The convoy of People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLA-Navy) vessels initially spotted 26 nautical miles southeast of Cuyo Island in Palawan province is now existing in the Philippine archipelagic waters through Basilan channel, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) reported on Tuesday.
In a press conference at Camp Aguinaldo, Philippine Navy spokesperson Rear Admiral Roy Vincent Trinidad said the three People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy vessels were last tracked 120 nautical miles south of Basilan on Tuesday morning.
“So, these are exiting our Exclusive Economic Zone,” he added.
The convoy was composed of PLAN 107 – Type 055 Renhai Class Cruiser (Guided Missile); PLAN 568 – Type 054A Jiangkai Class Frigate (Guided Missile); and an unidentified vessel — resembling a Type 903A Fuchi Class Replenishment Oiler.
Trinidad said these Chinese vessels were tracked by one of the Philippine Navy ships, BRP Jose Rizal (FF-150).
The other warship and a replenishment oiler were tracked by BRP Andres Bonifacio (FF17), BRP Apolinario Mabini (PS-36), and four other Navy ships, with one Philippine Navy aircraft and two Philippine Air Force aircraft.
“We would like to highlight that this entailed the participation of Northern Luzon Command, Western Command, Central Command, and Western Mindanao Command. Our capability to be able to track, to monitor, and to hand over to the succeeding operational commands is a capability that the AFP has already today,” Trinidad said.
He said these warships passed the Philippine archipelagic waters and were tracked passing through starting from Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal).
The other ship was joined by two others east of Mindoro, going through Cuyo Island and passing through the Sulu Sea.
This is all within our archipelago, within our archipelagic waters. They exited this morning, late last night through Basilan Channel, and as of this morning, they are more than 120 nautical miles already from Basilan.
Although the AFP considers China’s actions as exercising archipelagic sea lanes passage, Trinidad noted the Chinese gray ships were not traveling slower than the required knots for freedom of navigation.
“When passing through archipelagic waters under archipelagic sea lanes passage, ships will have to travel continuously and in the fastest possible speed or the most expeditious speed, meaning to say normal speed without stopping, without doing anything that would endanger the coastal state,” he said.
“For this particular case, we monitored them to be traveling at times 30 knots, 40 knots. There were times they slowed down to 6 or 5 knots. It is not expeditious. They could have traveled expeditiously. They were challenged all the way. They replied but not in accordance with standard procedures,” he added.
Trinidad noted the archipelagic sea lanes passage is defined differently from an innocent passage.
“Almost similar in freedom of navigation and innocent passage but ships passing under this mode could travel in normal mode, meaning they could be in formation,” he said.
He added “Submarines need not travel on the surface and aircraft would fly. Ships could launch aircraft passing through archipelagic waters.”
However, he noted the convoy’s navigation through north-to-south passage is generally accepted in the Philippines.
As standard procedure, Trinidad said the ships passing archipelagic waters should identify themselves as well as state their point of origin and destination.
While the AFP does not consider the presence of these Chinese ships convoy as alarming, Trinidad said Beijing could have been violating some policies in navigating international waters.
“The violation is that their travel through our archipelagic waters was not expeditious. They could have traveled at a faster speed. There were instances in the central part of the Sulu Sea that they slowed down to five to six knots,” he said.
Trinidad said the Chinese vessels did not reply to the Philippine Navy’s radio challenges.
“Apart from that they also did not reply based on the standard replies that we usually get from warships or other merchant vessels traversing our maritime domain,” he said.
“They only mentioned that they were exercising a freedom of navigation and innocent passage without identifying themselves stating where they came from or where they're heading to,” he added.