Filipinos Urged to Uphold West Philippine Sea Arbitral Ruling

MANILA, Philippines — Filipinos should continue to stand firm in protecting the country’s rights in the West Philippine Sea, according to Ed dela Torre, president of Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM) as tensions between Manila and Beijing continue over the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone. Dela Torre’s call comes amid renewed discussions on the 2016 arbitral ruling and China’s continuing rejection of the decision. Earlier, Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro Jr. received a note from a Chinese official reiterating Beijing’s rejection of the 2016 ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in favor of the Philippines in the maritime dispute. Ten years after the ruling, China continues to maintain that the arbitration was “illegal, null and void.” Teodoro, for his part, criticized China’s latest assertion, describing the situation as “actual coercion, bullying and aggression.” The renewed tensions underscore the call of retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio for Filipinos to remain firm in defending the country’s national territory and sovereign rights. Carpio made the statement in “The Unsinkable Spirit”, a recent three-part documentary that featured how generations of Filipinos have defended the West Philippine Sea through diplomacy and adherence to international law. “It is our obligation to protect that, not only for the present generation, but future generations,” Carpio said. The Philippines brought its maritime case before the tribunal in The Hague, challenging China’s expansive claims under the Nine-Dash Line. In its 2016 award, the tribunal recognized the Philippines’ entitlement to maritime zones under international law, including rights within its exclusive economic zone. For geopolitical analyst and professor Chester Cabalza, the ruling can be viewed in the context of the Filipino First principle, which is associated with the economic policies of former President Carlos Garcia and is reflected in the 1987 Constitution. Cabalza pointed to the importance of the ruling to Filipino fisherfolk whose livelihood depends on access to the sea. “Our fisherfolk feed the Filipinos and if they could not fish, how could they feed us?” Cabalza said. Supreme Court spokesperson Camille Ting explained that the Filipino First policy requires the state to give preference to qualified Filipinos when granting rights, privileges and concessions involving the national economy and patrimony. Ting also noted that the policy is self-executing and can be enforced directly without the need for an implementing law. “National patrimony is not limited to the country’s natural resources. It also includes the Philippines’ cultural heritage and other assets that form part of the Filipino identity,” Ting said. Meanwhile, Cabalza emphasized the importance of strategic autonomy amid continuing geopolitical tensions. He said a country should be capable of protecting its national interests even while maintaining treaty alliances with other nations. He also stressed that the Philippines’ decision to bring its case against China before an international tribunal was a decision made by the country itself. “If we do not protect the Filipino First concept, it is so easy for major powers to just intrude in our homeland,” Cabalza said. Philippine Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Ronnie Gil Gavan, meanwhile, said Filipinos should continue to remember the significance of the arbitration ruling despite China’s continuing rejection of it. “The law has remained to be the great leveler in the relationship amongst countries, big or small. We are equal insofar as the law is concerned. And it has remained to be the best friend of weaker countries,” Gavan said. A decade after the arbitral ruling, Carpio described the protection of the country’s maritime rights as an intergenerational responsibility. He said the previous generation had laid the foundation through the arbitration victory, but succeeding generations must continue to protect the rights secured through international law. “The Constitution, in the end, only promises the inheritance. Each generation still has to go out and hold it,” Carpio said. (Contributed story)