By Adolfo Quizon Paglinawan

 

Part 10: A Nation with Many Strange Voices

Daily Tribune columnist Primer Pagunuran was fuming mad at the one-minute video clip on Reddit where former Supreme Court associate justices Antonio Carpio and Adolfo Azcuna insulted Senator Rodante Marcoleta in an interview by clowns Ronald Llamas and Richard Heydarian:

“For one, Carpio dismissed Marcoleta, in the caliber of lawyers, as ‘belonging to the lowest rung’ – an utterance that was accompanied by loud chuckles and body language that betrayed the propriety expected of former associate justices. For another, Azcuna answered with an ounce of mockery the question of Llamas of whether Marcoleta was a legal mind (saying) “Marcoleta still hasn’t reached his comet.”

“This metaphor graphically understated Marcoleta as being planets away in the galaxy of legal luminaries, like they professed to be. It’s of doubtful validity if indeed Marcoleta is fair game to these gentlemen fast drifting into the limbo of irrelevance. Incidentally, the two cannot even win in a local political contest, much less dream of becoming a senator of the Republic.”

Pagunuran said (their) unflattering comments were uncalled for, wanting in propriety and intellectual humility. I call it simply an overdose of their Atenean arrogance by magistrates with expired terms.

The Food and Drug Administration has stated that food must no longer be eaten beyond the ‘Expiry Date’ because the quality of the product is significantly impaired and safety is no longer guaranteed.

But our ‘presstituted’ mainstream media that loves spectacle more than wisdom, still consider these ‘expired’ justices’ attacks on a person’s character, motive, or personal attributes, good for public consumption.

Pagunuran added, “Clearly, these traits were missing entirely in the way Carpio and Azcuna quite cavalierly conducted themselves before a viewing universe. One wonders whether as so-called legal luminaries, they could have morphed into ‘legal mercenaries’ over the course of time.”

Bones of contention

Discussing issues in the South China Sea, Carpio argued that specific geographical coordinates are not required to define the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) because according to him rights of a coastal state over its continental shelf exist “ipso facto and ab initio by virtue of its sovereignty over the land.”

In short, automatic.

The ‘expired’ associate justice refuted statements made by the senator after Marcoleta debated three days earlier with Francis ‘Kiko’ Pangilinan over the West Philippine Sea.

Carpio insisted “A coastal state has an inherent right to its continental shelf, without need of any formality, announcement, proclamation or occupation. There is, therefore, no need to proclaim the coordinates of the outer limits of a coastal state’s EEZ,”

He even cited discordant references  the 1969 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, and Articles 76 and 77 of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or UNCLOS.

The problem here folks, is that Carpio’s pretension of luminary status asserting the legal theory of ‘automaticity’ is completely irrelevant. Marcoleta’s intentions were at a higher level, not intended for grandstanding; but fact-checking in aid of legislation to improve our laws towards better enforcement.

What good are our internal laws of the sea, if they cannot be enforced?

To answer this, Carpio aggravates the discourse with a half-truth:

“What is required to be publicized,” he adds “are the coordinates of an archipelagic state’s baselines under Article 47(8) of UNCLOS—which the Philippines has complied with through Republic Act No. 9522.”

He even shows off conformity to Articles 76 and 77 of the convention. Of course we did conform to those articles, but our subject here is not our baselines as an archipelagic unit, but coordinates for what Carpio has been vaguely championing as ‘West Philippine Sea’ and our claims to a 200 nautical miles of ‘exclusive’ economic zone extending outside of our submitted archipelagic baselines and claims to Benham Rise.

What his selective mind has been covering up all these years with simplistic ‘automaticity’, but the absence of disputed settlements with our neighboring coastal states, which is now nagging ‘west’ and ‘south’ of the Philippines.

Commonsensically, how could a so-called ‘exclusive economic zone’ be exclusive, and for that matter ‘automatic’, if it is contested by another coastal state?

What we have done is escalate tensions on the waters instead of pursuing the existing wisdom for conflict resolution provided by UNCLOS itself, the 2016 Arbitral Award and the 2002 Declaration of Conduct.

Our bullheadedness on the sheer basis of ‘automaticity’ has definitely crossed over verbal challenge and has provoked one of our neighbors to recourse to what is now all-too-familiar blockade, water cannon, laser and sonic blast, and at one instance actual boarding.

