By Adolfo Quizon Paglinawan

 

Series 9: Forever peace or forever wars

On July 20, 2026, a violent clash occurred again near the BRP Sierra Madre at Ayungin (Second Thomas) Shoal when China Coast Guard (CCG) personnel went  close to the Philippine ship to call attention to repairs going on inside the ship.

Beijing accused Philippine personnel of provocation, claiming that two Philippine rubber boats ignored warnings, rammed a CCG patrol boat, and attacked Chinese personnel with sticks and oars. In the process, the Chinese Coast Guards blared sirens, fired tear gas, and bludgeoned a Filipino Navy officer with a wooden baton, causing a head injury.

China released video footage of the standoff.

As usual, The Department of National Defense (DND) and the Philippine News Agency and their echo mechanics in the mainstream press and social media, termed the incident as aggression, rejecting China’s attempts to shift the blame onto the Philippines for the incident. The incident also drew heavy condemnation from the United States and Australia, both of whom denounced the “dangerous and escalatory actions” of the Chinese forces.

But the video cannot lie, as to who cast the first stone.

The next day, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. met Ambassador Jing Quan at Malacañang.

The oligarchic press and their paid social media trolls were quick to claim that the ambassador was “summoned” as reported by the oligarchic press, only to commit an erratum as the meeting was preset by the President in anticipation with a following ASEAN foreign ministers meeting on July 22.

Clarifying in an interview, Jing said that his meeting with Marcos was constructive. “It’s not a kind of diplomatic protest (or) demarche, (not) an exchange of very strong words, no. It’s kind of, I think it’s very useful, constructive, kind of in-depth exchange of views.

He said the Ayungin incident was not even discussed: “Especially not on the incident yesterday.”

“But  a kind of a whole range of (recent) issues, which create difficulties (and) challenges for our bilateral relations. It’s kind of, you know, focused on the solution, not (on pointing) a finger (at) each other.”

Both sides agreed not to release any content to the media, “It’s really a private discussion. Few people attended and no press.

Jing clarified that it was our ambassador to Beijing, Jaime Flor Cruz. that was summoned by China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Yes, yes. Beijing already released the news. As a form of protest.”

Asked as to how this would affect the ongoing negotiations with the Philippines, the Chinese ambassador said “I think Philippines-China, we share the same goal. That is, we hope that we can finish the negotiations by the end of this year. That’s kind of a regional, multilateral issue, also involve other relevant parties. It’s not bilateral issues. So, no matter what happens bilaterally, I think our willingness to finish the talk on the Code of Conduct by the end of this year has not changed.”

Malicious ambiguities

In one press interview with PCG Spokesman Jay Tarriela, he framed the BRP Sierra Madre (LT-57) as an active, commissioned warship of the Philippine Navy.

The PCG spokesperson is definitely wrong, but he is only aping a prevarication that Teresita Daza, a spokesperson of the Department of Foreign Affairs made on August 2023. The complete quotation reads “The BRP Sierra Madre is a commissioned vessel of the Philippine Navy that serves as a permanent station for Philippine military personnel deployed to protect and secure Philippine rights and interests in the West Philippine Sea, particularly in the Ayungin Shoal and its vicinity.”

Now that a new controversy has again erupted concerning this derelict Philippine Navy junk., it is time to challenge this DFA statement and the very existence and purpose  of BRP Sierra Madre and the foreign policy revolving around its grounding in the South China Sea.

Daza’s summary stands on the following points:

1. Status: Commissioned active-duty vessel of the Philippine Navy.
2. Location: Intentionally grounded in 1999 at Ayungin Shoal (Second Thomas Shoal) in the West Philippine Sea.
3. Function: Serves as a permanent station and home for a contingent of Filipino Marines and sailors.
4. Sovereignty: Ayungin Shoal lies less than 200 nautical miles from the coast of Palawan, falling squarely within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

Let’s check if this fits into the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

Article 29 Definition of warships.

For the purposes of this Convention, “warship” means a ship belonging to the armed forces of a State (✓) bearing the external marks distinguishing such ships of its nationality (✓), under the command of an officer duly commissioned by the government of the State (✓) and whose name appears in the appropriate service list or its equivalent (✓) , and manned by a crew which is under regular armed forces discipline (✓).

At first glance, it passed Article 29 in flying colors for a war ship.

But central and basic to this definition is the assumption that a warship is that it must first be a ship or a vessel.

