The national government’s decision to use diplomacy instead of employing force to match China’s aggression in the West Philippine Sea (WPS) was supported by a maritime expert, saying it was the "correct" approach.
Lawyer Jay Batongbacal, director of the University of the Philippines (UP) Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea, said the Constitution states that the country renounces war as an instrument of national policy.
“Ang paggamit ng diplomasya tama lang at iyon ay nasa ating batas (The use of diplomacy is correct and it is in our Constitution),” he said in a public briefing on Tuesday, June 25.
“Kahit sa Saligang Batas, itinatakwil natin ang digmaan at paggamit ng dahas sa foreign policy (Even in the Constitution, we renounce war and use of force in our foreign policy),” he added.
If anything, China’s use of “excessive” force to obstruct a resupply mission by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) on June 17 at the BRP Sierra Madre outpost in Ayungin Shoal showed that the Philippines “is on the right path.”
“Ang Pilipinas ang nasa tama dito. Ang kabila ang laging gumagamit ng dahas at pamimilit sa issue na ito (The Philippines is on the right path. The other side often uses violence and intimidation in this issue),” Batongbacal said.
Further, Batongbacal said the aggressive actions and use of weapons by the China Coast Guard (CCG) against the Philippine Navy (PN) troops “clearly” demonstrated an “illegal use of force and coercion” under the United Nations (UN) Charter.
However, these cannot be considered an armed attack yet under the auspices of the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between the Philippines and United States. The 1951 defense pact requires both Manila and Washington to defend each other in case of an armed attack from a third-party nation.
“Para sa ordinaryong tao ‘yan ay armed attack dahil gumamit ng sandata. Kasi ang usapin dito ay legal, sa United Nations charter, malinaw na ito ay isang illegal use of force and coercion. Labag po ito sa prinsipyo ng batas internasyonal na hindi dapat gumagamit ng dahas, pananakot, pamimilit sa mga bansa lalo na sa case na ito (For an ordinary people, that is an armed attack because of the use of weapons. Since the discussion is legal, based on the United Nations charter, this is clearly an illegal use of force and coercion. This is not allowed by the principles of international law which prevents the use of violence, scare tactics, and intimidation on nations, especially in this case),” Batongbacal said.
“Bagamit ito ay illegal action, unlawful in the international law at maaaring tawagin na armed attack in the ordinary sense, hindi ito kasi ‘yung tinatawag na armed attack sa Mutual Defense Treaty. Kapag sinabing armed attack, ito po ay isang mawalakan o malakihang aksyon na ginagamitan ng armas ang buong estado. Kumbaga parang invasion na ‘yan, maraming pangyayari na pinapakitang sasakupin na ng isang bansa ‘yung kabila (Even if these are illegal actions and unlawful in the international law, and could be called an armed attack in the ordinary sense, this cannot be an armed attack in the Mutual Defense Treaty. When you say an armed attack, it is a large-scale action which uses arms on an entire state. It’s like an invasion, successive actions which show that a nation is likely to be invaded by another country),” he explained.
The CCG’s unlawful actions “have not yet reached” the level of an armed attack, according to Batongbacal. He said this must be the reason why the government is not considering to invoke the MDT, and instead use diplomacy to fix the issue.
Earlier, the National Maritime Council said that it has not recommended to President Marcos Jr. the invocation of the MDT over the violent resupply mission last week.
This garnered mixed reactions from the public, with some concerned stakeholders urging the government to call the US for help to stop China's actions in the West Philippine Sea.
Meanwhile, President Marcos Jr. visited the troops engaged in the resupply mission in Palawan over the weekend and said that the Philippines is "not in the business to instigate wars."
"Naiintindihan po natin bakit mayroong concerns, bakit nababagabag ang mga tao. Pero kahit sa batas, hindi bawat pangyayari ay dahilan para magkaroon ng giyera. Iyon po kasi ang implikasyon ng sinasabi ng iba na gagamitin ang Mutual Defense Treaty para ipatawag ang kaalyado natin para magkaroon na ng giyera or active hostilities (We understand why there are concenrs, why the people are worried. But even in our law, not all incidents can be used as an excuse to wage war. That seems to be the implication that some people are saying when they urge for the invocation of the Mutual Defense Treaty and call for our allies to wage war or active hostilities)," Batongbacal said.
"Sa ngayon, ang gamit ng Mutual Defense Treaty ay 'yung ibang options. Mayroong probisyon doon na pwedeng magkonsultasyon at magtulungan yung mga kaalyado sa mga ibang paraan na pwede nilang isagot sa pangyayaring ito. Kunwari maaari nilang pagusapan ang economic sanction, political action at iba pang pamamaraan na hindi pa 'yung tinatawag na retaliation o self-defense na sagot doon sa pangyayari (Right now, they can use different options under the Mutual Defense Treaty. There are provisions there which allow consultation among allied parties to address this incident. For example, they can talk about economic sanction, political action, and other ways instead of retaliation or self-defense as an answer to what happened)," he added.