In aid of better legislation

So, what do we have to do? Leave Carpio’s half-lie and walk towards the full truth, isn’t it? What amazes me is how this ‘legal luminary’ got to Article 76 and 77 of the Convention, without passing through Article 74 and 75, if he were not maliciously cherry-picking?

Article 74 says when EEZs overlap, and for whatever reason, automatic entitlement alone is not enough. States must arrive at a treaty of delimitation or provisional arrangements pending agreement.

Please read with me the precise text:

“Article 74 Delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between States with opposite or adjacent coasts

“(1.) The delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between States with opposite or adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution.

“(2.) If no agreement can be reached within a reasonable period of time, the States concerned shall resort to the procedures provided for in Part XV.”

When in a bottleneck, pending no final resolution, what should the parties do?

“Article 74 (3) … the States concerned, in a spirit of understanding and cooperation, shall make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature and, during this transitional period, not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the final agreement.”

Paragraph 3 is where President Marcos ended up in 2024 after attempting from the third quarter of 2023 to depart from a pre-existing protocol that three presidents ahead of him agreed with China regarding Routine Resupply (RORE) missions for the humanitarian needs of our soldiers at BRP Sierra Madre that has been grounded at Ayungin Shoal since 1999.

            Marcos was coyed by expired Air Force Colonel Raymond Powell (now working for the Office of Naval Concerns of the US Defense Intelligence Agency) and PCG Commodore Jay Tarriela (a suspected trojan horse of the Americans and the Japanese) into creating ‘transparency’ scenarios that could deal reputational cost to China, if it does not bend to rules-based FONOPS or freedom of navigation operations in the South China Seas.

In aid of diplomacy

To be in a position to start pursuing what Article 74 requires,

“Article 75 Charts and lists of geographical coordinates

“(1). Subject to this Part, the outer limit lines of the exclusive economic zone and the lines of delimitation drawn in accordance with article 74 shall be shown on charts of a scale or scales adequate for ascertaining their position.

“Where appropriate, lists of geographical coordinates of points, specifying the geodetic datum, may be substituted for such outer limit lines or lines of delimitation.

“(2). The coastal State shall give due publicity to such charts or lists of geographical coordinates and shall deposit a copy of each such chart or list with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.”

            Carpio only succeeded in making a further fool of himself when he said’ “Coordinates are not required under international law. To measure your 200 nautical miles, you just need archipelagic baselines. From these baselines, by satellite GPS, you would know where your 200 nautical miles of EEZ would end.”

            This oversimplification is a sign of incompetence. Global Positioning System, my foot, so this explains why our government enforcement by the Philippine Coast Guard and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, sometimes assisted by the Philippine Navy, has been consistently been ‘lost at sea’. They have been ‘wazing’ the ocean.

As earlier mentioned, what Marcoleta seeks are better laws that would add teeth to diplomacy and avoid putting our relationship with other coastal states in jeopardy. To reiterate, his investigation is not for political gain but earnestly in aid of sound and quality legislation that will better how we conduct ourselves outside of 12 nautical miles from our coastlines.

Poisoning the waters

I am now more than convinced that people like Carpio, and his echo chamber Jay Batongbacal, his attack dog Jay Tarriela, his compass Raymond Powell, his jingoist peanut gallery in the Senate composed of Risa Hontiveros, Kiko Pangilinan, JV Ejercito, Pinky Lacson and Erich Sylvester Tulfo, are not really aiming to resolve our situation in the South China Seas.

They are actually poisoning the peace in the waters as in a fishing expedition for false starts that could start war.

Further, Arnedo Valera esq, an international lawyer based in Washington DC, calls attention to what is frequently overlooked, “is that international law distinguishes between the existence of an entitlement and its legal operability.”

Also a graduate of the Ateneo law school, Valera emphasizes: “Beyond treaty text, customary international law reinforces the same rule: claims that affect other States must be ascertainable, precise, and capable of verification. Maritime zones are not internal abstractions. They are zones where enforcement actions occur, diplomatic protests are lodged, and navigational rights are exercised by others.”

Then he reduces the principle in layman’s terms – “Without defined coordinates, a claim cannot be objectively tested, peacefully contested, or credibly defended. Ambiguity does not strengthen sovereign rights—it weakens them.”

Valera exposes the error in Carpio’s misrepresentation namedropping the North Sea Continental Shelf cases (ICJ, 1969), pointing out that the International Court of Justice instead rejected automatic or purely theoretical maritime extensions, “stressing that maritime rights must be translated into concrete, equitable, and knowable limits.”

