events/3248-explainer-philippines-5-arguments-vs-
china.html
MANILA, Philippines – The Philippines' case against China over the West Philippine Sea (South
China Sea) boils down to 5 basic arguments.
Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario outlined these claims on Tuesday, July 7, the
first day of arguments at The Hague. (READ: Philippines vows to smash China's strongest
argument)
For the oral hearings that run until July 13, we've listed these 5 arguments, quoted verbatim from
Del Rosario.
Below each argument, we've added our own notes to explain things in a nutshell. We've also
included links to other stories for further reading and reference.
The Philippines' arguments revolve around the right to fish, as well as to exploit other resources,
in the West Philippine Sea. (READ: PH vs China at The Hague: '80% of fish' at stake)
This right is based on the so-called Constitution for the Oceans, the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Under UNCLOS, a coastal state has the exclusive right to fish within its exclusive economic
zone (EEZ), an area 200 nautical miles from the coastal state's baselines or edges.
1. China's 'historical rights'
ARGUMENT: "First, that China is not entitled to exercise what it refers to as 'historic rights'
over the waters, seabed, and subsoil beyond the limits of its entitlements under the Convention."
EXPLANATION: China says the South China Sea has belonged to it for centuries. This is why it
claims "historical rights" over the disputed sea.
Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio of the Philippine Supreme Court, however, says that
"even if true," these historical rights have no bearing on sea disputes under UNCLOS. Carpio
explains that UNCLOS "extinguished all historical rights of other states." This UN convention
instead gives each coastal state an EEZ. (READ: Top Philippine judge uses Chinese maps vs
China)
2. China's 9-dash line
ARGUMENT: "Second, that the so-called 9-dash line has no basis whatsoever under
international law insofar as it purports to define the limits of China’s claim to 'historic rights.'"
EXPLANATION: The 9-dash line is China's demarcation to claim virtually the entire South
China Sea. China says this is based on its "historical rights."
The Philippines, however, asserts that the 9-dash line is baseless under UNCLOS. This UN
convention allows an EEZ, not a 9-dash line. (READ: No such thing as 9-dash line – US envoy)
3. Rocks vs islands
ARGUMENT: "Third, that the various maritime features relied upon by China as a basis upon
which to assert its claims in the South China Sea are not islands that generate entitlement to an
exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. Rather, some are 'rocks' within the meaning of
Article 121, paragraph 3; others are low-tide elevations; and still others are permanently
submerged. As a result, none are capable of generating entitlements beyond 12NM (nautical
miles), and some generate no entitlements at all. China’s recent massive reclamation activities
cannot lawfully change the original nature and character of these features."
EXPLANATION: Under UNCLOS, habitable islands can generate a 200-nautical-mile EEZ.
Rocks cannot.
China describes some features in the South China Sea as islands. One of these is Panatag Shoal
(Scarborough Shoal), a rocky sandbar. China claims these supposed islands.
China also says these "islands" generate an EEZ, which could overlap with the EEZ of the
Philippines. The problem for the Philippines is, China declared in 2006 that it "does not accept"
arbitral jurisdiction when it comes to overlapping EEZs. UNCLOS allows this exception.
This is partly why China says the tribunal at The Hague has no right to hear the Philippine case –
because it supposedly involves overlapping EEZs.
"The maritime dispute between the Philippines and China boils down to whether there are
overlapping EEZs between the Philippines and China in the West Philippine Sea," Senior
Associate Justice Carpio says.
Carpio, however, explains that "China has no EEZ that overlaps with the Philippines' EEZ in the
Scarborough area." Carpio also believes an international tribunal "will deny Itu Aba," the largest
island in the Spratlys, an EEZ. (READ:Why China calls it Huangyan Island)
The Philippines adds that China's reclamation activities cannot "lawfully change" rocks into
islands.
4. Breach of the law of the sea
ARGUMENT: "Fourth, that China has breached the Convention by interfering with the
Philippines’ exercise of its sovereign rights and jurisdiction."
EXPLANATION: China prevents Filipinos from fishing in the West Philippine Sea. UNCLOS,
on the other hand, gives Filipinos the exclusive rights to fish within the Philippines' EEZ in the
disputed waters. (READ: PH fisherfolk: Living with Chinese coast guard's hostility)
5. Damage to environment
ARGUMENT: "China has irreversibly damaged the regional marine environment, in breach of
UNCLOS, by its destruction of coral reefs in the South China Sea, including areas within the
Philippines’ EEZ, by its destructive and hazardous fishing practices, and by its harvesting of
endangered species."
EXPLANATION: China is building artificial islands in the West Philippine Sea. The Philippines
says China's reclamation activities have buried 311 hectares of coral reefs – around 7 times the
size of Vatican City. This can mean P4.8 billion ($106.29 million) in lost economic benefits. At
the same time, China is accused of poaching. (READ: PH: China 'irreversibly damaged'
environment)
China, for its part, refuses to answer the Philippines' arguments in arbitration proceedings. It has
instead published a position paper debunking the Philippines' claims.
In the end, the Philippines says, the case at The Hague is set to provide a long-term solution to
the sea dispute. (READ: FULL TEXT: The Philippines' opening salvo at The Hague)
For Del Rosario, UNCLOS provisions "allow the weak to challenge the powerful on an equal
footing, confident in the conviction that principles trump power; that law triumphs over force;
and that right prevails over might." – Rappler.com
Source:
Rappler
http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/98839-philippines-china-hague-arguments-explanation
Paterno Esmaquel II