China’s claim of ownership over Scarborough is based not based on its “uncontested possession in concept of owner” but rather on its claim of having territorial sovereignty over all areas inside the ‘nine-dash line,’ which, to be sure, the Permanent Court of Arbitration has ruled as invalid because it has no legal basis under international law. Hence, China’s present possession of Scarborough is based not on a legal right under international law but on imposition by military might.
Since time immemorial, Filipino fishermen have been fishing in Scarborough unchallenged and undisturbed by any country,much less by China. Historically, therefore, there is no basis for anyone to say that China has been in “uncontested possession in the concept of owner” of Scarborough. The first time Filipino fishermen were driven away from Panatag by the Chinese was during the stand-off between the Chinese Coast Guard and the Philippine Coast Guard sometime before the commencement of the arbitration by the Philippines against China.
In fact, the Permanent Court of Arbitration has ruled that Scarborough is a common fishing ground of neighbors, including Filipinos and Chinese. If Scarborough is a common fishing ground of neighboring countries, it necessarily follows that not one country, for example, China, can build a garrison on Panatag and drive away the fishermen from other countries, including those from the Philippines. It would appear silly, therefore, for the Professor to say that “China as possessor can, therefore, validly maintain its garrison in Scarborough” and, in effect, implying that China can lawfully drive away Filipino fishermen, allegedly “until the time when the issue of ownership is decided against China.”
Since the Philippines does not have the military might to confront the Chinese Coast Guard (and even if it had, its Constitution renounces war as an instrument of national policy), the Philippines remedy to protect its interest in Scarborough as a”common fishing ground” is to seek peaceful relief pursuant to international law, either through the intervention of the United Nations or, as proposed by Chief Justice Antonio Carpio, through arbitration against China. Chief Justice Carpio is concededly an expert on the legal issues involved in the South China Sea dispute between the Philippine and China considering his extensive studies and research on the matter since the beginning of the problem and his discussions and exchange of legal opinions with the Philippines’ foreign lawyers who undoubtedly are among the best in international arbitration. It is better to listen to the advice of Chief Justice Carpio, an expert, rather to a kibitzer who has no accountability for the errors of his unsolicited advice.
I will appreciate if could publish my comment since your readers are entitled to know the errors of Professor Valderrama which you have published in your column. Thank You.
Tatang Dik’
Here is something from the Holy Bible:
If the fool holds his tongue, he may pass for wise; if he seals his lips, he may pass for intelligent–Proverbs 17:28 The Jerusalem Bible
China’s claim of ownership over Scarborough is based not based on its “uncontested possession in concept of owner” but rather on its claim of having territorial sovereignty over all areas inside the ‘nine-dash line,’ which, to be sure, the Permanent Court of Arbitration has ruled as invalid because it has no legal basis under international law. Hence, China’s present possession of Scarborough is based not on a legal right under international law but on imposition by military might.
Since time immemorial, Filipino fishermen have been fishing in Scarborough unchallenged and undisturbed by any country,much less by China. Historically, therefore, there is no basis for anyone to say that China has been in “uncontested possession in the concept of owner” of Scarborough. The first time Filipino fishermen were driven away from Panatag by the Chinese was during the stand-off between the Chinese Coast Guard and the Philippine Coast Guard sometime before the commencement of the arbitration by the Philippines against China.
In fact, the Permanent Court of Arbitration has ruled that Scarborough is a common fishing ground of neighbors, including Filipinos and Chinese. If Scarborough is a common fishing ground of neighboring countries, it necessarily follows that not one country, for example, China, can build a garrison on Panatag and drive away the fishermen from other countries, including those from the Philippines. It would appear silly, therefore, for the Professor to say that “China as possessor can, therefore, validly maintain its garrison in Scarborough” and, in effect, implying that China can lawfully drive away Filipino fishermen, allegedly “until the time when the issue of ownership is decided against China.”
Since the Philippines does not have the military might to confront the Chinese Coast Guard (and even if it had, its Constitution renounces war as an instrument of national policy), the Philippines remedy to protect its interest in Scarborough as a”common fishing ground” is to seek peaceful relief pursuant to international law, either through the intervention of the United Nations or, as proposed by Chief Justice Antonio Carpio, through arbitration against China. Chief Justice Carpio is concededly an expert on the legal issues involved in the South China Sea dispute between the Philippine and China considering his extensive studies and research on the matter since the beginning of the problem and his discussions and exchange of legal opinions with the Philippines’ foreign lawyers who undoubtedly are among the best in international arbitration. It is better to listen to the advice of Chief Justice Carpio, an expert, rather to a kibitzer who has no accountability for the errors of his unsolicited advice.
I will appreciate if could publish my comment since your readers are entitled to know the errors of Professor Valderrama which you have published in your column. Thank You.
Tatang Dik’
Here is something from the Holy Bible:
If the fool holds his tongue, he may pass for wise; if he seals his lips, he may pass for intelligent–Proverbs 17:28 The Jerusalem Bible