THE WEST PHILIPPINE SEA: We Have Sovereign Rights in Our Exclusive Economic Zone, Not Territorial Ownership of the Entire Sea

*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD, DM

Before sunrise, a Filipino fisherman checks his boat, counts what he can spend on fuel, and heads out to sea. Sa bahay, may pamilyang naghihintay. His hope is simple: enough catch to pay for food, school expenses, and another day of living.

For him, the West Philippine Sea is more than a diplomatic issue. It is where he works. Kapag may malaking foreign vessel na lumapit sa kanyang maliit na bangka, the concern becomes immediate: Makakapangisda pa ba siya? Makakauwi ba siyang ligtas?

Those questions deserve protection and clear answers. Kapag sinasabi nating “atin ang West Philippine Sea,” we need to understand what we are defending. Are we referring to Philippine territory, rights over natural resources, or jurisdiction over particular activities? Magkakaugnay ang mga ito, pero hindi magkakapareho ang kanilang legal meaning.

We must also be careful with the statement that nations cannot own seas and oceans. No nation can claim sovereignty over any part of the high seas. Article 89 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS, expressly prohibits it. The high seas cannot become a country’s territory simply because that country names them, patrols them, or draws a line around them on a map.

Pero hindi ibig sabihin nito na lahat ng maritime waters ay nasa labas ng national sovereignty. States exercise sovereignty over their internal waters and territorial seas. An archipelagic state such as the Philippines also exercises sovereignty over its archipelagic waters, subject to the conditions and passage rights recognized by UNCLOS. Kaya mas accurate sabihin na nations cannot treat the seas and oceans as unlimited national possessions; their authority depends on the maritime zone and the rights recognized by international law.

This distinction matters because an exclusive economic zone is not territorial ownership. Within its exclusive economic zone, the Philippines has sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve, and manage natural resources. May jurisdiction din tayo over specified matters, including marine scientific research, artificial islands and installations, and protection of the marine environment. These are substantial rights, although they differ from sovereignty over territory.

A coastal state’s territorial sea may extend up to 12 nautical miles from its applicable baselines. Beyond it lies the exclusive economic zone, which may reach a maximum of 200 nautical miles measured from those baselines. Hindi ito dagdag na 200 nautical miles pagkatapos ng territorial sea. At hindi lahat ng nasa loob ng distansiyang iyon ay awtomatikong territorial waters ng bansa.

Hindi nito pinapaliit ang Philippine rights. It explains their scope. The Philippines does not need territorial ownership over the entire exclusive economic zone to protect its fisheries, petroleum, and other natural resources. UNCLOS recognizes sovereign rights for those purposes. Kaya parehong nakalilito ang “atin ang lahat ng naroon” at “dahil hindi natin teritoryo, wala tayong karapatan doon.”

It is equally important to distinguish the exclusive economic zone from the high seas. They have different legal regimes. An exclusive economic zone carries specific coastal-state rights, even while preserving important freedoms for other countries. Hindi tamang tawagin itong lugar na puwedeng gawin ng kahit sino ang anumang gusto niya.

International freedom of navigation is one of those preserved freedoms. Ships of all states may navigate through another country’s exclusive economic zone, subject to UNCLOS. The Convention also recognizes freedom of overflight and the laying of submarine cables and pipelines under its applicable rules. Kung may foreign cargo ship na dumaraan papunta sa ibang bansa, its presence alone does not establish a violation of Philippine rights.

But passing through and taking resources are different activities. A vessel navigating across the zone may be exercising a lawful freedom. A vessel fishing, drilling, or exploring for resources must respect the coastal state’s rights and applicable legal requirements. Ang karapatang dumaan ay hindi awtomatikong karapatang mangisda, mag-drill, o kontrolin ang kabuhayan ng iba.

These freedoms come with responsibilities. Other states must exercise their rights with due regard for the coastal state’s rights and duties. The coastal state must likewise respect the lawful freedoms of others. May karapatan ang magkabilang panig, at may obligasyon silang igalang ang isa’t isa.

Passage through the territorial sea follows a different rule. Foreign ships enjoy innocent passage there, subject to UNCLOS conditions. Fishing or conducting research during passage, for example, can make it non-innocent. This is why a vessel’s exact location matters. Hindi puwedeng ilapat sa buong exclusive economic zone ang lahat ng rules para sa territorial sea.

These distinctions become particularly important when discussing Chinese patrols.

Understandably, many Filipinos feel uneasy when a large Chinese coast guard vessel appears near fishing grounds. Para sa isang mangingisda, mahirap maging kampante kapag napakalaking barko ang katabi ng kanyang bangka. That concern deserves attention. A legal assessment, however, must examine both the vessel’s presence and its conduct.