UNCLOS uses the terms “ship” and “vessel” interchangeably but does not explicitly define them. Generally, international maritime law interprets these terms as any waterborne craft used or capable of being used in marine navigation, regardless of its size, propulsion, or whether it has a crew.

Under modern international law interpretation by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), however, what falls within the general definition of a “ship” , must be intended for and capable of navigation.

In parallel, according to the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, the word “vessel” includes every description of water craft, including non-displacement craft and seaplanes, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water.”

An essential context for falling under the Law of the Sea, necessarily includes navigation.

Defining “commissioned” and “permanent”

Daza continues “The BRP Sierra Madre is a commissioned vessel of the Philippine Navy that serves as a permanent station for Philippine military personnel deployed to protect and secure Philippine rights and interests in the West Philippine Sea, particularly in the Ayungin Shoal and its vicinity,”

A former US and South Vietnamese vessel, it was deliberately grounded at Ayungin (Second Thomas) Shoal in 1999 and serves as a permanent Philippine military outpost.

1.  A ‘commissioned Philippine naval vessel’, and at other times, the term ‘active’ is added when ‘commissioned’ is deemed insufficient, cannot be a ‘permanent station‘ on Second Thomas Shoal.
2.  A warship should not be considered a ‘permanent station’, and a ‘permanent station’ cannot be a warship.

A vessel is defined in UNCLOS as a warship strictly by its active status, crew, and command, not merely its physical hull. A warship that cannot navigate usually loses this legal classification, and cannot legally transform into a permanent station or artificial island.

Besides, UNCLOS does not automatically recognize non-navigable military vessels as permanent stations.

Article 29 also requires that a warship be manned by a crew subject to military discipline. While those currently serving on the BRP Sierra Madre are Philippine Marines who are members of the regular Armed Forces of the Philippines and are subject to its discipline, the Philippines has not provided the BRP Sierra Madre with a crew would be responsible for ensuring the safe navigation of the ship.

That would be counterproductive as the BRP Sierra Madre has been moored for an extended period with no navigational capability.

It should also be noted that the mere inclusion of the BRP Sierra Madre in the Philippine Navy’s active roster does not automatically confer upon it the status of a warship. As it stands, the BRP Sierra Madre’s loss of seaworthiness, fixed position and repurposing as a military outpost render it incompatible with the traditional concept of a warship.

This makes the Philippines’ unilateral insistence on its warship status, even as it doubles as a permanent station, is  a clear improvisation away from  international norms.

Neither does it fit to be a permanent station. A military outpost is typically a small, remote military installation located at the edge of a country’s territory. Its purpose is to monitor and protect national borders from potential threats or incursions.

Topping it all, a ‘permanent outpost’ cannot be constructed on an area where a claimant feigns legitimate territory, EEZ or ECS where there is none.

Distinguishing  sovereignty from sovereign rights

In UNCLOS, constructing permanent stations falls under the regime of the coastal state’s exclusive economic zone and extended continental shelf rights.

Daza’s glib tongue  suffixes this dubious caveat “The deployment of a Philippine military station in its own areas of jurisdiction is an inherent right of the Philippines and does not violate any laws.”

In this respect, the Philippines has discombobulated the conversation. The use of the word “jurisdiction” is misleading and loads onto another question: jurisdiction in a sovereign territory is not the same as jurisdiction in an EEZ or ECS.

Let us first define terms.

• Asymmetry. There is a whale of difference between sovereignty and territory, and sovereign rights and EEZs and ECS. Sovereignty is a state’s absolute, supreme authority to govern its land, internal waters, and airspace, as in ownership. Sovereign rights, conversely, are limited, functional entitlements granted by UNCLOS to explore, exploit, and manage resources in specific maritime zones like EEZs and ECS.

Let me illustrate this in the case of the Benham Rise.

On 8 April 2009, the Republic of the Philippines submitted its claim to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, in accordance with UNCLOS Article 76, paragraph 8, and pertinent information on the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines east of the Luzon Island.

The United Nations (UN) approved the Philippines’ claim to Benham Rise in April 2012. The UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) validated the country’s submission, officially recognizing the underwater plateau as part of the Philippines’ extended continental shelf.

