{"id":269774,"date":"2020-09-24T22:38:16","date_gmt":"2020-09-25T02:38:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=269774"},"modified":"2020-09-24T22:38:16","modified_gmt":"2020-09-25T02:38:16","slug":"chinese-military-presence-doesnt-mean-scs-ownership-palace","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2020\/09\/24\/chinese-military-presence-doesnt-mean-scs-ownership-palace\/","title":{"rendered":"Chinese military presence doesn’t mean SCS ownership: Palace"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
FILE: Satellite picture of West Philippine Sea\/South China Sea (Photo By Serg!o – Satellite pictures, from NASA World Wind Globe, version 1.4, Public Domain<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MANILA<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 Chinese military presence in territories claimed by the Philippines will “never ripen” into a valid legal ownership, Malaca\u00f1ang said Thursday.<\/p>\n

In a virtual Palace briefing, Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque said the 2016 Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruling has already invalidated China’s expansive claim in the South China Sea.<\/p>\n

He said President Rodrigo Duterte, who invoked the arbitral ruling for the first time before the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) last Wednesday, reasserted that the arbitral victory cannot be erased or ignored since it is already part of international law.<\/p>\n

\u201cAng tinutukoy po diyan ng ating Presidente, kahit anong<\/em>\u00a0physical military occupation\u00a0nila sa mga isla na ang sabi naman ng<\/em>\u00a0Tribunal\u00a0ay kabahagi ng ating<\/em>\u00a0(The President is saying that whatever physical military occupation they have in the islands, which the Tribunal ruled is part of our) exclusive economic zone (EEZ), will never ripen into a valid legal title,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

He, however, recognized the presence of Chinese Coast Guards near the EEZ as part of freedom of navigation.<\/p>\n

\u201cAlam ninyo po sa<\/em>\u00a0EEZ\u00a0kasi, lahat po ng mga sasakyan ay may kalayaang maglayag<\/em>. So\u00a0iyong paglalayag po mismo sa<\/em>\u00a0EEZ\u00a0ay hindi po pinagbabawal<\/em>\u00a0(You know the EEZ, all ships have freedom of navigation. So navigating in the EEZ is not illegal),\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Asked if the Philippines is open to proposing a resolution before the UNGA calling on China to respect The Hague ruling, Roque said “anything is possible.”<\/p>\n

\u201cBut there has not been any step to that effect ordered by the Palace yet,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

Roque, meanwhile, welcomed praises from incumbent and former Cabinet officials on Duterte’s speech, but reminded them that it was also \u201ca restatement of an old existing policy.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cKampanya pa lang po, sinabi ni Presidente, hindi niya isu-surrender ang maski isang inch ng ating teritoryo, so iyan po ay pagiging<\/em>\u00a0consistent\u00a0lamang na wala po tayong ipamimigay na teritoryo at paninindigan po natin iyong ating panalo sa<\/em>\u00a0(Since his campaign, the President was already saying he would not surrender even an inch of our territory, so he was just being consistent that we won\u2019t give up our territory and we will invoke our victory at the) UN Tribunal of the Law of the Sea,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t dictate<\/strong><\/p>\n

After Duterte invoked the arbitral ruling, former Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario, who praised the President\u2019s move, said the next step is to rally support from more countries.<\/p>\n

Roque, however, dismissed del Rosario\u2019s suggestion, saying he was not entitled to dictate on the President on what to do.<\/p>\n

\u201cHe (del Rosario) is a Filipino, he is entitled to speak\u00a0pero parang hindi po maganda na dinidiktihan niya ang Presidente. Hindi ko po alam kung ano ang<\/em>\u00a0special qualification\u00a0niya para diktahan niya ang isang Presidente<\/em>\u00a0(it\u2019s not good to dictate on the President. I don\u2019t know what special qualifications he has to dictate on the President),\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

He again blamed the former Foreign Affairs chief for losing control over the Panatag Shoal (Scarborough Shoal) during the previous administration.<\/p>\n

Despite Duterte\u2019s invocation of the arbitral ruling, Roque said he does not think the sea row would be resolved anytime soon.<\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t think the resolution of the territorial dispute is forthcoming in our lifetime. So\u00a0hayaan muna po natin iyan, basta nandiyan po ang desisyon diyan, malinaw kung ano ang nakasaad sa<\/em>\u00a0(let\u2019s leave it be, the decision is there, it\u2019s clearly stated in) international law,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

The sea row, he said, is not the sum total of bilateral relations between the Philippines and China.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe President has been consistent \u2013 we will move on matters that we could move forward on including trade and investments; and we will, for the time being, set this aside,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

In his debut speech at the UNGA, Duterte asserted the Philippines\u2019 arbitral ruling which invalidated China’s expansive claim in the South China Sea.<\/p>\n

Duterte said the arbitral ruling \u201cis now part of international law, beyond compromise and beyond the reach of passing governments to dilute, diminish or abandon.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MANILA\u00a0\u2013 Chinese military presence in territories claimed by the Philippines will “never ripen” into a valid legal ownership, Malaca\u00f1ang said …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":223580,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,95],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-269774","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news","category-news-ph","mauthors-azer-parrocha","mauthors-philippine-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269774","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=269774"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269774\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":269775,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269774\/revisions\/269775"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/223580"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=269774"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=269774"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=269774"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}