A Chinese vessel is not automatically violating Philippine rights simply by navigating within the Philippine exclusive economic zone. It may exercise navigation freedoms, just as vessels of other states may. But describing an operation as a “patrol” does not make every action during that operation lawful.

What is the patrol doing? Is it sailing through? Is it ordering Filipino fishermen to leave? Is it preventing a Philippine-authorized resource survey from continuing? Is it physically obstructing another vessel or creating a risk of collision? Hindi sapat ang larawan ng isang barko upang sagutin ang lahat ng ito. We need its location and the facts of its conduct.

A Chinese patrol does not acquire authority over Philippine resources merely by entering the exclusive economic zone. Freedom of navigation does not authorize interference with Philippine sovereign rights. Kung ginagamit ang patrol upang kontrolin ang lawful fishing or resource exploration in an area where Philippine rights apply, ibang legal issue na iyon.

The 2016 South China Sea arbitral award provides concrete examples. The tribunal found that China violated Philippine sovereign rights through interference with fishing and petroleum exploration, construction of artificial islands, and failure to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing in areas of the Philippine exclusive economic zone. It also found that Chinese law enforcement vessels created a serious risk of collision when they physically obstructed Philippine vessels. These findings concerned specific actions; they did not declare every Chinese ship in the region unlawfully present.

At Reed Bank, the case examined an incident in which Chinese surveillance vessels demanded that a Philippine-authorized seismic survey vessel stop its work and leave. Ang legal issue ay ang interference with an activity connected to Philippine rights over seabed resources. That gives the complaint a clearer foundation than simply saying that foreign ships were present.

We should be equally accurate about the award’s limits. It did not settle sovereignty over all disputed islands and rocks, and it did not draw a maritime boundary between the Philippines and China. It addressed maritime entitlements, the status of features, and particular conduct under UNCLOS. Among its findings, Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are low-tide elevations within the Philippine exclusive economic zone and continental shelf in an area without an overlapping entitlement generated by the features examined.

China rejects the award, but rejection does not erase its binding legal status between the Philippines and China in respect of the dispute decided. Article 296 of UNCLOS and Article 11 of Annex VII establish the finality and binding force of such decisions and awards. Magkaiba ang obligasyong sumunod at ang aktuwal na pagsunod. Refusal to accept a ruling does not, by itself, cancel that obligation.

Understanding these distinctions strengthens the Philippine position. Hindi natin kailangang palawakin ang sinabi ng tribunal upang ipagtanggol ang mga karapatang kinilala nito. Nor should freedom of navigation become an excuse to ignore interference with lawful Philippine activities.

A responsible public discussion asks concrete questions: Where did the incident happen? What did the vessel do? Whose lawful activity was affected? Which rule applies? These questions turn concern into a claim that government can explain and defend with evidence.

The Philippines can respect international freedom of navigation while firmly protecting its sovereign rights. Walang contradiction doon. Recognizing that we do not own the entire West Philippine Sea does not mean abandoning Philippine territory, surrendering resource rights, or accepting unlawful interference.

For the fisherman who left before sunrise, these distinctions must eventually mean safe access to lawful fishing grounds, protection of marine resources, and a government prepared to defend his rights. His family is waiting for more than a statement. Naghihintay sila sa kanyang ligtas na pag-uwi, sa kanyang huli, at sa kabuhayang umaasa sa dagat.

Understanding what is ours, what is open to others, and where the law draws the line helps us defend the country responsibly. At the center of that responsibility is a simple human hope: that those who go out to earn an honest living at sea can return home safely.

 _________________________________________________________

Dear Reader,

I invite you to explore my complete collection of published books now available on Amazon. Whether you are seeking in-depth analysis, strategic insights, or engaging narratives, my catalog covers a range of essential topics designed to inform, inspire, and provoke thoughtful discussion.

You can browse all my current titles, read excerpts, and order your copies directly through my official Amazon Author Page: 

Click this Image to View:

Thank you for your continued support and interest in my work. If you enjoy any of the titles, leaving a review on Amazon would be greatly appreciated as it helps bring these ideas to a broader audience.

Warm regards,

Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

*About the author:

Dr. Rodolfo “John” Ortiz Teope is a distinguished Filipino academic, public intellectual, and advocate for civic education and public safety, whose work spans local academies and international security circles. With a career rooted in teaching, research, policy, and public engagement, he bridges theory and practice by making meaningful contributions to academic discourse, civic education, and public policy. Dr. Teope is widely respected for his critical scholarship in education, management, economics, doctrine development, and public safety; his grassroots involvement in government and non-government organizations; his influential media presence promoting democratic values and civic consciousness; and his ethical leadership grounded in Filipino nationalism and public service. As a true public intellectual, he exemplifies how research, advocacy, governance, and education can work together in pursuit of the nation’s moral and civic mission.

VIEWS: 1.52M