The incident was reported when Bautista told Monday the foreign correspondents in the Philippines about the incident: “Chinese Coast Guard tried to drive away Filipino fishing vessels to the extent of using water cannon.
Asked if the Philippines would lodge a protest over the incident, Bautista said they would first have to investigate.
What? Twenty-eight days have passed and the government is still investigating?
Is this Bautista’s idea of making sure that the military perform its mandate “as protector s of the people and the state and of our national territory?”
Why only now?
Hernandez said they were informed about it only “late last week.”
He said they “needed to collect more details and information before making any the decision on what course of action we need to undertake on this issue.”
He added that the incident has been confirmed although they don’t have any documentary evidence. The report they got, he said, was that no one was injured.
Coast Guard sources said there were actually 14 fishing vessels by Filipino fishermen in Bajo de Masinloc on that day and only two were subjected to water cannon spraying. The source said the two vessels must have gone too close to the Chinese Coast Guard ship and the spraying was a warning act.
Bajo de Masinloc, a triangular-shaped coral reef formation that has several rocks encircling a lagoon, is both claimed by the Philippines and China. Also known as Panatag Shoal and Scarborough shoal it is 124 nautical miles from Zambales (not located in West Philippine Sea. Calling it Huangyan Island, China has included the rock formation, which is 467 nautical miles from the mainland, in its 9-dash line map.
After a 57-day standoff precipitated by the arrest by the Philippine Navy of Chinese fishing vessels on April 8, 2012 in Bajo de Masinloc, there’s an understanding of peaceful co-existence in the area.
That’s why President Aquino was uncharacteristically a voice of moderation in this incident. Talking to reporters in Cebu, where the 1986 Edsa People Power was commemorated, Aquino noticed inconsistencies in Bautista’s revelation because at the very time the Armed Forces chief was telling the foreign correspondents about the Jan. 27 incident, Filipino fishermen were fishing inside the shoal.
Aquino said: “May I add na medyo inconsistent rin yung nangyari dyan. We’re not sure at this point in time if we can call it their standard operating procedure. Kasi as of yesterday, we had fishermen inside the shoal, inside the shoal who are not being harassed or intimidated by any entity. So ayaw naman natin mag-react kung one of incident ‘to that they probably will say was acting not under their orders but out of ‘yung para bang dinesisyunan ng kapitan ng particular boat na ‘yun.”
The President further said that,”The first step will be a diplomatic message directed at the People’s Republic of China to ask them to explain what this incident was all about and what their directions are.”
In the note verbale handed to the Chinese Embassy charge d’affaires, the DFA reiterated that “ Bajo de Masinloc is an integral part of the Philippines and over which the Philippines exercises sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction. Philippine fishing vessels have been routinely, continuously, and peacefully and sustainably fishing in Bajo de Masinloc.
China’s replied that “The Chinese side does not accept the so-called “protest” by the Philippine side.”
They also reiterated thay “China has indisputable sovereignty over South China Sea Islands and their adjacent waters, Huangyan Island included. Chinese government vessels are conducting regular patrols within China’s jurisdiction. “
China added: “We urge the Philippine side to work with the Chinese side to resolve differences through bilateral consultations and negotiations.”
Feeling disadvantaged in a one-on-one negotiation with the behemoth neighbor, the Philippines brought the territorial dispute issue to the United Nations Arbitral Court.
I think they just timed it upon the visit of the US Admiral head of the Asia Pacific Fleet based in Hawaii.
At first, I was very much against China’s harassment and bullying. Now, it’s a bit getting clear to me that our government led by this inexperienced and incompetent President is partly to blame. He’s just incompetent when it comes to foreign relations. The worst DFA we ever had.
When the Taiwanese vessel trespassed into our territory, our Coast Guard shot them with live ammunition killing one Taiwanese fisherman. The Chinese only used water canon this time to us even if they had the option to use bullets.
