TEN days from now, we will be marking the 10th anniversary of the West Philippine Sea arbitration award. And it may be worthwhile to reflect not only on the legal and diplomatic significance of the ruling, but also on its practical impact on the lives of ordinary Filipinos.
Ten years later, many may ask: What tangible benefits have reached the common people? Fisherfolk continue to face uncertainties, coastal communities remain burdened by economic challenges, and many Filipinos struggle with the same concerns of livelihood, food security and the rising cost of living. Meanwhile, political figures associated with the issue have advanced in their careers, legal practitioners have earned professional recognition and compensation, and defense-related industries have benefited from increasing geopolitical tensions.
What benefit did we really gain from the 2016 ruling of the arbitral panel at the Permanent Court of Arbitration where our government spent an estimated $7 million to $30 million for the overall legal and administrative cost as the Philippines had to cover the arbitration costs of both sides because China refused to participate.
Nothing. As China refused and continues to refuse to abide by the PCA ruling mainly for the following reasons:
First, the PCA is not an official UN body, just a mere tenant in a building occupied by some UN offices, and has nothing to do with permanent international judicial bodies such as the International Court of Justice or the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea.
In fact, after the 2016 PCA ruling, the then spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated that the UN had “no position on the legal and procedural merits” of the South China Sea arbitration case. The International Court of Justice also made it clear that it had no involvement in the PCA.
Since China did not participate in the arbitration proceedings, plus the fact that the PCA is not officially recognized by UN bodies, the arbitral ruling could not be considered official and binding.
We must note that when countries all over the world, including China and the Philippines, signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos), both China and the Philippines also excluded arbitration through other means. And under the joint statement between the two parties concerning consultations on the South China Sea and on other areas of cooperation, signed on Aug. 10, 1995, China and the Philippines “agreed to abide by” the principles that “disputes shall be settled in a peaceful and friendly manner through consultations on the basis of equality and mutual respect.
Disputes concerning maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, and military and law-enforcement activities are excluded from arbitration proceedings.
Perhaps, since some sectors are cajoling us to push for the execution of the arbitration ruling, we are also being pushed to increase our military spending to beef up our internal security, external defense and maritime sovereignty., when no threat should have existed in the first place had we work on instead on a regional cooperation, and arrested the flaws in the Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) that former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had entered into with China and Vietnam but which was later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
For the record, the 2026 defense sector budget reached a historic high of P430.87 billion, representing 1.25 percent to 1.37 percent of the country's projected GDP. In 2016, when the arbitral tribunal rendered its ruling, our defense budget stood at approximately P115 billion.
In 2021, total military expenditures reached about P230 billion. In 2022, military spending rose to P326 billion. In 2023, it again rose to P337 billion as the government updated its acquisition horizon toward external territorial defense. In 2024, military expenditures jumped to P375 billion. In 2025, the defense department was allocated P378.89 billion.
But we could have done better. An alternative perspective worth exploring is whether the peoples of Southeast Asia might have been better served through a stronger emphasis on regional cooperation, economic integration and peaceful development. Rather than allowing competing claims to become a source of division and confrontation, could the countries of the region have worked more closely toward shared prosperity?
We could have revisited the JMSU and worked on how it could be executed within the constitutional framework, so we, the Philippines, China and Vietnam could jointly search for oil and gas in the South China Sea.
The South China Sea is not only a strategic waterway; it is also a vast source of fisheries, energy resources and economic opportunity. A framework that encourages joint development, equitable resource-sharing, environmental stewardship, and mutual respect among claimant states may offer benefits that are more directly felt by ordinary citizens.
The aspiration of many people across Southeast Asia is not conflict, but progress. They seek better jobs, affordable food, energy security, quality education, modern infrastructure, and opportunities for future generations. The challenge for policymakers is to ensure that diplomacy, law and national interest ultimately translate into these concrete improvements in people’s lives.
As we mark a decade since the arbitral ruling, perhaps the most important question is not who won a legal case, but how the region can move forward in a manner that promotes peace, stability, cooperation and shared prosperity for all.
