SCARBOROUGHSHOAL STAND OFF IN RELATION TO INTERNATIONAL LAW

FACTS:
The Scarborough Shoal is claimed by both the People's Republic of China and the
Philippines. The Republic of China (Taiwan), also claims the shoal as part of its territory.
On April 8, 2012, a Philippine Navy surveillance plane spotted eight Chinese fishing
vessels docked at the waters of Scarborough shoal. BRP Gregorio del Pilar was sent on
the same day by the Philippine Navy to survey the vicinity of the shoal, and confirmed
the presence of the fishing vessels and their ongoing activities. On April 10, 2012, BRP
Gregorio del Pilar came to inspect the catch of the fishing vessels. The Filipino
inspection team claimed that they discovered illegally collected corals, giant clams and
live sharks inside the first vessel boarded by the team. BRP Gregorio del Pilar reported
that they attempted to arrest the Chinese fishermen but were blocked by Chinese
maritime surveillance ships, China Marine Surveillance 75 (Zhongguo Haijian 75) and
China Marine Surveillance 84 (Zhongguo Haijian 84). Since then, tensions have
continued between the two countries. By July 2012, China had erected a barrier to the
entrance of the shoal and vessels belonging to the China Marine Surveillance and
Fisheries Law Enforcement Command were observed in the nearby disputed shoal.
Since then, the Chinese government vessels have been turning away Filipino vessels
sailing to the area. In response, the Philippines has stated that it would be preparing to
resend vessels to the shoal, in what has been described as a "cold standoff".
ANALYSIS:
The basis of claims of both disputing sovereign states were introduced and exposed for
a helpful, honest review. Now, I will try reiterating the bases of both states in claiming
the Scarborough Shoal in South China Sea. The basis of claims of both disputing
sovereign states were introduced and exposed for a helpful, honest review. Now, I will
try reiterating the bases of both states in claiming the Scarborough Shoal in South
China Sea. , the Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Scarborough Shoal is
premised on certain principles of public international law. The Philippines cited the

Palmas Island Case, in which the Netherlands has sovereignty over the island on the
basis of effective exercise of jurisdiction. The Philippine sovereignty over the
Scarborough Shoal is based on sovereign rights under UNCLOS or United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea. when the Constitution of a sovereign state is in
trouble with the international law, the former should be followed. I believe, that even in
disputes, such territorial conflict, this concept remains constant. Besides, the claimantparties have expressed reservations upon their ratification of the UNCLOS declaring that
such signing shall not in any manner affect the sovereign rights of their respective
states. Unfortunately, the 1987 Philippine Constitution (including those prior to 1987
Philipine Constitution) has not become too effective in laying out its territorial waters
even until today when former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo enacted the Philippine
Baselines Law or the RA 9522 in 2009. Rather, this enacted law classified the Spratlys
and Scarborough Shoal as regimes of islands. For the Philippines to classify
Scarborough Shoal as regime of islands, is this implying that Philippines has no at all
or doubtful to exercise full sovereign rights over Scarborough Shoal even if it addresses
likewise an exercise of sovereignty and jurisdiction over it. The Philippines lost its
sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Scarborough Shoal the moment the Philippine
government classified it as regime of islands. Over the years before 2009, the conduct
of the Philippines with regard to Scarborough Shoal has revealed a humble admission,
implied recognition, and outright acquiescence to the constant claim of China over the
islands in South China Sea, including the Scarborough Shoal.Therefore, RA 9522 in
2009 is weak in asserting Philippine claim of jurisdiction and sovereignty over
Scarborough Shoal. Furthermore, UNCLOS provision on Regime of Islands would
simply become moot and academic because China over and over the years has
already claimed sovereignty and jurisdiction over Scarborough Shoal very long before
the UNCLOS ratification and these early years of active claim of the Philippines. the
Philippines has no basis to claim the Scarborough Shoal on the principle of acquiring a
territory that no one has been claiming for (terra nullius). If and only if the Philippines
asserts its claim based on public international law relating modalities of acquisition. As
far as independence is concerned, the Philippines gained its independence from

America in 1946. China has issued and asserted a declaration claiming over Zongsha
islands (where Scarborough Shoal is a part) as early as 1935 and in 1947 (Scarborough
Shoal was given a name to Minzhu Jiao.). Ergo, the Philippines cannot suffice its claim
based on the principle of terra nullius. It can also be deduced that the Philippines failed
to consider historical basis and pertinent historical documents on territorial claim when
drawing out territorial border. Hence, future conflicts like this can be prevented.
Furthermore, the 1978 map published by the Philippine National Mapping and Resource
Information Authority did not include Scarborough Shoal as part of Philippine territorial
sea. Moreover, the Philippines has already expressed its claim over the islands in South
China Sea and that was limited only to the Kalayaan islands based on Presidential
Decree No. 1596. Ergo, the Philippine's claim over Scarborough Shoal is virtually
inconsistent unless otherwise P.D. No. 1596 was superseded.