And Uncle Sam? We still have to see his reaction. On one hand, Uncle Sam keeps saying he’s ready and willing to defend and protect his little brown brother. On the other hand, the US keeps a neutral position. Double faced.
The move is related to the proceedings at the Arbitral proceedings.
There is an amicus brief filed by Stefan Talmon of the University of Bonn. His brief is downloadable below:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2393025
Lagyan ng (h t t p : / /) sa harap. No spaces.
One of the points of the Professor Talmon, which may be problematic to the Philippines is the following, found on page 17 of the brief.
Professor Talmon is saying, the Philippine claim is general, and not underpinned by specific factual allegations. Ano nga ba yang “inconsistent activites”.
With the water cannon incident, the Philippines can now put flesh to the skeleton of its claim.
Malamang may nakabasa ng amicus brief ni Professor Talmon, so corrective action is being taken, to support the arbitral claims.
Tama lang ang ginawa ng China. Iyon ay protektahan ang pag aari nila. Hindi puwede pumasok ang mga outsider na pinoy. Hindi nga malabanan ng gobyernong Pilipinas na matigil ang corruption na nagkakaharap harap pa minsan ng personal ang mga sangkot, iyon pa kaya na malayo sa siyudad ang isla. Hayaan na ang spratly island ay maangkin ng bansang China dahil may kakayahan sila na mapakinabangan iyon ng nakararami.
I’m pleased to say that I agree with you on this one. I suspect the President is also mindful of the embarrassment caused by the recent loud misidentifying of old concrete blocks as new Chinese building foundations. If this aggression was worth keeping quiet for 28 days, it is not worth much of a shout now.
india nga binu-bully ng china. halos magkasinglawak lang sila ng land area at magkasingdami ng populasyon, pilipinas pa kaya?
India’s Modi: China must drop expansionist mindset
http://www.arabnews.com/news/529586
kung ganyan ang sistema ng pamumuno sa AFP ni gen. bautista aba’y baka biling baliktad sa kanyang libingan ang kanyang ama.
sa mga hindi nakakaalam ang tatay niya ay si yumaong bgen. teodulfo bautista na kasama sa mga minasaker ng mga tauhan ni usman sali sa danag market, patikul, sulu noong 1976.
Granting for the sake of argument that the FOI or access to Information law is in existence, is it possible for the Media entity to access the records why there was a 28 days delay for the AFP or government agencies concern to inform the President and the DFA about the incident of unilateral water canon battle in the Sea? or will this be classified as National Security Issue? If it is withheld what is the course of action of the Media or party or parties wanting to have access? Court application?
If these options are available there will be answers to the 28 days delay instead of more speculations.
about # 5:
correction. 1977. 10 october 1977 to be exact. and the present CS, AFP the son was then a cadet in the PMA.
Hirap kasi na dalawa ang boss…
What i can tell you is that some fishermen dont trust our military. I bet you they did not even have radios on the boats. Could also be subsistence fishermen which are not given importance. Military could also have found out only through the rumor mills. A lot of things happen in the open seas that you dont normally report.
Binomba sila ng tubig. Nakauwi sila dalawang araw na. Nireport sa Baranggay captain, na nireport sa municipio, ni report sa pulis, ni report sa provincial commander, ni report sa crame. Sino ba ang binomba ng tubig?balik ulit kay Provincial commander etc etc. Kinailanggan lang ang news na ito kasi may bisita.
Please correct me if I’m wrong. Is this AFP Chief Bautista’s father the late BGEN Bautista who was killed in Mindanao in the past?
Nakup, pinaalala mo na naman yang Patikul Massacre. Naaalala ko bumaligtad sikmura ko sa mga litrato nung White Papers ng PAF na pinakita ng kaklase ko. Sampung kaklase namin ay anak ng Heneral o Koronel ng PAF. Panahon ito ni Rancudo as CPAF. Malaking isyu yung masaker, pati si Makoy, galit na galit. Pagkatapos ratratin yung mga sundalo, pinagtataga pa ng kris, merong tinagpas ang mga ulo, merong nahati ang katawang mala-mananaggal, merong parang salagubang na tinanggalan ng paa’t kamay. Grabe. Sa palengke ginawa ang ambush.
