Senators debate over West Philippine Sea measurements, legal foundations

A Senate floor debate on a resolution asserting Philippine maritime rights turned into an extended legal and technical exchange on how the West Philippine Sea should be defined, as Senator Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan and Senator Rodante Marcoleta clashed over measurements, legal foundations, and the implications of the 2016 arbitral ruling against China.

Pangilinan, the resolution’s sponsor, said the measure was intended to signal the Senate’s resolve to resist China’s expansive claims in the West Philippine Sea, which he said encroach on a vast portion of the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf.

He initially cited figures reaching around 500,000 square kilometers, based on the Philippines’ 200-nautical-mile EEZ and China’s dash-line claims covering much of the South China Sea.

Marcoleta challenged the figure, citing a National Security Council post stating that the West Philippine Sea measures approximately 381,000 square kilometers.

He also pointed to Supreme Court jurisprudence, including Magallona v. Ermita, which placed the Philippines’ total EEZ worldwide at about 382,669 square kilometers.

Pangilinan said the figures he cited were drawn from information provided to Philippine advisers during the arbitration proceedings and stressed that even lower estimates still represent a massive maritime area.

He later clarified that the higher figure combined the EEZ and the continental shelf, quoting a 2016 lecture by retired Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio stating that China’s nine-dash line encroaches on more than 531,000 square kilometers of Philippine EEZ and continental shelf combined.

"We already have an arbitral ruling in our favor so the metes and bounds is no longer debatable," he added.

Marcoleta said the distinction was critical, arguing that the resolution specifically concerned the EEZ.

He pressed Pangilinan on whether the Philippines has clearly defined the metes and bounds of the West Philippine Sea, saying that claims to land or waters must be clearly delineated under international law.

The senator questioned which legal basis the Philippines was relying on to define the West Philippine Sea: the 200-nautical-mile EEZ measured from archipelagic baselines, Administrative Order No. 29 issued in 2012, Presidential Decree 1596 establishing the Kalayaan Island Group, Republic Act 9522, or Republic Act 12064, the Philippine Maritime Zones Act enacted in 2024.

"Kung hindi natin ma-define kung ano ang atin, baka mahirapan po tayong ipagtanggol hanggang saan ang sa atin," he added.

Pangilinan maintained that the 2016 arbitral ruling had already resolved the matter in the Philippines’ favor, rejecting China’s dash-line claim and declaring its actions within the Philippine EEZ illegal. He argued that debates on metes and bounds were moot, as the tribunal had already recognized the country’s maritime entitlements.

Marcoleta disagreed, saying the arbitral tribunal invalidated China’s historic rights claim but did not define the exact coordinates of the West Philippine Sea. He argued that without precise boundaries, the Philippines could face difficulties defending its claims and cited features in the Kalayaan Island Group that are occupied by the Philippines but lie outside the 200-nautical-mile EEZ measured from Palawan.

Among those he cited were Pag-asa (Thitu) Island, Parola (Northeast Cay), Kota (Loaita) Island, and Lankiam Cay, which he said are separated from the EEZ by high seas. Marcoleta warned that enclosing such outliers could violate the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which prohibits enclosing high seas or creating “leapfrogging” maritime boundaries.

Pangilinan countered that Administrative Order No. 29, Republic Act 12064, and UNCLOS collectively provide sufficient legal basis for establishing the Philippines’ maritime zones. He added that the Kalayaan Island Group is a municipality of Palawan and argued that the EEZ may be measured 200 nautical miles from it.

Marcoleta responded that the arbitral tribunal had ruled that neither China nor the Philippines could enclose the Spratly Islands using straight or archipelagic baselines, citing specific paragraphs of the award.

He also argued that Republic Act 9522 merely defined baselines and did not determine the precise extent of the West Philippine Sea, while Republic Act 12064, in his view, still leaves unresolved issues regarding features located beyond the EEZ.

The exchange prompted interjections from other senators. Majority Leader Juan Miguel Zubiri recalled that Congress had passed laws defining maritime baselines and sea lanes, including Republic Acts 12064 and 12065, which he said contained coordinates approved by the Senate and signed by the President.

Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III questioned whether China itself had defined coordinates for its dash-line claim, noting that the Philippines has enacted baseline laws while China’s claim remains undefined.

Marcoleta argued that China’s claims appear in International Hydrographic Organization maps, but Senator Risa Hontiveros countered that the IHO is a technical body and that its map notations do not constitute legal recognition of China’s claims.

She stressed that the nine-dash line has no fixed or internationally recognized coordinates.

As the debate grew increasingly technical, Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo Lacson raised concerns that the discussion could have national security implications, noting that the measure under consideration was a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate rather than legislation defining maritime boundaries.

Sotto echoed the concern, prompting Lacson to order a brief suspension of the session.

-Paraluman News