Mga mahalagang punto tungkol sa South China Sea Arbitration

(Reposted from For the Motherland-Sass Rogando Sasot FB Page dated June 21, 2024) So the public knows…

𝑷𝒂𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒐𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒎 𝒊𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝒍𝒐𝒃𝒐𝒕𝒐𝒎𝒚. 𝑻𝒐 𝒔𝒂𝒚 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒆𝒃𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒓 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒅𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒑𝒊𝒏𝒐𝒔 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒑 𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒃𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒔. 𝑻𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒊𝒔 𝒖𝒏𝒂𝒄𝒄𝒆𝒑𝒕𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆.
Ilang kasinungalingan tungkol sa 2016 South China Sea arbitral tribunal ruling ay ilang taon nang pinapalaganap ng mga iba’t-ibang personalidad na walang intensyong i-educate ang mga Pilipino.
Ang layunin ng post na ito ay para mamulat ang mga Pilipino sa iba’t-ibang issue na nakapaloob sa South China Sea arbitration ruling.
𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐔𝐄 #𝟏: 𝐓𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐨 𝐛𝐚 𝐧𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 (𝐏𝐂𝐀) 𝐬𝐚 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐚𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐧𝐚𝐠-𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐬𝐚 𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚 𝐒𝐞𝐚 𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧?
Paulit-ulit nating naririnig ang term na “PCA ruling.” Ito ay parating sinasambit ng mainstream media, mga pulitiko, mga komentarista, atbp.
Isa itong malaking kasinungalingan.
Ang PCA ay hindi ang “South China Sea arbitration tribunal.” Ang PCA ay isang “registry” lamang. Ang PCA ay nagbibigay ng serbisyo na pang-administratibo bilang suporta sa mga partido at arbitrators na nagsasagawa ng mga paglilitis.
Ang PCA ang nagsisilbing opisyal na channel ng mga komunikasyon at nangangalaga ng mga dokumento. Ang PCA rin ay ang nagpapagamit ng venue para sa arbitration. Ang buong serbisyo ng PCA ay mababasa sa kanilang website:
https://pca-cpa.org/…/arbitration…/case-administration/
Malinaw ito sa dedicated website ng South China Sea Arbitration na nagsasabing: “𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑪𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝑨𝒓𝒃𝒊𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒔 𝑹𝒆𝒈𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒚 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒃𝒊𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏.”
Ang responsibilidad na ito ng PCA ay mababasa ran sa Article 5 ng 𝑹𝒖𝒍𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒄𝒆𝒅𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒏𝒈 𝑺𝒐𝒖𝒕𝒉 𝑪𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒂 𝑺𝒆𝒂 𝑨𝒓𝒃𝒊𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 (https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/233).
Article 5: “The International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague shall serve as the Registry for the proceedings (the “Registry”). It shall maintain an archive of the arbitral proceedings and provide appropriate registry services as directed by the Arbitral Tribunal.”
Ang responsibilidad na ito ng PCA ay makikita rin sa Paragraph 32-34 ng decision ng South China Sea Arbitration tribunal patungkol sa 𝑱𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑨𝒅𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 (20 𝑶𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒃𝒆𝒓 2015). Sa mga paragraphs na yan malinaw na ang responsibilidad ng PCA ay “Registry for the Proceedings.”
Kaya, isang malaking kasinungalingan ang katagang “PCA Ruling.” Ang tamang tawag eh “South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal Ruling.”
𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐔𝐄 #𝟐: 𝐒𝐨, 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐨 𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐧𝐚𝐠-𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚 𝐒𝐞𝐚 𝐀𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠?
Ang nag-decide ay ang South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal na binubuo ng limang tao:

• Judge Thomas Mensah (Ghana)
• Judge Jean-Pierre Cot (France)
• Judge Stanislaw Pawlak (Poland)
• Professor Alfred H. Soons (Netherlands); at
• Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum (Germany)
  𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐔𝐄 #𝟑: 𝐒𝐢𝐧𝐨 𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢 𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐠𝐚 𝐛𝐮𝐦𝐮𝐛𝐮𝐨 𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚 𝐒𝐞𝐚 𝐀𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐥?
  Ang rules ng pagbubuo ng isang arbitral tribunal sa ilalaim ng UNCLOS ay nakapaloob sa Annex VII ng UNCLOS:
  https://www.un.org/…/convention…/texts/unclos/annex7.htm
  Ang mga bansa na magkalaban sa isang arbitral tribunal na binuo sa ilalim ng UNCLOS Annex VII ay may karapatang mag-talaga ng isang miyembro ng arbitral tribunal.
  Ang China at Pilipinas ay may karapatang magtalaga ng kanilang gustong miyembro.
