I had the opportunity to listen to the lecture of Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio on the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) on February 24 at the Philippine Social Science Center. The lecture was the culmination of the exhibit of various historical maps of the Philippines and China showing the disputed seas. After viewing the maps and listening to the lecture, I am convinced that the issues surrounding the dispute needs to be “laymanized,” as it has far reaching impact on our country’s fight against poverty and on our long-term development.
As we are aware of, the challenge stems from China’s claim of a significant portion of the South China Sea using its historical nine-dash line. This will effectively cover about 86 percent of the South China Sea. This, however, is going to encroach on the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and extended continental shelf (ECS) of the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam. The EEZs and the ECS were results of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos). Unclos was concluded in 1982 and China was an active participant in its discussion. The Unclos provided defining lines and boundaries in relation to the economic rights of a country as follows: a) territorial waters—end of shore to 12 miles. This is sovereign territory; b) EEZs—the EEZs are beyond and outside the territorial waters of a country. They stretch to 370 kilometers from the edge of the territorial waters. They are not part of sovereign territory but sovereign rights to explore the resources therein. Within their EEZs, countries are allowed to explore and use maritime resources including energy. A country has sovereign rights but does not own the territory; c) ECS are outside the EEZs by which the country still have the right to the seabed up to about 600 kilometers from seabed; and d) high seas—there is no national rights.
In public economics, open seas are classified as common resources. It means that no one can be prevented from accessing the resource and each one can take from it. In practical perspective, it means that no one can be prevented from fishing in these areas or explore the natural resources contained therein. What the Unclos did is to classify what is common resource and what can be assigned exclusively for a country. Thus, by assigning EEZs, ECS and the high seas, countries can have clear boundaries of what is exclusive to them and continued access to the area and explore the resources for its use and consumption, and what is for common use and exploration.
China’s claim of sovereignty over a significant portion of the South China Sea effectively extends its national boundaries and, therefore, its EEZs. By building various structures in different atolls and reefs, it is formalizing its claim over these territories. According to the lecture of Carpio, China claims that its southernmost territory is James Shoal, which is already within Malaysia’s EEZ. In the case of the Philippines, this assertion, he said, will affect about 80 percent of the Philippine EEZ in the West Philippine Sea, or roughly 381,000 square kilometers of maritime space. This area is much larger than the total land area of the Philippines, which is about 300,000 sq km. It will leave the Philippines with a very small area as EEZ in the western side and will create a 1,300-km sea border with China extending from Batanes to Palawan. In terms of actual areas affected, the country will lose a number of reefs and shoals in its ECS and part of Malampaya gas reserves within its EEZ. In practical terms, Filipino fishermen will lose access to our own EEZ as it will now be considered part of Chinese territory. These areas are also critical for the Philippines, especially as the gas reserves of Malampaya is only good for another 12 years. Likewise, areas within the ECS and EEZ used to be accessed by our fishermen but are now off-limits to them. This has affected the livelihood of fishermen along the western coastline of Luzon and those in the Palawan island groups. Hence, it is critical to clearly establish what we are supposed to lose in terms of economic value.
At present, the country is waiting for the results of the UN Arbitration Tribunal where it filed in 2013 to clarify the claims of China. China did not participate in the proceedings. The results will most likely come out close to election day in May. The implications will, therefore, be one of the first key action points of the new administration. This is why it is critical that in the coming days, the electorate must know clearly the stand of the presidential candidates on how to deal with the results. They must show how the Philippines will benefit from any of the arrangements that will come out of the results and how to deal with China. We need to know exactly and clearly, because whatever action we take will define our foreign, economic and political policies beyond the next six years.