The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has strongly refuted claims made by former Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio regarding the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement), insisting that the country’s maritime zones remain fully protected.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, June 16, the DFA took exception to remarks made by Carpio during a television interview on June 12, in which he accused the department and the Philippine government of negligence and of failing to safeguard the country’s maritime interests.

The DFA said Carpio’s assertions stem from a “fundamental misreading” of the BBNJ Agreement and confusion between the high seas and the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), two distinct maritime areas recognized under UNCLOS.

“This is not a matter of interpretation: the BBNJ Agreement explicitly and unambiguously excludes the maritime zones of coastal states from its scope, a fact apparent from even a cursory reading of both its title and text,” the DFA said.

According to the DFA, Carpio’s warning that the Philippines could lose portions of its EEZ if it fails to protest China’s declaration upon ratifying the agreement has “no legal foundation.”

“The Philippines’ EEZ is defined and protected under UNCLOS—not by the BBNJ Agreement—and cannot be diminished, forfeited, or otherwise affected by the country’s implementation of the BBNJ Agreement,” the department stressed.

“The Agreement itself expressly provides that it cannot be invoked as a basis for asserting or denying any claims to sovereignty, sovereign rights, or jurisdiction, nor as a basis for settling any related disputes,” the DFA added.

The DFA also challenged Carpio’s assertion that the BBNJ Agreement is intended to regulate fish stocks that move between the high seas and EEZs.

It clarified that the conservation and management of migratory and straddling fish stocks are governed by the separate UN Fish Stocks Agreement, which entered into force in 2001.

“The BBNJ Agreement does not deal with fish stocks,” the DFA said. “The conservation and sustainable use of straddling and migratory fish stocks is governed by the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, a separate UNCLOS implementing agreement that has been in force since December 2001,” the department added.

Regarding Carpio’s proposal to formally object to China’s declaration on the agreement, the DFA noted that China’s statement does not explicitly mention the South China Sea and that interpreting it as such was Carpio’s own conclusion.

“It bears noting that China’s declaration does not explicitly mention the South China Sea; this is Justice Carpio’s own interpretation,” the DFA said.

The DFA further emphasized that the 2016 Arbitral Award had already ruled that China’s nine-dash line claim is inconsistent with UNCLOS and carries no legal effect.

“More substantively, there is no longer any unresolved maritime dispute with respect to China’s sweeping claims in the South China Sea: the 2016 Arbitral Award conclusively held that China’s nine-dash line is incompatible with UNCLOS and carries no legal force,” it added.

“Simply stated: the Philippines’ maritime zones are not at risk,” the DFA said.

The DFA also defended the government’s track record during the years-long negotiations leading to the BBNJ Agreement.

“The accusations leveled against the DFA and the Philippine Government are baseless,” the DFA said, noting that throughout the negotiations leading to the BBNJ Agreement’s adoption, the Philippine government “consistently and on record stated that the Agreement applies to the pockets of high seas within the South China Sea.”

“In all relevant UN fora and ocean governance meetings, the Philippines also actively and vigorously opposed the introduction of any mechanism that would allow a party to veto Area-Based Management Tool measures on the basis of a standing dispute—precisely to prevent others from using contested maritime claims to frustrate the Agreement’s implementation,” the DFA stressed.

According to the DFA, the country’s positions on the agreement resulted from extensive consultations involving multiple government agencies, including the Department of Justice, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and the Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, as well as non-government organizations and other stakeholders.

“The national interest has been and remains the primary consideration guiding all decisions,” the DFA said.

While acknowledging Carpio’s contributions to Philippine jurisprudence and legal scholarship, the DFA urged greater caution in public discussions involving national sovereignty and maritime rights.

The department assured the public that the government remains committed to protecting Philippine sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction over its maritime zones while advancing international cooperation on marine biodiversity conservation under the BBNJ Agreement.

“The Filipino public deserves accurate and well-grounded information, and they can be assured that this Government remains fully seized of its obligation to protect Philippine sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction in our maritime zones,” the DFA said.