A Reaction

on the Discussion on
The South China Sea Dispute: Philippines v. China
by
Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio

Submitted to:
Atty. Mary Cantorias Marvel

Submitted by:
Neil Andrew L. Yanson
LLB1 L03
Legal Research and Writing II
(Friday, 06:30-08:30PM)
The South China Sea Dispute: Philippines v. China (Reaction) Neil Andrew L. Yanson LLB1 L03

I would have to admit that before the enlightening talk of the Honorable Justice
Carpio, I have considered our victory in the international tribunal over the People’s
Republic China (PRC) concerning our claims on the South China Sea a mere paper
victory destined to be consigned to the annals of international jurisprudence until oblivion
shall have effaced it from our collective memory – perhaps a brutum fulmen which
practically confers to us no actual right in the disputed territory.

But the talk reminded me of the time-honored principle that we are “a government
of laws and not of men.”1 That the PRC refuses to recognize the arbitral ruling should be
of no moment to our leaders, especially the President of the Republic whose
constitutionally-mandated duty as commander in chief of the armed forces is “to secure
the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory.” 2

In the first place, the PRC is a state-party to the Convention on the Law of the Sea.
By being one, it has submitted itself to the tribunal’s jurisdiction and it cannot, by mere
refusal to recognize the lawfully-rendered judgment, evade enforcement just because the
decision turned out to be adverse to its interests. To hold otherwise would render
nugatory the very purpose of compulsory dispute settlements, a salutary resort especially
for militarily-weak states like the Philippines whose main protection is the law which
governs the relations between states. The PRC cannot, by the simple expedient of non-
recognition of a lawful judgment, be allowed to do the contrary.

We already have the judgment – what comes next is the enforcement which would
give our victory the actual practical effect. Here lies the difficulty when one thinks of the
power and influence which the PRC wields in the international community.

A number of possible courses of action have been advanced. The first is to settle
amicably and bilaterally the conflict with the PRC. It has however turned out to be a failure
and to the detriment of our national interests since apparently the PRC has no plans of
relinquishing its claims to the disputed territories. Instead, it has done just the opposite
by constructing military-grade bases on these islands while we in silence and with little
protest are just watching and waiting for the next action of our adversary. This should
already tell us that mere bilateral discussions with the PRC is an exercise in futility, nay,
a dangerous exercise which threatens to put to naught the victory that is in our hands.
The PRC has been inculcating in its citizens’ minds that the entire South China Sea
encompassed by their so-called (and historically baseless) “nine-dashed line” is theirs
and no judgment can take it away from them. Nationalist feelings are high. Should we
not also fan the same feelings and sentiments in us considering that we even have the
legal and historical bases to assert our rights on the disputed territories?

1
John Adams, Second President of the United States.
2
Art. II, Sec. 3, 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Page 2 of 3
The South China Sea Dispute: Philippines v. China (Reaction) Neil Andrew L. Yanson LLB1 L03

The prospect of war, while not impossible, should not be one of the immediate
courses of action that our government should be thinking of. True, we are a dwarf when
compared to the military might of the PRC but there are still other prudent means to
enforce the judgment. The case of Nicaragua v. United States decided by the
International Court of Justice is an assurance for us to continue fighting for the
enforcement of the judgment despite the David and Goliath battle that we find ourselves
in. A superpower like the PRC may exhaust all of its political (and extra-legal) power in
the international community to bully the weaker states bordering the South China Sea,
but in the end, it should be and it is the law that should remain supreme. As David was
in the right, he slew the giant Goliath despite the apparent mismatch in their strength.
Like Nicaragua, our government should be a persistent objector to every act which the
PRC undertakes and threatens our rights over the disputed territory. The judgment may
not be enforced in our lifetime but as long as we persistently assert our lawful rights to
these territories by constant objections to the PRC’s unlawful advancements, we cannot
be robbed of the possibility of an eventual enforcement.

The United States, our long-standing ally, has already expressed protest over the
PRC’s acts on the South China Sea. Other states like France, the United Kingdom, and
Australia, have also followed suit. Of course, one would think that these states do not act
merely out of pure generosity. They too would want to protect their own interests in the
disputed South China Sea. This is the harsh reality but this is understandable and
ultimately beneficial to us because as long as there are other superpowers patrolling the
South China Sea, the PRC’s monopoly of power would be kept in check until the day
when we can finally stand and fight for our own rights.

Let us then not be silent when we are in the right and instead exhaust all lawful
means including seeking the aid of other states in the community of nations to protect our
own interests. To do otherwise would ultimately lead us to the time when our own silence
shall betray not just us but our posterity who shall look upon us as a generation of cowards
miserably lacking in political will and the zeal for the law.

Page 3 of 3