TEN YEARS after the Philippines secured one of the most consequential legal victories in its history, the 2016 Arbitral Award stands as both a triumph and a reminder of unfinished work.
On July 12, 2016, an arbitral tribunal constituted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) ruled overwhelmingly in favor of the Philippines in its case against China.
The tribunal invalidated China’s sweeping “nine-dash line” claim, affirmed that no feature in the Spratly Islands generates an exclusive economic zone that overlaps with the Philippines’ own, and upheld Manila’s sovereign rights over resources within its exclusive economic zone, including areas in the West Philippine Sea.
It also found that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights by interfering with fishing and petroleum exploration and had caused severe environmental damage through large-scale island-building and destructive fishing practices.
Yet a decade later, the legal victory remains only partially realized.
China continues to outrightly reject the ruling. Philippine vessels continue to face dangerous maneuvers, water-cannon attacks, and obstruction in waters that the tribunal unequivocally recognized as falling within the Philippines’ maritime entitlements.
Even after repeated affirmations by allies and like-minded states that the Award is final and legally binding, enforcement ultimately depends not on the tribunal itself but on sustained political will among states committed to a rules-based international order.
Foreign Affairs Secretary Theresa Lazaro described the Award as a “lighthouse” for the international community. The metaphor is apt. A lighthouse does not eliminate storms, but it provides certainty amid dangerous waters.
Likewise, the Arbitral Award settled questions of law even if it could not compel compliance. By rejecting the legal basis of the so-called nine-dash line, the tribunal replaced decades of ambiguity with legal clarity rooted in UNCLOS.
The ruling has increasingly been cited in international legal discussions involving maritime entitlements, ocean governance, environmental protection, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. As Lazaro emphasized, defending the Award is ultimately about defending the rules-based international order itself; the principle that international law, rather than military might, governs relations between states.
But law, alone, cannot safeguard sovereignty.
That reality framed Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr.’s keynote address. While the Award established the Philippines’ rights, he argued, preserving those rights requires what he called “credible deterrence.” For Teodoro, deterrence is not merely a military concept but a national undertaking requiring modern defense capabilities, resilient industries, secure supply chains, critical infrastructure protection, and broad public support.
His remarks reflect the Marcos administration’s Comprehensive Archipelagic Defense Concept, which reorients Philippine defense planning toward protecting the country’s extensive maritime domain after decades of prioritizing internal security.
The shift has been accompanied by expanded defense cooperation with treaty allies and strategic partners, larger multilateral military exercises such as Balikatan, and accelerated modernization of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
These developments did not emerge in a vacuum. They are responses to an increasingly contested maritime environment in the West Philippine Sea, where China’s coast guard and maritime militia have maintained an aggressive presence around Philippine features despite the tribunal’s decision. They also reflect a growing recognition that legal victories require institutions capable of protecting the rights those victories affirm.
Teodoro’s proposed civic value of “yakap,” embracing the country’s maritime domain, therefore deserves attention beyond its rhetorical appeal. His point is that sovereignty cannot remain the exclusive concern of diplomats, soldiers, or lawyers. A democracy cannot sustain expensive defense modernization or consistent foreign policy if its citizens view the West Philippine Sea as distant from their daily lives. That connection is easier to see than many assume.
The waters recognized by the Award contain rich fishing grounds that support coastal communities, potential energy resources that could strengthen the country’s long-term energy security, and sea lanes through which much of global trade passes. The dispute is therefore not merely about maps or competing historical narratives. It concerns food security, economic resilience, environmental stewardship, and the welfare of future generations.
The country has made measurable progress over the past decade. Public support for asserting Philippine rights in the West Philippine Sea has steadily increased. More countries have publicly affirmed the validity of the ruling. Manila has deepened defense and security partnerships with the United States, Japan, Australia, and European partners while continuing to anchor its maritime policy on international law.
Still, these gains remain vulnerable if they depend solely on the resolve of one administration or the attention generated by each new maritime incident.
Universities have a responsibility to sustain informed public discourse on issues of sovereignty and international law. They should not merely commemorate July 12 each year but cultivate scholarship, research, and civic engagement that deepen understanding of the country’s maritime rights and responsibilities.
The 2016 Arbitral Award settled what international law had to say about the West Philippine Sea. What it could never settle was whether Filipinos themselves would consistently defend what the law had already affirmed.
A decade after, that remains the country’s unfinished task.
