Kiko, Marcoleta trade barbs over West Philippine Sea boundaries

Senators Kiko Pangilinan and Rodante Marcoleta locked horns on Monday over the definite extent of the West Philippine Sea (WPS) amid the ongoing verbal row between their colleagues and the Chinese Embassy concerning the territorial dispute.

The heated debate erupted as the Senate deliberated on a resolution condemning the embassy’s alleged indecent remarks against legislators, lambasting China’s continued assertions over the entire South China Sea (SCS), which overlaps with the WPS, despite a 2016 arbitral ruling that invalidated Beijing’s claims as baseless.

Marcoleta argued that it is incumbent upon the Philippines to clearly define the maritime boundaries of the WPS to prevent difficulties with China, which continues to blatantly reject the ruling.

"We would like to specifically determine the extent of our West Philippine Sea because if we are unable to do that, we may have a hard time defending the extent of what is ours there,” Marcolta said, partly in Filipino.

Pangilinan, however, countered that there is no longer a need to clarify territorial limits concerning the WPS, considering that the Permanent Court of Arbitration had already settled the issue in favor of the Philippines.

"We no longer need to defend what is ours...There's nothing to defend. It has been resolved in our favor. What we have to now defend and uphold is the ruling," Pangilinan responded.

Marcoleta, a lawyer, contended that, like any other territory, it is pivotal to define the metes and bounds of the WPS, but Pangilinan—also a lawyer—pointed out that it is “no longer debatable” because the Philippines already won the case against China.

“Therefore, the debate as to whether there are metes and bounds is moot. We can debate until kingdom come, and that will not change the arbitral ruling in our favor,” he argued.

The exchanges were triggered after Marcoleta called into question Pangilinan’s assertions about the Philippines’ 500,000-square-kilometer exclusive economic zone (EEZ) under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Marcoleta, however, argued that such claims “do not exist” and that the Philippines’ EEZ is only 382,669 square kilometers, citing a Supreme Court 2011 jurisprudence (Magallona vs. Ermita).