THE SEA THAT BINDS US: What’s at stake if Philippines loses WPS — and why it matters to all of us

The conflict in the West Philippine Sea is often seen as relevant only to communities in Luzon, but the alarming truth is that it could determine the fate of the Philippines’ broader maritime sovereignty — including waters off Visayas and Mindanao.

Maritime law expert Neil Simon Silva said the Philippines’ success or failure in defending its claims in the West Philippine Sea sets powerful legal and diplomatic precedents that even Ilonggos should care about.

“The questions of sovereignty in the WPS affect the other questions of sovereignty over the eastern seaboard of the Philippines, the Sulu Sea and Celebes Sea,” he said.

At the heart of the issue is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the international treaty that defines maritime entitlements and sovereign rights.

For the Philippines, UNCLOS has long served as the legal backbone in asserting its claims to the West Philippine Sea and across its vast archipelagic waters.

UNCLOS delineates zones such as territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and continental shelves, giving coastal states like the Philippines sovereign rights over fishing, resource extraction and environmental protection.

This legal framework was crucial in the Philippines’ 2016 victory at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.

The court rejected China’s sweeping “nine-dash line” claim, which attempted to assert historic rights over much of the South China Sea, because it conflicted with the principles and boundaries outlined in UNCLOS.

The ruling affirmed that significant parts of the waters and features in the West Philippine Sea fall within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone under UNCLOS and determined that China’s activities — such as building artificial islands and restricting Filipino fishermen — violated the country’s sovereign rights as recognized under international law.

Silva emphasized that the implications of the landmark victory go beyond legal theory.

If the Philippines cannot assert its rights under UNCLOS in one area, it weakens its position in others.

Aside from the West Philippine Sea, UNCLOS governs all major seas and maritime passages under Philippine jurisdiction — including the Philippine Sea, Celebes Sea, Sulu Sea and numerous channels.

These seas fall within the country’s territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, all defined and governed under UNCLOS provisions.

IT’S GETTING CLOSER

Recent reports suggest that Chinese naval activities are no longer limited to the contested areas near Palawan and Zambales.

They are now appearing much closer to home for many Filipinos — particularly in the south.

In February 2025, the Armed Forces’ Western Mindanao Command monitored three Chinese navy ships — including a guided missile cruiser and a frigate — passing through strategic passages such as the Basilan Strait and Sibutu Passage en route to the Sulu Sea.

The ships reportedly navigated archipelagic sea lanes but traveled at unusually slow speeds without prior diplomatic coordination, raising concerns about their intent and the sovereignty implications for these southern maritime zones.

Just months later in July 2025, two Chinese navy warships and a China coast guard vessel were detected operating within the country’s exclusive economic zone off Occidental Mindoro, near Cabra Island, conducting helicopter landing drills.

With heightened Chinese incursions into Philippine waters, Silva warned that the country’s ability to control and benefit from resources in seas once considered uncontested could be in jeopardy.

“If UNCLOS dies in the WPS, what happens to our right to fish in the eastern seaboard, in Sulu Sea and Celebes Sea? If the law fails in WPS, how does it protect the rest of the Visayas and Mindanao? This is about enforcing UNCLOS,” Silva said.

He stressed that fisheries, energy security and broader economic development are at stake — making it crucial for the Philippines to maintain strong, consistent and legally sound maritime claims across all its waters.

“When the time comes that we can fully enforce the tribunal’s decision, we will be able to get fishing for people in Palawan, Mindoro, Luzon and Visayas,” he said.

Energy security is just as tightly bound to maritime control.

One critical example is the Malampaya gas field, which supplies about 20% of Luzon’s electricity needs.

The tribunal’s 2016 ruling explicitly affirmed Philippine sovereign rights over the area.

The gas field, however, is nearing depletion — projected around 2027.

This threatens to cause serious energy shortages, price hikes and possible blackouts, impacting millions of consumers and the economy.

The dispute has complicated efforts to explore and develop new energy resources in the West Philippine Sea.

Despite the presence of enormous natural gas and oil reserves, fears of Chinese aggression deter investment and slow exploration activities.

“That’s the effect of this on our energy and fishing security,” Silva stressed.

The fight for the West Philippine Sea is not just about contested reefs or distant shoals.

It is about the Philippines’ ability to protect its people, its resources and its place in international law.

The West Philippine Sea binds us all — across islands, regions and generations.

And how we defend one corner of it could decide how we defend the rest.

“We now have law on our side. We need to defend the law here so that it will not fail in others,” Silva said.

(This story was produced following a three-day workshop titled “Uncovering the Depths: A Training on West Philippine Sea Reporting,” held in Cebu City in April 2025. The workshop was organized by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.)