He submits another jurisprudence: “In Nicaragua v. Honduras (ICJ, 2007) and Romania v. Ukraine (ICJ, 2009), the Court again underscored that maritime entitlements grounded in geography, must ultimately be expressed through defined lines and coordinates to ensure stability and predictability.”

This shows that what Carpio submitted as maxim that land generates maritime rights is in fact a starting point—not the end of legal analysis.

Personal involvement

It becomes worse if the present laws supposedly to protecting our sovereignty not only contains legal contradictions within the law but also presents lack of harmony with international law?

When the Tricom of the lower house summoned me as a resource person, I did not agree because I wanted to debate with Commodore Tarriela who is a boob who always namedrops ‘international law’ but does not provide any specific customary or conventional footnote.

I studied for almost two weeks doing diligent research to explain to them why the Philippine Maritime Zones Act (Republic Act 12064) authored by former Senator Francis Tolentino was a ‘stupid law’ and why in aid of legislation, it creates more problems than solutions.

I have discussed this in one of my past articles – it is all about codifying UNCLOS and the 2016 Arbitral Ruling in Section 14, but contradicting them as early as its Section 2.

Read: https://asiancenturyph.com/2026/01/11/stupid-law-fakes-rights-in-ghost-philippine-sea/

Isn’t it stupid that we celebrate the Arbitral Award’s knocking off the Nine-Dash Line, but thereafter, substitute almost half of it, with a phantom West Philippine Sea?

Last week, Tarriela and some senators have been crowing jingoist chants against alleged “traitors” who are giving away our sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction.

Nobody has given away actual territories than our government officials in the executive and legislative, and in one occasion judicial, branches.

Read: https://asiancenturyph.com/2026/01/14/sovereignty-and-territories-we-have-lost-under-marcos/

If we ignore the best intentions of Marcoleta, devoid of legislative reform, we can lose all our claims in the South China Sea with only a wink of an eye. Our laws when it comes to protecting our sovereignty, outside of our archipelagic baselines, are full of loopholes.

I do not want to bring this discussion to the precipice of utter failure, but if we do not seriously address the issues posthaste, how can we stop the American interference in our internal affairs, and start working for our own national interests?

To illustrate – can a lawyer or legislator readily pullout any law that would reasonably provide litigable justifications in our favor, for any of the specific features we have occupied in the Spratlys?

Carpio would jump at his feet, and shout ‘Presidential Decree 1596’!

Oh really? Please read the text of this law at least ten times and point to me the exact location you can find any mention of any name of any of the features we are claiming in this decree.

Specifically, where on earth is our claim to seven high tide elevations (rocks) and three low-tide legally based?

Conclusion

Summing up, Daily Tribune’s Primer Pagunuran correctly says “Ethics is a sine qua non in the legal profession.”

He explains that in 2023, the Supreme Court approved what is known as the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability: “Because this is precisely a values-based framework, it preaches such values as independence, propriety, fidelity, competence, diligence, equality, and accountability, among other normative guidelines for the various aspects of a lawyer’s conduct.”

Pagunuran continues “It is of little moment if Marcoleta is considered no legal luminary as gauged by those who once sat as magistrates on the High Tribunal. That disparaging video footage might have inflated their egos at the expense of a lowly senator (who) champions the plight of the poor, unlettered, and underprivileged at this critical juncture of our collective life.”

            Lawmaking is not lawyering which is in the service  of ‘clients’. Carpio and Azcuna’s may have reached their comets in their own right, but their minds operate within existing laws, regardless of whether it is seasoned with wisdom, tempered with justice, and truly responsive to the nation’s needs.

            Commodore Tarriela’s worse version of this anomaly: “Our legal entitlements in the ‘West Philippine Sea’ are not subjects for public debate,” dares one to ask, who is his client?

Allan Peter Cayetano in a better interview in a Boy Abunda Exclusive, punctuates “Wise legislation isn’t about control — it’s about educating, correcting wrongs, and creating real change for our nation.”

That is where Marcoleta weighs in.

Next Part: Loopholes show Why Philippines’ Claim is Weakest in the Spratlys

Thank you, Ed Lingao, Frontline, News 5 for speaking the truth, but that is not yet the whole truth.

   

Email: contact@asiancenturyph.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/asiancenturyph/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AsianCenturyPH

Substack:

Also read: