TEN years ago, the Philippines won one of the greatest legal victories in its history. Yet today, Filipino fishermen continue to be driven away from waters that international law says are rightfully theirs.
That is the paradox of the tenth anniversary of the 2016 arbitral ruling on the Philippines’ sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea.
The arbitral tribunal constituted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) rejected China’s “nine-dash line” and affirmed that maritime rights are determined by international law, not by historical assertions or superior force. However, while the ruling gave the Philippines legal clarity, it did not give us physical control.
China rejected the award and instead expanded its presence through coast guard patrols, maritime militia, artificial islands and military facilities. As a result, Filipino fishermen continue to experience harassment, water-cannon attacks, and restrictions on access to traditional fishing grounds which are, by all accounts, rightfully ours. Thus, for them, victory only exists on paper. It does not prevent them from confronting Chinese power every day.
A changing threat
The challenge today is far more complex than it was in 2016.
We are no longer dealing simply with competing territorial claims. We face a sustained gray-zone campaign that seeks to alter realities at sea without provoking outright war. Chinese coast guard and maritime militia vessels continue to shadow, block and intimidate Philippine ships while staying below the threshold that would trigger military retaliation.
The objective is not necessarily to defeat our Navy. It is to exhaust our institutions, intimidate our fishermen, divide our politics, and persuade Filipinos that resistance to a stronger force is basically futile. Every unchallenged action gradually becomes the new normal.
Recent reports of possible new structures near Bajo de Masinloc illustrate this strategy. Whether permanent or temporary, every marker, buoy, or installation reinforces the appearance of their administrative control over our territory.
The strategic picture has also widened. Recent claims by some Chinese scholars questioning Philippine sovereignty over Batanes, although not adopted officially by Beijing, demonstrate how historical narratives can prepare the psychological ground for future pressure. Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro rightly dismissed these assertions as baseless.
Nowadays, the issue is no longer confined to reefs and shoals. It encompasses the security of the entire archipelago, including our fisheries, energy resources, sea lanes, undersea cables and economic future.
Has our response been enough?
The answer is mixed.
Compared with the years when the arbitral award was largely set aside, the Philippines has regained its voice. The government’s transparency policy has documented dangerous encounters at sea and prevented many incidents from disappearing into diplomatic silence.
We have strengthened defense partnerships with the United States, Japan, Australia and other like-minded countries. Joint patrols, expanded access agreements, and defense modernization have made it more difficult to isolate the Philippines.
The Armed Forces has likewise adopted the Comprehensive Archipelagic Defense Concept, recognizing that national defense begins with securing our maritime domain.
These are significant gains. Yet effectiveness should be measured not by the number of diplomatic protests filed or military exercises conducted, but by outcomes. Can Filipino fishermen safely fish? Can we regularly sustain our outposts? Can we prevent the creation of new facts on the water?
By those measures, our response remains incomplete.
Transparency exposes coercion but does not stop it. Alliances strengthen deterrence but cannot substitute for national capability. Defense modernization remains urgent as technology evolves faster than procurement systems. Secretary Teodoro has repeatedly warned that the window for developing credible defense capabilities is narrowing. If we are to act, we should do it now.
From awareness to ‘Yakap’
Secretary Teodoro's call for Filipinos to “yakap” the West Philippine Sea may be his most important strategic contribution.
After all, people will not defend what they do not value.
To embrace the West Philippine Sea is to recognize that it is not merely a concern of diplomats, soldiers and lawyers. It is about food security, energy independence, jobs, shipping routes and the resources future generations will inherit. A fisherman denied access loses income. A country unable to develop offshore energy becomes more dependent on imported fuel. A disrupted sea lane raises the cost of food and commerce.
This is why this issue is existential. Not because war is inevitable, but because sovereign rights can be steadily eroded without a single shot being fired.
“Yakap” therefore cannot remain a slogan. It must become a national civic project taught in schools, discussed in communities, understood by businesses, and embraced across political lines. Maritime security should become part of our national consciousness. We Filipinos should understand that what happens at the West Philippine Sea will sooner or later affect us all.
Lessons from today’s conflicts
Recent wars have transformed military thinking.
Ukraine has shown that inexpensive drones, precision weapons and distributed sensors can inflict enormous costs on much larger forces. Mass alone no longer guarantees dominance.
For an archipelagic nation like the Philippines, the lesson is clear: invest not only in expensive platforms but also in unmanned systems, coastal missile batteries, surveillance networks, resilient communications and dispersed logistics.
Another lesson is that deterrence now extends beyond the battlefield. Cybersecurity, information integrity, supply chains and civilian resilience have become integral parts of national defense. A society weakened by disinformation or economic coercion can be strategically defeated long before conventional fighting begins.
Above all, deterrence succeeds when an adversary concludes that coercion will not achieve its objectives. The Philippines cannot match China ship for ship. It can, however, make every act of coercion more difficult, more visible and more costly, even for a force as big and powerful as theirs.
That is deterrence by denial.
Toward national and regional convergence
The next decade requires more than military modernization; it demands national consensus.
No administration should treat the West Philippine Sea as a partisan issue. Governments change. Sovereign rights do not.
Neither can the Philippines act alone. Asean need not speak with one voice on every territorial dispute, but it should unite around common principles: respect for Unclos, freedom of navigation, protection of fishermen, and rejection of coercion. The arbitral award is not simply a Philippine victory. It is a reaffirmation that international law — not power — should govern the seas.
Ten years ago, the Philippines demonstrated that even a small nation could prevail before the bar of international law.
The next decade will determine whether that legal triumph remains a celebrated document or becomes the foundation of a lasting national strategy.
The tribunal gave us legitimacy. History will judge whether we found the resolve to match it.
“To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands,” said Sun Tzu.
