THE WEST PHILIPPINE SEA DISPUTE: A GEOPOLITICAL STORM RAGING OFF THE COAST

Written By: Carlo Alfonso S. Sales and Kristi Anne Sharmaine S. Biares

The West Philippine Sea (WPS) dispute has existed for far longer than previously known by the collective consciousness of the Filipino people—like a tumor, quietly corroding Philippine sovereignty. It metastasized on April 8, 2012, when China forcefully seized Scarborough Shoal, just 124 nautical miles from our shores: a unilateral act of aggression that emboldened the nuclear-weapon state to commit intrusions of increasing frequency and violence into our sacred territory.

The Scarborough Shoal standoff prompted the Philippines to enforce its rights before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague, which ruled in its July 12, 2016 decision that China’s claims over the WPS were incompatible with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Indeed, we had won the battle—but the war is far from over.

The multifaceted economic potential of the WPS includes petroleum reserves, strategic shipping routes that facilitate global trade, abundant coral reefs, and essential submarine cables critical for digital communication and internet infrastructure. It also contains stores of methane hydrates, a fossil fuel resource that could power the Chinese economy for over a century. From recent military conflicts with Taiwan, the arm of China’s neocolonialism has extended its reach to seize the WPS, even in flagrant violation of international law.

International law recognizes five modes of acquiring sovereignty over territory: occupation, prescription, accretion, cession, and, in some cases, annexation. Prior to the 18th century, a state could claim sovereignty simply by “discovering” the land. Subsequent changes to customary international law requires occupation of the unclaimed land in a visible and effective manner, like taking possession and establishing an administrative presence on behalf of the state.

In its position paper dated December 7, 2014 submitted to the Arbitral Tribunal, China confidently contended that it has satisfactorily complied with the legal requirements, being the first state to have exercised sovereignty and jurisdiction over the South China Sea and its landmasses continuously, peacefully, and effectively for over 2,000 years.

In the words of former Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, this is the “fake news of the millennium.”

China’s position conflicts with their own Atlas of Ancient Maps of China, a three-volume official Chinese publication containing maps from the Tang (618-907 CE) up to the Ming and Qing Dynasties (1618-1683), which consistently showed the Hainan province as its southernmost boundary, with no claims whatsoever to the Paracels, Spratlys, or Scarborough Shoal.

Conversely, the 1734 Carta Hydrographica y Chorographica de las Yslas Filipinas, considered the “mother of all Philippine maps,” shows Scarborough Shoal and the Spratlys as part of Philippine territory during the Spanish regime; it is also the oldest map to assign names thereto, to wit: Panacot and Los Bajos de Paragua, respectively. No older maps from China or any other country show these two features as part of their territory. Furthermore, under the Treaty of Paris (1898), the Treaty of Washington (1900) and the 1930 British Treaty, Philippine territory was explicitly defined with both features also recognized as part of the Philippine Archipelago.

Based on the foregoing maps and official documents, the 2016 tribunal ruling invalidated China’s nine-dash line, establishing that the South China Sea includes high seas within the Philippine EEZ where we hold exclusive rights to the resources therein, while condemning China’s unlawful activities in our waters. All said, however, without proper enforcement of the decision, this remains a mere victory on paper.

As an emerging superpower with the world’s largest maritime militia, China currently has 234 warships at its behest in furtherance of its expansionist ambitions by way of harassment, resource exploitation, and land reclamation.

Despite the PCA’s specific determination that Mischief Reef of the Spratlys belongs to the Philippine EEZ, China has established a massive military outpost thereon, including a runway, radar, and marine barracks sighted in early 2024. 

Tensions rose in February 2024 when the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) accused the Chinese Coast Guard (CCG) of directing a “military-grade laser” at a Philippine ship during a resupply mission. In June, the CCG allegedly blocked and used water cannons against supply boats near Second Thomas Shoal. In November, the Philippines called on China to remove all “illegal structures” within its EEZ and cease reclamation activities. 

While the Philippines maintains its constitutionally-enshrined policy of renouncing war as an instrument of national policy, we must not stand by as foreign invaders lurk beyond our shores in brazen disregard for our right to what is ours—even more so when traitors and sycophants are in our midst. 

It is no coincidence that China’s subversion of Philippine sovereignty has been progressively lacking in subtlety for the last eight years. From last administration’s blind eye to the hopelessness of the current, the present Chinese subterfuge has not only survived but flourished—crawling within the gold-plated premises of illicit POGOs; infiltrating our own local government in a quiet Tarlac farm; and raging stronger and stronger off our coast. 

In the face of this adversary, Philippine sovereignty cannot be negotiated, diluted, or ignored. A nation’s dignity is defined not by its capitulation, but by its unwavering resolve to protect what is justly and historically its own. The WPS dispute is more than a geopolitical issue—it is a pillage of our inheritance that we must defend for the generations to come.