Ang nakakainis, pagkakataon nang gumanti ni Bautista saka naman nagka peace talks, hahaha.
As to topic, I assume it’s part of the posturing just in time for Obama’s visit this March.
#11 Oh yes, the Patikul Massacre where the current AFP Chief’s father was among those killed. The Muslim rebels indeed have a lot of blood to pay to the AFP, country and people.
In the meantime, the US shows a much tougher position against Russian’s intervention in Ukraine. That means the Philippines is only a shhiit to the Americans.
#2, Thanks, SnV. Need this for the analyis I’m doing. I’m told he is one of the authors (the other is Bingbing Jia) of the book “The South China Sea Arbitration”, a Chinese Perspective.
Professor Talmon is saying that there is no factual basis for the claim of the Philippines. It is only making general statements.
Ano nga ba yang “inconsistent activities”. Who the hell drafted our claim.
So now, we are supplying the facts in our memorial to be submitted at the end of March. We will claim that China has prevented our fishermen from fishing in our exclusive economic zone. That is the value of this water canon incident – to supply our memorial with facts. The incident was pooh-poohed before (Tubig lang. Na-dedu namin yung isa ninyo). Now somebody must have read Professor Talmon’s amicus brief (brief by a friend of the Court), so they are trying to plug the hole he pointed out.
A little problem.
We were fired at, with water cannons. But we killed one of theirs. (Remember that to the international community, Taiwan is a province of China).
Hypothetically, I think the amicus brief is a nice maneuver. A party may answer the claims of another, without submitting to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.
I said hypothetically. I am sure Professor Talmon’s brief was done purely from an academic standpoint; to aid the Court.
#15 Madam Ellen, I think you thanked the wrong person. #8 was Jake Las Pinas not SnV.
Here’s my humble analysis:
The arbitration is not about the sovereignty. It belongs to China that is not disputable. The arbitration is about four of the islands should they be classified as rocks or islands.
If it is an island it will have the 200 nm eez and the 12 nm territory zone but if it is a rock it only have 12 nm territory zone only.
Scarborough doesnt belong to China.
Merits yan. Who owns what. Before the merits, the arbitral tribunal must first satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction.
That is the point of Professor Talmon’s amicus brief – that the tribunal has no jurisdiction. That issue must first be surmounted, before the Philippines can get a ruling on the merits.
The arguments of Professor Talmon are pretty good, and it would not be a walk in the park for the Philippine side. The American firm (Foley and Hoag), however, which the Philippines engaged, is a heavy hitter. It was this firm which represented Nicaragua in the case Nicaragua won against the United States, before the ICJ (International Court of Justice).
That’s right. An American law firm represented Nicaragua against the United States. Try that in the Philippines and see if you don’t get bullied in social media as being a traitor. How did social media treat Justice Cuevas while the impeachment was ongoing?
In the case of Nicaragua v. US, however, both the US and Nicaragua accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. This is the crucial first round that the Philippines must win – the Arbitral Tribunal ruling that it has jurisdiction, despite the non-acceptance of China.
I’m inclined to agree with sax’s analysis and comments.
#20, SnV, I’m writing about the Memorial that the Philippines is going to submit. I hopr to finish it tmrw.
Solgen Jardeleza briefed us last Friday. He said they requested the tribunal to rule both on jurisdiction and merits at the same time and the jury agreed.
The Philippine side know they are vulnerable on the jurisdiction (Jardeleza didn’t say this outright) so they want the jury to listen to the merits hoping that it would influence their decision on jurisdiction.
Jardeleza: “The strategy we have taken is , If you are strong on merits, go for the merits.”
The decision for both – jurisdiction and merits- is expected in 2015, three years from filing of the complaint.
#2 and #20, SnV, here’s the column I wrote for Abante today:
http://www.abante.com.ph/issue/mar0214/op_et.htm
Fat chance. If there is no jurisdiction, then the merits will not be touched. Para yang motion to dismiss. If there is no jurisdiction, then the case is dismissed. No court will rule on the merits if it will dismiss. And certainly no merits adjudication will be made concurrent with a dismissal.
What? Litigation lawyer ba yan? Kahit gaano kalakas ang ebidensya mo laban kay JInggoy (DNA, etc.), if you are before the RTC, not Sandiganbayan (example of an incorrect court), the merits will not prevent a dismissal. Similarly, if the issue is sovereignty and not maritime rights, ICJ ang dapat na humawak, not ITLOS.
If previous cases are any yardstick in international litigation, the ruling on jurisdiction comes before any hearing on the merits. Case in point is Nicaragua v. US, won by Paul Reichler for Nicaragua. Yes, the same Paul Reichler now representing the Philippines. The ruling on jurisdiction came in 1984. The merits ruling? In 1986.
Kung na-dismiss (no jurisdiction) walang merits ruling.
Teka. Sino ba ang dumidiskarte? Jardeleza or Reichler? Ano ba ang tenor ng engagement ng Pilipinas sa Foley and Hoag?
SnV re #24. Jardeleza as Solgen is the one dealing with the Philippine legal team headed by Reichler.
The way Jardeleza talked,I get the sense that it’s Reichler calling the shots.
These are some of the quotes by Jardeleza that gives us an idea of their strategy to hurdle that jurisdiction issue:
“We are not asking the Tribunal to say who owns Scarborough Shoal. We just say it’s within our Economic Economiz Zone.”
“We are not asking the Tribunal who owns the structures in Mischief Reef but what we are saying, the structures sit on a submerged rock which is not entitled to a maritime regime.”
To say that Scarborough Shoal is within our EEZ is to say that it is not within the EEZ of China, projected from islands that China claims. Projections from those islands that China claims (zhong sha, nan sha, Paracels, Spratlys) do extend to Scarborough Shoal.
To say that China is not entitled to EEZs projected from the Spartlys, or Paracels, or nan sha, requires a ruling that China does not own them. That is a question of sovereignty, which is within the jurisdiction of the ICJ, not the ITLOS.
Para yang, e ano kung may video ka ni Jinggoy receiving cash from Tuason. You are before the RTC, not the Sandiganbayan. The slam dunk evidence cannot obviate a dismissal.
Jardeleza should read carefully, the paper of Talmon, particularly page 44. Talmon also points to another scholar whom Talmon quotes, a Dapo Akande, from the law school of Oxford University.
ejiltalk.org/philippines-initiates-arbitration-against-china-over-south-china-seas-dispute/
Three w’s in front.
The argument you quote above is quite thin. Is that the best we can do?
Thanks, SnV. I’m reading Salmon’s paper. 69 pages pala ito.
Akbayan party-list members storm the Chinese consular Office in Makati on Monday, March 3, to protest the firing of water cannon on Filipino fishermen by Chinese authorities at the disputed Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal.
…Why only Akbayan? Where are the other militant groups like Bayan? Is it because Akbayan is allied with the administration?
No land claimed by China is within 200 miles of Scarborough
page 44 Talmon’s paper:”The Philippines’ Notification and Statement of Claim is based on the misleading assumptions that in the South China Sea there are no islands in terms of Article 121(2) UNCLOS which generate their own maritime zones, that China does not, or cannot lay claim to any of these islands and that, consequently, China cannot be a coastal State with an EEZ or continental shelf in the South China Sea.”
That’s why Itu Abba, which is occupied by Taiwan (under the one China policy, it is part of China), was not included in PH complaint because it’s an island. It will weaken the PH case.
Question: Even if the PH did not include the Taiwan occupied -Itu Abba in its complaint, would the UN Arbitral Tribunal consider that.Would it affect the Court’s decision on jurisdiction?