This approval grants the Philippines exclusive sovereign rights to explore and exploit natural resources—such as minerals, oil, gas, and sedentary marine species—found on or beneath the seabed in the area. It did not only give us sovereign rights to 150 nautical miles of ECS but validated our sovereign rights to the 200 nautical miles of EEZ before it.

But this is only part of the story.

On April 28, 2012, the Philippine Daily Inquirer headlined a big fraud: “UN approves PH territorial claim to Benham Rise.”

The tall story quotes Environment Secretary Ramon Paje saying “Benham Rise belongs to the Philippines. The United Nations has approved the Philippines’ territorial claim to Benham Rise, an undersea landmass in the Pacific Ocean potentially rich in mineral and natural gas deposits”.

The cabinet member continues:  “We own Benham Rise now.” He added that the UNCLOS (?) sent DENR a letter “that the landmass is part of the country’s continental shelf and territory.” UNCLOS is an inanimate treaty, not an agency or organization. UNCLOS cannot and did not extend to full territorial ownership to superjacent (overlying) waters of an ECS (or EEZ for that matter) as they remain open for international navigation.

Even highest officials in our government are ignorant of the asymmetry and has been scamming our people for the past 12 years.

Differentiating inherence from automaticity

The Philippines easily gained enforceable sovereign rights, east of the Philippines. Why? Because no other coastal state is in a position to oppose any of our claims east of our map. The situation west of our archipelago is totally different. Vietnam, China, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei disputes Manila’s expansive claims, and so yes, Madam Teresita Daza, we are violating laws because we cannot unilaterally delimit the seas.

• No automaticity. Sovereign rights may be inherent, but its enforcement is not automatic.

This is why UNCLOS  provides for key resolution and non-aggravation rules:

1.  Obligation to Exchange Views. Article 283 mandates that if a dispute arises, parties must expeditiously proceed to an exchange of views regarding its settlement by negotiation or other peaceful means.
   1.  Provisional Measures: Pending the resolution of a dispute, international courts or tribunals (such as the ITLOS or arbitral tribunals) often prescribe provisional measures. These legally bind parties must refrain from aggravating the dispute or taking unilateral enforcement actions that could prejudice the final outcome.
   1.  Undelimited Maritime Areas: Articles 74 and 83 outline that pending the delimitation of an Exclusive Economic Zone or continental shelf, States are to make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements. During this period, they must not jeopardize or hamper the reaching of a final agreement.

The primary dispute resolution mechanisms available to claimant States are outlined in Part XV of UNCLOS, which include negotiation, conciliation, arbitration, and submissions to the ICJ. For overlapping and unsettled maritime boundaries, the default fallback procedure is compulsory arbitration under Annex VII.

In case any or both of the parties have chosen to opt out, Article 298 allowing states to exclude specific, highly sensitive disputes—such as maritime boundary delimitations, military activities, and historic titles—from compulsory third-party binding arbitration. In such a case, the process reverts to Article 283 for bilateral negotiation.

A warship protected by MDT?

As we have established. the Philippines’ dual characterization of the BRP Sierra Madre as an active warship and a permanent station are fundamentally incompatible. The BRP Sierra Madre is a World War II-era vessel, is no longer seaworthy and has been grounded for over two decades. It has clearly lost its ability to function as a naval vessel. The BRP Sierra Madre’s physical condition is severely compromised.

The vessel’s hull is riddled with damage, including large holes and water ingress. This extensive deterioration has resulted in a complete loss of buoyancy and seaworthiness, making it impossible for the BRP Sierra Madre to function as a floating device, gross incapable of navigation.

The question of the South China Sea Probing Initiative, would the United States be obligated to defend the Philippines under the terms of the US-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty? – is again superfluous.  In the first place, the BRP Sierra Madre is located where the Convention excludes by virtue of a 1975 State Department secret document declassified in 2006:

Neither does it fit into the second Category:

Neither could it be accommodated  into the Third Category:

Besides, US reaction to any attack on Philippine military assets is not automatic, but is yet to be decided by the US Congress. In the words of Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Sate under US President Barack Obama, “I don’t answer hypotheticals.”

DOC infringement

While there have been claims that the Philippines subsequently cited mechanical issues when pressed by China to tow the ship away, this was utilized as a diplomatic delaying tactic. Former defense officials have clarified that the vessel was beached on purpose and that no promise to remove it was ever officially made.

Following the signing of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) in 2002, the Philippines made a commitment not to construct fixed installations on Second Thomas Shoal.

Article 5 of the DOC states:

“5. The Parties undertake to exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability including, among others, refraining from action of inhabiting on the presently uninhabited islands, reefs, shoals, cays, and other features and to handle their differences in a constructive manner.”

Spokesperson Daza’s  statement that “the Philippine station on Ayungin Shoal was deployed in 1999, years ahead of the conclusion in 2002 of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), and is therefore not a violation of the DOC,” is a technicality that countermands the spirit of the agreement at a time when President Marcos is working as rotational chairman of ASEAN to complete a Code of Conduct, codifying the DOC.

Furthermore, the country has provided repeated assurances that it will not replenish construction materials.

In September 2003, Acting Foreign Secretary Franklin Ebdalin stated that the Philippines had no intention of building facilities on Second Thomas Shoal and that the Philippines, as a signatory to the Declaration, would not be the first to violate it.

Since 2010, the Philippines has persistently sought to reinforce and refurbish the BRP Sierra Madre, thereby creating complications and contempt“

This constitutes a breach of the DOC’s Article V commitment to exercise restraint and refrain from the occupation of uninhabited reefs.

On the other hand, as recently as 2015, the United States did not recognize the BRP Sierra Madre to be an official Philippine military installation. It was only in the last two years, as U.S.-China tensions escalated, that the U.S. began describing the BRP Sierra Madre as a ‘longstanding outpost’ of the Philippines because of its appetite to build forward operating bases involving the Philippines.

On top of BRP Sierra Madre’s dilapidated condition and its age, Manila cannot realistically justify its occupation of Ayungin (Second Thomas) as occupied territory as the shoal is  a low-tide elevation that cannot be appropriated for land sovereignty.

The prolonged beaching of the BRP Sierra Madre on Second Thomas Shoal is essentially a disguised act of territorial expansion by exploiting legal ambiguity simply to conceal already obvious true motives.

Conclusion

What multilateral negotiations were the press asking Ambassador Jin Quan about?

On July 22, 2026, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with Philippine Foreign Secretary Maria Theresa Lazaro on the sidelines of the ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Manila. He expounded China’s solemn position to the Philippine side and lodged a strong protest against the reckless act of Philippine personnel ramming into the China Coast Guard vessel at Ren’ai Jiao (Ayungin Shoal).

Wang Yi stated that attempts to provoke trouble with the help of external forces will only make the Philippines reap what it sows.

Regrettably, every time China and the Philippines are poised to hold dialogue, some people within the Philippines, particularly some forces in the military and coast guard, would deliberately create incidents to derail the dialogue process. These people harbor ill intentions. What they seek is not the well-being of the Filipino people; instead, they act on the bidding of external forces and pursue personal gains.

China-Philippines relations now stand at a crossroads, and it falls on the Philippines to make a right and rational choice about the way forward.

The Philippine side should immediately stop provocative actions on maritime-related issues, honor its commitments made to China, and take concrete efforts to stabilize bilateral relations.

Unless substantial developments occur within the remaining months of the Marcos administration, rabble-rousers, demagogues, dilletantes and sycophants will rule his day in attempting to infuse bad blood into Philippine-China mutual understanding.

We celebrate the Arbitral ruling that according to UNCLOS, China nine-dash line has lo legal basis, but hasten to sketch our own mythical “West Philippine Sea”. Isn’t that the logic of a retard?

The feeble fact is the BRP Sierra Madre is grounded on a location where the Philippines may have inherent sovereign rights for an exclusive economic zone 200 miles from its coastal baselines, but since they are all contested west of the Philippines, under UNCLOS itself they cannot be enforced unless earlier resolved, between and/or among the parties. This is a classic example of distinction between having rights, and exercising those rights and I have earlier provided the exact international law citations applying these principles.

For the past 27 years, the Philippine position on this issue is anchored on fraudulence. Since 1999, its existence there has brought nothing but conflict and violent confrontation, rather than peaceful resolution. We cannot build peace if our entire legal framework is intended only to support cyclical propaganda and not built to advance diplomacy.

Moving forward, the Philippines must show good faith and remove, or cause to remove our derelict junk the BRP Sierra Madre from Ayungin Shoal and brought to some boneyard.

This way, to satisfy Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro, we can recover from some deficit of trust in the international community.

   

Email: contact@asiancenturyph.com

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

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AsianCenturyPH

Substack:

Also read: