As the Philippines marks the ninth anniversary of the 2016 Arbitral Tribunal ruling on the South China Sea dispute, a fiery new exposé by geopolitical analyst Adolfo Quizon Paglinawan questions whether the country’s so-called “victory” is, in fact, a strategic setback—one that may have benefitted foreign interests more than the Filipino people.
Paglinawan’s detailed critique, “Checking the Facts: Arbitral Victory or Disaster?”, now in its 16th installment titled “Where Brawner sees War, China sees Diplomacy”, pulls no punches. He challenges the prevailing narrative, pushed prominently by the Stratbase ADR Institute and its president, Victor Andres “Dindo” Manhit, that the 2016 Arbitral Award was a watershed moment for Philippine sovereignty.
“The lie is so pernicious, it is hurting the Philippines’ best interests,” Paglinawan writes. He argues that the ruling did not deliver the geopolitical victory it was heralded to be, but instead served as a cog in America’s strategic ‘pivot to Asia’ under then-President Barack Obama—aimed at counterbalancing China’s rise, not promoting Philippine sovereignty.
At the heart of Paglinawan’s critique is Paragraph 278 of the Arbitral Award, which invalidated China’s expansive “nine-dash line” claim to the South China Sea under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). However, he argues that context is everything. Preceding language in Paragraph 272 explicitly states that the ruling does not address China’s historic claims to land features like islands or shoals, nor does it invalidate China’s rights to claim maritime zones under UNCLOS—so long as they’re based on land features like islands.
This legal nuance, according to Paglinawan, has been exploited by China. In December 2024, Beijing submitted baselines for the territorial sea around Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Dao) to the United Nations—compliant with UNCLOS, not invoking its historical claims. This move, Paglinawan claims, formalizes China’s de facto and now legally-backed sovereignty over a contested maritime feature the Philippines effectively ceded after the 2012 standoff.
“If China has now legally cemented its position through UNCLOS-compliant documentation, what was really won in the arbitration?” Paglinawan asks. “How can it be a victory when we’ve lost effective control over Bajo de Masinloc?”
Strategic Interests or Corporate Profits?
Beyond geopolitics, Paglinawan traces a troubling link between international diplomacy and corporate interests, specifically in the energy sector.
He highlights the lucrative Sampaguita gas field in Reed Bank—site of a 2011 Chinese maritime harassment incident. That project is owned by Forum Energy, which is majority-controlled by PXP Energy, itself owned by Philex Mining Corporation, under the umbrella of First Pacific Company Ltd., a Hong Kong-based conglomerate led by billionaire Manny Pangilinan.
“From your electricity to your toll roads, from your bottled water to your hospital bills—you’re paying a Pangilinan firm,” Paglinawan quotes columnist Rigoberto Tiglao as saying. “Add now the West Philippine Sea to the list?”
Critically, Pangilinan is also a co-chair of the Stratbase ADR Institute, which Paglinawan accuses of being a mouthpiece for American-aligned corporate interests and the U.S. military-industrial lobby, through its affiliation with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.
Paglinawan suggests that the persistent framing of the arbitration as a “landmark victory” is less about sovereignty and more about preserving business interests—particularly those that stand to benefit from resource extraction under foreign-aligned legal frameworks.
The Missing Faces in the Narrative
Adding fuel to the fire, Paglinawan notes that Stratbase’s annual closed-door forums on the South China Sea consistently exclude photos or mentions of three key figures: Salim, Pangilinan, and the late Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario, all deeply connected to Stratbase ADRI.
“If you’ve got nothing to hide, why not put your names and faces on it?” he asks.
The Call for Debate and Transparency
Despite the sweeping nature of his claims, Paglinawan says his aim isn’t confrontation but conversation—a national dialogue on sovereignty, corporate accountability, and geopolitical strategy.
He urges the Philippine public, lawmakers, and media to stop taking narratives at face value and begin fact-checking who benefits—politically, economically, and strategically—from the positions taken in the name of the national interest.
“Is it really about patriotism—or just profit?” he asks.
With tensions still simmering in the South China Sea and American and Chinese warships regularly operating in the region, the need for sober, informed debate has never been more urgent.#