  Ang tatlong miyembro naman ay i-appoint ng Presidente ng International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Ang kanyang i-appoint ay dapat nasa listahan ng arbitrators ng Secretary-General of the United Nations na sinumite ng mga bansang nag-ratify ng UNCLOS.
  Hindi nag-participate ang China, kaya ang Pilipinas ay nag-request na mag-appoint ang Presidente ng International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on behalf of China.
  Ang Presidente ng International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea noon ay si Judge Shunji Yanai (Japan). Si Shunji Yanai ay dating Ambassador ng Japan sa United States.
  Si Shunji Yanai rin ang pinuno ng advisory panel on security issues ni Japanese Prime Minster Shinzo Abe. Ang advisory panel na pinamunuan ni Shunji Yanai ay ang nagrekomenda na baguhin ng gobyerno ng Japan ang interpretation ng “war-renouncing Constitution” ng Japan (bashin ang ulat ng Japan Times, https://tinyurl.com/ITLOSPres )
  Kaya, ang bumubuo ng South China Sea arbitration tribunal ay ang mga miyembro na pinili ng Pilipinas at ni Judge Shunji Yanai ng Japan.
  𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐔𝐄 #𝟒: 𝐒𝐢𝐧𝐨 𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐛𝐚𝐲𝐚𝐝 𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬?
  Ang serbisyo ng Permanent Court of Arbitration at ang sweldo ng mga arbitral judges ay dapat bayaran ng China at ng Pilipinas “in equal shares.” Ito ay nakapaloob sa Article 31(1) ng 𝑹𝒖𝒍𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒄𝒆𝒅𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒏𝒈 𝑺𝒐𝒖𝒕𝒉 𝑪𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒂 𝑺𝒆𝒂 𝑨𝒓𝒃𝒊𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏:
  “Pursuant to Article 7 of Annex VII to the Convention, unless the Arbitral Tribunal decides otherwise because of the particular circumstances of the case, the expenses of the Arbitral Tribunal, including the remuneration of its members, shall be borne by the Parties in equal shares.”
  Ngunit hindi nga nag-participate ang China. Kaya ang Pilipinas ang nagbayad ng lahat ng cost, pati ng share ng China.
  Ang impormasyon na ito ay makikita sa Paragraph 98 ng 𝑨𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝑱𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑨𝒅𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 – 29 𝑶𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒃𝒆𝒓 2015 (https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2579)
  at Paragraph 110 ng 𝑨𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝑴𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒕 (https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2086):
  “While the Philippines paid its share of the deposit within the time limit granted on each occasion, China has made no payments toward the deposit. Having been informed of China’s failure to pay, the Philippines paid China’s share of the deposit.
  The deposit has covered the fees and expenses of members of the Tribunal, Registry, and experts appointed to assist the Tribunal, as well as all other expenses including for hearings and meetings, information technology support, catering, court reporters, deposit administration, archiving, translations, couriers, communications, correspondence, and publishing of the Awards.”
  Kaya ang mga Pilipino ang nagbayad ng dapat bayaran ng China. Hindi pa naisasapubliko kung magkano talaga ang binayaran ng Pilipinas sa cost ng Permanent Court of Arbitration at ang sweldo ng bawat isa sa limang arbitration judges.
  Ang malinaw lang na information eh ang cost ng lawyers ng Pilipinas. Kinuha ng Pilipinas ang serbisyo ng Foley Hoag LLP. Ayon sa 2017 COA audit report ng Office of the Solicitor General, ang binayad ng Pilipinas sa mga lawyers ay ₱155,362,178.32.
  𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐔𝐄 #𝟒: 𝐁𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐏𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐛𝐚𝐲𝐚𝐝 𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚?
  Dahil kung hindi ito babayaran ng Pilipinas, ang arbitration proceedings ay pwedeng i-suspend o i-terminate ng South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal. Ito ay ayon sa Article 33(3) ng 𝑹𝒖𝒍𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒄𝒆𝒅𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒏𝒈 𝑺𝒐𝒖𝒕𝒉 𝑪𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒂 𝑺𝒆𝒂 𝑨𝒓𝒃𝒊𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏.
  “if the requested deposits are not paid in full within 45 days after the receipt of the request, the Arbitral Tribunal shall so inform the Parties in order that one of them may make the required payment. If such payment is not made, the Arbitral Tribunal may order the suspension or termination of the proceedings.”
  So, para matuloy ang arbitration proceedings, binayaran na lang ng Pilipinas ang dapat bayaran ng China.
  𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐔𝐄 #𝟓: 𝐌𝐚𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐢 𝐛𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚 𝐒𝐞𝐚 𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐧𝐚 𝐩𝐰𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐧 𝐧𝐠 𝐏𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧?
  Wala. Ito ay dahil hindi hiniling ng Pilipinas sa South China Sea arbitral tribunal na i-reimburse ng China ang share ng cost nito.
  Nakakapagtaka kung bakit hindi ito hiniling ng Pilipinas. Kakakaiba ito sa ibang arbitration proceedings.
  𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐔𝐄 #𝟔: 𝐀𝐧𝐨 𝐛𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐠 𝐬𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐧𝐚 “𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠” 𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚 𝐒𝐞𝐚 𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧?
  Maraming layers ang issue na ito.
  𝑼𝒏𝒂, dapat malaman ng mga Pilipino kung anong uri ng judgment ang ginawa ng South China Sea arbitration decision.
  Ang hiniling ng Pilipinas ay isang “declaratory judgment.”
  Ang sinulat ni Thomas R. Gordon sa Virginia Law Review na may title na 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑳𝒂𝒘 𝒐𝒇 𝑫𝒆𝒄𝒍𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝑱𝒖𝒅𝒈𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑰𝒕𝒔 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔 (1923) ay isang magandang paglilinaw kung ano ang “declaratory judgement.”
  Ang declaratory judgment ay para i-determine ang rights ng “contending parties by binding declarations without adjudging consequential relief at the time such declaration is made.”
  Ang “declaratory judgment” na hiniling ng Pilipinas ay paglilinaw ng karapatan at obligations ng Pilipinas at China sa ilalim ng UNCLOS treaty. Ngunit walang nakapaloob sa South China Sea arbitral ruling kung anong dapat gawin ng China. Walang order ang South China Sea arbitral ruling.
  Ang South China Sea arbitral ruling ay mga pawang paglilinaw lamang ng mga karapatan at obligasyon ng Pilipinas at China at ano ang interpretation ng mga UNCLOS provisions.
  Ayon sa isinulat ni International law professor Juliette McIntyre sa 2012 Hague Yearbook of International Law (Chapter 5: 𝑫𝒆𝒄𝒍𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝑱𝒖𝒅𝒈𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑰𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝑱𝒖𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒆):
  “the declaratory judgment must be understood as simply a judicial statement confirming or denying a legal right or obligation of the parties, in response to a dispute between them. Unlike compensation or restitution, the declaratory judgment merely specifies the legal relationship of the parties, and goes no further in providing material relief.”
  Ibig sabihin, ang South China Sea arbitral ruling nag-clarify lang ng rights and obligations ng China at Pilipinas. Ito ay malinaw sa Paragraph 1198 ng 𝑨𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝑴𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒔 (12 July 2016) ng South China Sea arbitral ruling: “the purpose of dispute resolution proceedings [under UNCLOS] is to clarify the Parties’ respective rights and obligations and thereby to facilitate their future relations in accordance with the general obligations of good faith that both governments unequivocally recognise.”
  𝑰𝒌𝒂𝒍𝒂𝒘𝒂, ang binding ay ang interpretation of fact at law na ginawa ng arbitral tribunal At ito ay binding lamang between China and the Philippines. Hindi binding ang interpretation of fact at law ng South China Sea arbitral tribunal sa dispute ng Vietnam at China; Vietnam at the Philippines; Malaysia and China; at Malaysia and Philippines sa Spratly Islands.
  Kaya nga sa Paragraph 637 ng 𝑨𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝑴𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒔 (12 July 2016), sumangayon ang Arbitral Tribunal sa sinabi ng Malaysia na hindi binding sa kanila ang “outcome ng arbitral proceedings” pati na rin ang “any pronouncement on fact or law” na gagawin ng Arbitral Tribunal. “The legal effect of a judicial or arbitral decision is limited to the Parties.”
  Pero hindi ibig sabihin na kapag “binding” eh “executory” na ang South China Sea arbitral tribunal ruling. Mali yang pag-mix ng binding at executory na concepts.
  Hindi ito “executory” dahil wala namang i-execute na order na nakapaloob sa South China Sea Arbitral ruling. Katulad nga ng sinabi ni Professor McIntyre, “a fundamental aspect of the declaratory judgment [is] it pronounces upon a legal relationship, but 𝒊𝒕 𝒅𝒐𝒆𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒚 𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒆𝒓 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒃𝒆 𝒆𝒏𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒆𝒇𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒏𝒕.” (emphasis mine).
  𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐔𝐄 #𝟕: 𝐒𝐨 𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐰𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐰𝐚 𝐧𝐠 𝐏𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐚 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚 𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐧𝐚𝐚𝐚𝐲𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐚 𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚 𝐒𝐞𝐚 𝐀𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠?
  Magandang tanong yan!
  Ito ay nakapaloob sa original text “Relief Sought” ng Pilipinas. Ito ay ang mga sumusunod na matatagpuan sa Paragraph 99 ng 𝑨𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝑱𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑨𝒅𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 (29 October 2015).
  The Philippines wants the Arbitral Tribunal to issue an award that:
• Requires China to bring its domestic legislation into conformity with its obligations under UNCLOS
• Requires that China end its occupation of and activities on Mischief Reef and McKennan Reef and at Second Thomas Shoal
• Requires China to terminate its occupation of and activities on Gaven Reef and Subi Reef
• Requires that China refrain from preventing Philippine vessels from exploiting in a sustainable manner the living resources in the waters adjacent to Scarborough Shoal and Johnson Reef, and from undertaking other activities inconsistent with the Convention at or in the vicinity of these features
• Requires that China desist from these unlawful activities
  Ngunit nawala itong lahat są Finał Submission ng Pilipinas na nasa Paragraph 101 ng 𝑨𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝑱𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑨𝒅𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 (29 October 2015). Kung bakit ito nawala, dapat may magpaliwanag. Hanggang ngayon wala pa ring nagpapaliwanag.
  Sa Final Submission, ang natatanging pwedeng maging executory order eh ang Submission 15: “China shall desist from further unlawful claims and activities”
  Ngunit, hindi malinaw sa Arbitral Tribunal ang gustong sabihin ng Pilipinas dyaan. Ang sabi ng Arbitral Tribunal sa Paragraph 412 ng 𝑨𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝑱𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑨𝒅𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 (29 October 2015), “in the Tribunal’s view, the claims and activities to which this Submission could potentially relate are unclear from the Philippines pleadings to date.”
  Kaya inutusan ng Arbitral Tribunal ang Pilipinas “to clarify the content and narrow the scope of its Submission No. 15.”
  Pinalitan ng Pilipinas ang wording ng Submission 15. Ito ay nasa Paragraph 78 ng 𝑨𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝑴𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒔 (12 July 2016): “The Philippines changed the text of Submission No. 15 to seek a declaration that ‘China shall respect the rights and freedoms of the Philippines under the Convention, shall comply with its duties under the Convention, including those relevant to the protection and preservation of the marine environment in the South China Sea, and shall exercise its rights and freedoms in the South China Sea with due regard to those of the Philippines under the Convention.”
  Again, ang hiniling ng Pilipinas ay “declaratory judgment” at hindi isang COERCIVE ORDER that can be enforced against China.
  Anong naging judgment ng Arbitral Tribunal tungkol sa Submission 15? Ito ay nasa Paragraph 1201 ng 𝑨𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝑴𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒕 𝒏𝒈 𝑺𝒐𝒖𝒕𝒉 𝑪𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒂 𝑺𝒆𝒂 𝑨𝒓𝒃𝒊𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 (12 July 2016).
  Walang nakitang dispute ang Arbitral Tribunal tungkol sa obligasyon ng China at Pilipinas na mag-comply sa UNCLOS, “including its provisions regarding the resolution of disputes, and to respect the rights and freedoms of other States under the Convention.”
  Kaya walang declaratory judgment na ginawa ang Arbitral Tribunal sa Submission 15 dahil hindi ito “persuaded that it is necessary or appropriate for it to make any further declaration.”
  Samakatuwid, hindi nakuha ng Pilipinas ang talagang gusto nito, ang pahintuin ang China from further unlawful claims and actions. Ang Submission 15 at yung ibang tinanggal ay mga 𝒊𝒏𝒋𝒖𝒏𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒇, “a remedy which restrains a party from doing certain acts or requires a party to act in a certain way” (https://tinyurl.com/injunctiverelief).
  Maganda ang paliwanag ni Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju tungkol są Submission 15 ng Pilipinas. Si Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju ay isang former Chairman ng International Law Commission.
  Ang sabi nga ni Pemmarju sa 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑺𝒐𝒖𝒕𝒉 𝑪𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒂 𝑺𝒆𝒂 𝑨𝒓𝒃𝒊𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 (𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑷𝒉𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒑𝒑𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒔 𝒗. 𝑪𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒂): 𝑨𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑨𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝑱𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑨𝒅𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 (2016):
  “It is clear from the submissions made by the Philippines that the real object of its exercise is to get a legal direction from the Tribunal requiring China to desist from what it would like the Tribunal to find as “unlawful claims and activities.”
  Indeed, ang gusto talaga ng Pilipinas ay 𝒊𝒏𝒋𝒖𝒏𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒇 laban sa China. Yan din ang binibida ng mga maraming komentarista dito na ang Soutch China Sea Arbitral Tribunal Ruling eh parang may injunctive relief effect laban sa China. You are familiar with the arguments in the mainstream: “Dahil sa PCA ruling dapat itigil na ng China ang X,Y,Z…” But this has no basis in the ruling itself.
  Mali yang interpretation na yan, dahil 𝒅𝒆𝒄𝒍𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒋𝒖𝒅𝒈𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 (o declaratory relief) lang ang hiniling ng Pilipinas.
  Cornell Law dictionary provides another clear difference between an injunctive relief and declaratory relief:
  “Declaratory relief refers to a court’s declaratory judgment stating the rights of parties without ordering any specific action or listing awards for damages. Declaratory relief allows a party who is not certain of his rights to prevent the accrual of avoidable damages and to obtain an adjudication before the parties bring a coercive lawsuit. 𝑫𝒆𝒄𝒍𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒇 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒃𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒄𝒐𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒇 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒕 𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒂 𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒚 𝒕𝒐 𝒑𝒂𝒚 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒚 𝒅𝒂𝒎𝒂𝒈𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒂𝒌𝒆 𝒄𝒆𝒓𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏 𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓 𝒊𝒏𝒋𝒖𝒏𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒇.” (emphasis mine)
  (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/declaratory_relief).
  Hindi coercive judgment ang South China Sea Arbitration Ruling. It doesn’t order China to take any specific action at all. Ang napanalunan ng Pilipinas ay “declaratory relief” at hindi isang “injunctive relief.”
  Only injunctive reliefs can be the legal basis for enforcing an action against China. Sa domestic context, ang restraining order ng korte ay isang uri ng injunctive relief.
  Kung gusto ng Pilipinas magkaroon ng injunctive relief bakit tinanggal ng mga lawyers ang mga Submissions about injunctive relief? Kahit nga i-reimburse ng China sa Pilipinas ang binayad nito para i-cover ang equal share ng China sa cost eh hindi hiniling ng Pilipinas.
  Kung gusto ng Pilipinas na magkaroon ng remedy on the basis of the declaratory judgment ng South China Sea Arbitral Ruling, the best way for the Philippines to do it is to file a case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), katulad ng ginawa ng Honduras laban sa Nicaragua in relation to The Arbitral Award Made by the King of Spain (18 November 1960) Honduras wanted the ICJ to order Nicaragua to give effect to the Arbitral Award. Honduras won.
  However, ang problema ng Pilipinas eh sa ICJ, kailangan ng consent ng China for the case to proceed. Ito ay dahil China doesn’t recognize the compulsory adjudication mechanism of the ICJ.
  May suggestion na mag-file dati ng injunctive relief sa Philippine courts or sa courts ng ibang bansa. This is seriously ignorant of international law.
  States enjoy “immunity from jurisdiction” and “immunity from enforcement.” Ang ibig sabihin nyan, ang mga bansa ay hindi pwedeng isa ilalim ng jurisdiction at enforcement ng korte ng ibang bansa. Pupwede lamang mawala ang immunity ng China kung i-waive nya ‘yan.
  𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐔𝐄 #8: 𝐍𝐚-𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐛𝐚 𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚 𝐒𝐞𝐚 𝐀𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐭𝐲 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚?
  Mali.
  Ayon mismo sa argument ni Professor Sands, isa sa mga lawyers ng Pilipinas, ang mga claims ng Pilipinas sa South China Sea arbitration ay “made entirely without prejudice to China’s territorial assertions, or indeed the territorial assertions of any other state.” Ito ay matatagpuan sa Sentences 17-21, Page 98 ng 𝑻𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒔𝒄𝒓𝒊𝒑𝒕 𝒏𝒈 𝑫𝒂𝒚 1 – 𝑯𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒏 𝑱𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑨𝒅𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚, 7 July 2015 na mababasa sa https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1399.
  Ginagamit ng lawyers ang salitang “without prejudice” upang i-assure ang parties sa dispute na hindi ma-weaken ang kanilang mga positions.
  Samakatuwid, ang gustong ipahiwatig ng lawyer ng Pilipinas ay ito: ang claims ng Pilipinas sa South China Sea Arbitration ay hindi para i-weaken ang “territorial assertions” ng China at ng other States.
  Kaya nga sa Paragraph 153 ng 𝑨𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝑱𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑨𝒅𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 (20 October 2015), sinabi ng Arbitral Tribunal na “The Philippines has not asked the Tribunal to rule on sovereignty and, indeed, has expressly and repeatedly requested that the Tribunal refrain from so doing.”
  At sa decision nila, walang intention ang Arbitration Decision to “advance nor detracts from either Party’s claim to land sovereignty in the South China Sea.”
  Nilinaw pa yan ng Arbitral Tribunal sa Paragraph 272 ng 𝑨𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝑴𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒕 (12 July 2016):
  “…because the Tribunal considers the question of historic rights with respect to maritime areas to be entirely distinct from that of historic rights to land, the Tribunal considers it opportune to note that certain claims remain unaffected by this decision. In particular, the Tribunal emphasises that nothing in this Award should be understood to comment in any way on China’s historic claim to the islands of the South China Sea.” Ang desisyon din ng Tribunal na hindi compatible ang “nine-dash line” sa UNCLOS, ay hindi rin ni-limit ang abilidad ng China na mag-claim ng maritime zones “in accordance with the Convention, on the basis of such islands.”
  Anong ibig sabihin nito? Hindi pu-pwedeng sabihin ng Pilipinas na na-weaken ng South China Sea Arbitral ruling ang sovereignty claims ng China at ng ibang claimants dahil nga, ayon na rin sa ating lawyer na si Professor Sands, the Philippine claims are “made entirely 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒋𝒖𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝑪𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒂’𝒔 𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔, or indeed the territorial assertions of any other state” (emphasis mine).
  Yang statement na yan ng lawyer ng Pilipinas sa South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal is already subject to estoppel.
  Ang doctrine estoppel sa international law prevents one State from doing or saying inconsistent things to the detriment of other States. Prinoprotektahan nito ang “legitimate expectations of States induced by the conduct of another State…” (https://tinyurl.com/estoppleoxford)
  Malinaw ang sinabi ng Arbitral Tribunal sa Paragraph 153 ng 𝑨𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝑱𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑨𝒅𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 (29 October 2015), hindi layunin ng Pilipinas palakasin ang kanyang posisyon sa “dispute over sovereignty.”
  At kahit explicity (hayagan) or implicity (di-hayagang) pag-determina ng sovereignty eh hindi ito gagawin at ginawa ng South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal ruling
  𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐔𝐄 #9: 𝐄𝐡 𝐩𝐰𝐞𝐝𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐰 𝐢-𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚 𝐒𝐞𝐚 𝐀𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐚 𝐩𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐧 𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐠𝐚 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬…
  Mali yan.
  Walang enforcement mechanism ang UNCLOS treaty mismo. Ang implementation ng isang international arbitration decision ay nakasalalay sa pagitan ng Pilipinas at China dahil sa kanila lamang binding ang declaratory judgment ng South China Arbitral Tribunal.
  Pero anong i-enforce eh declaratory judgment lang ang South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal ruling? It is “binding” but not “executory.” Wala ngang ni-require gawin ng China ang Arbitral Tribunal. So anong i-enforce laban sa China eh walang injunctive relief?
  𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐔𝐄 #10: 𝐓𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐨 𝐛𝐚 𝐧𝐚 𝐧𝐚-𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐧𝐠 𝐔𝐍𝐂𝐋𝐎𝐒 𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐏𝐃𝟏𝟓𝟗𝟔 (𝐀𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐊𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐚𝐚𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩) 𝐧𝐢 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐅𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐨𝐬 𝐒𝐫?
  Let’s have a little bit of background about this issue.
  Sa unang hearing ng Jurisdiction and Admissibility noong 7 July 2015 , isinusulong ni Professor Sands, lawyer ng Pilipinas, ang argumento na hindi kailangang malaman muna kung sino ang may sovereignty sa Mischief Reef para mag-decide ang Arbitral Tribunal kung ano ang “character ng Mischief Reef.”
  Tinanong ni Judge Wolfrum si Professor Sands kung ang approach na ito ay nationally applied din ng Pilipinas patungkol sa claim nito sa Mischief Reef, na kasama sa Kalayaan Island Group sa Presidential Decree 1596 (1978) ni Pangulong Ferdinand E. Marcos.
  Importante ang tanong na ito. Dahil sa PD1596 (https://tinyurl.com/FEMPD1596), ang claim ng Pilipinas ay may sovereignty siya Mischief Reef na isang low-tide elevation na napapaloob sa geographical coordinates ng Kalayaan Island Group.
  Expansive ang territorial claim ng PD 1596 na nagsasabing may sovereignty ang Pilipinas sa buong area na napapaloob sa geographical coordinates sa Section 1 ng PD1596, at hindi lamang sa land and maritime area, kundi kasama na rin ang “sea-bed, sub-soil, continental margin and air space” na sakop ng geographical coordinates.
  Hindi aware ang lawyer ng Pilipinas na si Professor Sands sa PD 1596. Hindi pa niya ito nababasa nang tinanong sya. Kaya, sinabi niya na “that one I am definitely going to park, and come back to, until I have had a chance to look at the decree.” Bakit hindi sya aware sa PD 1596? Hindi sya handa. Sa laki ng binayad sa kanya, hindi nya alam ang PD1596? Yan ang nakakapagtaka.
  Ang pag-uusap na ito ni Judge Wolfrum at Professor Sands ay nasa Pages 82-84 ng 𝑭𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝑻𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒔𝒄𝒓𝒊𝒑𝒕 𝑫𝒂𝒚 1 – 𝑱𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑯𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 (7 July 2015) na mababasa sa https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1399 .
  Sa Day 2 ng 𝑱𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑯𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 (8 July 2015), sinabi ni Professor Sands na:
  “Under Philippine law, as a treaty lawfully entered into by the Philippines, UNCLOS is part of internal law, and it has the same status as national legislation. And that means, to the extent that PD [1596] might be consistent with UNCLOS, [PD1596] is to be treated as having been effectively repealed by the Philippines’ subsequent ratification of UNCLOS, under the principle of 𝘭𝘦𝘹 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘪 𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘪.”
  Upang suportahan ang kanyang argumento, binaggit ni Professor Sands ang Philippine Supreme Court decision 𝑨𝒃𝒃𝒂𝒔 𝒗 𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒏 𝑬𝒍𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔, 𝑮.𝑹. 𝑵𝒐. 89651, 10 𝑵𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒓 1989 ( https://tinyurl.com/abbascomelec ).
  Ito ay problematic. Ang Supreme Court decision ay tungkol sa conflict between R.A. No. 6734 and the Tripoli Agreement. For the sake of argument, the Supreme Court discussed kung anong epekto ng Tripoli Agreement kung ito ay “internal law” ng Pilipinas.
  Ang sabi Philippine Supreme Court: “Assuming for the sake of argument that the Tripoli Agreement is a binding treaty or international agreement, it would then constitute part of the law of the land. But as internal law it would not be superior to R.A. No. 6734…”
  At kung na-amyendahan ng RA 6734 ang Tripoli Agreement, ang Philippine Supreme Court lamang makakapagdesisyon kung papaano i-resolve ang conflict ng isang local law at ng isang international law.
  Wala pang Philippine Supreme Court decision na nag-resolba ng conflict ng PD1596 at UNCLOS.
  Binanggit din ni Professor Sands ang Philippine Supreme Court Decision on 𝑴𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒂 𝒆𝒕 𝒂𝒍 𝒗𝒔 𝑬𝒓𝒎𝒊𝒕𝒂 𝒆𝒕 𝒂𝒍, 𝑮.𝑹. 187167, 𝑨𝒖𝒈𝒖𝒔𝒕 2011 ( https://tinyurl.com/magalonaermita ).
  Sabi nya, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the 2009 Philippine Baseline Law na nag-classify sa Kalayaan Island Group bilang “regime of islands” under Article 121 ng UNCLOS. Hindi lang na-repeal ng UNCLOS daw ang PD1596, kundi na-amyendahan din daw ito ng 2009 Philippine Baseline Law.
  Mababasa ang argumento na ito ni Professor Sands sa Pages 3-6 ng 𝑭𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝑻𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒔𝒄𝒓𝒊𝒑𝒕 𝑫𝒂𝒚 2 – 𝑱𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑯𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈, 8 𝑱𝒖𝒍𝒚 2015 ( https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1400)
  Ngunit, hindi ata naintindihan ni Professor Sands ang decision ng Philippine Supreme Court. Ang issue eh ang adverse effect ng 2009 Philippine Baseline Law sa sovereignty claim ng Pilipinas sa Kalayaan Island Group under PD1596. Ang Kalayaan Island Group kasi wala sa loob ng geographic coordinates ng baseline ng Pilipinas kundi nasa labas.
  Walang sinabi ang Philippine Supreme Court na na-amyendahan ng UNCLOS ang PD 1596. Wala ring sinabi ang Philippine Supreme Court na na-amyendahan ng 2009 Philippine Baseline Law ang PD1596.
  Ang issue ay kung bakit wala ang Kalayaan Island Group sa loob ng geographic coordinates ng baseline ng Philippine archipelago at kung makakaapekto ba ito sa sovereignty claim ng Pilipinas sa Kalayaan Island Group.
  Ang sagot ng Supreme Court eh hindi, at kaya wala ang Kalayaan Island Group sa loob ng baseline eh dahil malayo na ito sa Philippine archipelago at kung isama ito sa loob ng baseline eh hindi ito magiging compatible sa UNCLOS.
  NGUNIT ang pinakamalaking katanungan ay kung bakit sinabi ni Professor Sands na na-repeal ng UNCLOS-ratification ng Pilipinas noong 1984 ang PD1596 ni Presidente Marcos gayong malinaw sa treaty reservations ng Pilipinas ang mga sumusunod nang pinirmahan ng Pilipinas ang UNCLOS:
  𝑹𝒆𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 4: “ Such signing shall not in any manner impair or prejudice the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines over any territory over which it exercises sovereign authority, such as the Kalayaan Islands, and the waters appurtenant thereto;”
  𝑹𝒆𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 5: “The Convention shall not be construed as amending in any manner any pertinent laws and Presidential Decrees or Proclamations of the Republic of the Philippines; the Government of the Republic of the Philippines maintains and reserves the right and authority to make any amendments to such laws, decrees or proclamations pursuant to the provisions of the Philippine Constitution.”
  Ang mga reservations na ito ay makikita sa UN Treaty Collections Website: https://tinyurl.com/reservationsPHUNclos .
  Ang treaty reservations ay naglilimita sa applicability ng UNCLOS sa bansang nag-deklara ng mga reservations na iyon. Malinaw ang sinabi ng Pilipinas na ang pagpirma niya sa UNCLOS ay hindi nangangahulugan na na-amyendahan na ang mga batas sa Pilipinas katulad ng Presidential Decrees. At ang PD1596 ay isang presidential decree.
  Hindi lahat ng treaty reservations ay legitimate, lalo na kung ang maapektuhan ng reservation ay isang peremptory norm of general international law o ang tinatawag na 𝒋𝒖𝒔 𝒄𝒐𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒔. Eto ay ang mga norms na generally accepted ng mga States at hindi pupwedeng ma-exempt. Iilan lang ang 𝒋𝒖𝒔 𝒄𝒐𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒔 norms sa international law.
  Hanggang ngayon, ang treaty reservations na ito ay hindi pa na-withdraw ng Pilipinas. Hindi rin binanggit ng lawyer ng Pilipinas sa Arbitral Tribunal ang mga reservations na ito. Bakit?
  Ang PD1596 ni President Marcos eh kini-claim ang Kalayaan Island Group as a “unit” at ang sovereignty claim eh sa buong unit within the geographic coordinates kasama na ang sea-bed, sub-soil, continental margin and air space na sakop ng geographical coordinates.
  Hindi dini-discuss sa mainstream media ang epekto ng sinabi ni Professor Sands sa South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal at kung ano na ang mangyayari sa expansive sovereignty claim ng PD1596. Bakit kaya?
  Ayaw kaya nilang malaman ng mga Pilipino na dahil sa South China Sea Arbitral Ruling eh baka hindi na pwedeng i-claim ng Pilipinas ang Kalayaan Island Group as a whole; at dahil dito maaring maapektuhan ang expansive sovereignty claims ng Pilipinas sa Kalayaan Island Group as an entire unit; at pati ang sovereignty claim ng Pilipinas sa airspace over the entire unit ng Kalayaan Island Group ay naapektuhan din ng South China Sea arbitral ruling?
  𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐔𝐄 #11: 𝐒𝐨 𝐰𝐚𝐥𝐚 𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐲𝐚𝐲𝐚𝐫𝐢?
  Meron, pero hindi ang minumungkahi ng mga madalas ini-interview ng mainstream media.
  Maganda ang sinabi ni Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju, dating Chairman ng International Law Commission, sa 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑺𝒐𝒖𝒕𝒉 𝑪𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒂 𝑺𝒆𝒂 𝑨𝒓𝒃𝒊𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 (𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑷𝒉𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒑𝒑𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒔 𝒗. 𝑪𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒂): 𝑨𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑨𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝑱𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑨𝒅𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚, 2016.
  “It is also hoped that the decisions of this Tribunal would help the Parties to come closer and not drive them further apart than they were before in reconciling their respective claims and legitimate interests.”
  Pero imbis na naging mas malapit ang China at Pilipinas dahil sa South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal ruling eh lalo pang nagkalamat ang kanilang relasyon.
  Ang tunay na layunin ng inter-state dispute resolution ay ma-reconcile ang claims at legitimate interests ng bansang may conflict. At sabi nga ni Pemmaraju, “as a practical or pragmatic matter, the Philippines at the end of the day would in any case have to return to the negotiating table to settle its dispute with China and achieve a mutually acceptable solution.”
  Go back to the negotiating table and achieve a mutually acceptable solution – yan lang ang tamang solusyon. At remember what Finnish diplomat Harri Holkeri once said:
  𝑰𝒇 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒂 𝒏𝒆𝒈𝒐𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒔𝒂𝒚𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒕𝒉, 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒌𝒏𝒐𝒘 𝒏𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒕𝒉 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒍, 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒈𝒆𝒕 𝒏𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈.