… The report did say that the Filipino fishermen failed to have a lookout, employed an unlicensed chief engine officer, carried persons onboard in excess of the authorized capacity and had an expired license from the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.
But it also said the boat Gem-Ver 1 displayed anchor lights and white flashing light in compliance with maritime regulations.
Also, the weather was “fair with starry skies on a first quarter moon” and “visibility was slightly clear and the sea state was calm”; thus, it would have been impossible for the Chinese vessel not to see the Philippine boat.
Contrary to the President’s characterization, the PCG-MIA [Philippine Coast Guard-Maritime Industry Authority] report described the sinking of the Gem-Ver 1 as a “Very Serious Marine Casualty due to the total loss of ship.”
And while it did not say whether the “bumping” of Gem-Ver 1 by the Chinese trawler was deliberate, it noted that “the fact that the other fishing vessel hit the anchored fishing banca is an indication that they did not perform necessary actions prescribed in Rule 18 (a) to prevent the incident” — referring to rules under the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.
The Chinese vessel, according to the report, “was found to have failed to take appropriate action to avoid the risk of collision and to render assistance to a vessel in distress.”
The second part is the crux of the matter, and what most sticks in the craw: that the Chinese left the Filipino fishermen in distress — but not before it circled back, apparently to check whether the Filipino boat had indeed gone under.
“By maneuvering back and stopping approximately 50 meters away from FBca ‘GEM-VER’ with her fishing lights open, the other vessel can be considered to have direct knowledge of the distress situation,” said the report. But, according to the fishermen, the Chinese vessel then turned off its lights and fled the scene.
… In a statement, the Chinese Embassy identified the Chinese trawler as the Yuemaobinyu 42212 of Guandong province. In that same statement, it peddled the lie, since retracted, that the Chinese vessel left the scene out of fear that it would be “besieged” by seven or eight other Filipino boats in the area (there were none). …
our side, our version of events, for the record.
JARIUS BONDOC: “Carpio itemized long ago what Phl can do”
War is a “false option”, Carpio told defeatists who claim that to press the victory would only provoke China to annihilate us. Even China doesn’t want war, he said then, for it “will give the US an excuse to intervene in the sea dispute, considering the Philippine-US Mutual Defense Treaty.”
Beijing aims to control the sea without firing a single shot. It employs the “3-warfare strategy” of psychological operations, media manipulation, and legal maneuvers, Carpio explained. (See thediplomat.com/2015/12/hybrid-warfare-with-chinese-characteristics-2/).
Carpio also tabled seven ways to “Enforce and Fortify the Arbitral Ruling” while talking with China. It seems so long ago; the responsible officials have only ignored his suggestions:
“(1) The Philippines can enter into a sea boundary agreement with Vietnam on our overlapping extended continental shelves (ECS) in the Spratlys, based on the tribunal ruling that no geologic feature in the Spratlys generates an exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Such agreement implements part of the ruling by state practice.
“(2) The Philippines can enter into a sea boundary agreement with Malaysia on our overlapping EEZ and ECS in the Spratlys, again based on the ruling that no geologic feature in the Spratlys generates an EEZ. Such agreement also implements part of the ruling by state practice.
“(3) The Philippines can initiate an agreement among all ASEAN disputants – Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, and Philippines – declaring that no geologic feature in the Spratlys generates an EEZ that could overlap with their respective EEZ. Even if only the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia will so declare, it will remove any maritime delimitation dispute among them, leaving only territorial disputes. This will isolate China as the only state claiming an EEZ from geologic features in the Spratlys.
“(4) The Philippines can file for an ECS beyond our 200-mile EEZ in the West Philippine Sea off Luzon. If China does not oppose our ECS claim, the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (UNCLCS) will award the ECS to the Philippines, similar to our ECS claim in Benham Rise where there was no opposition. If China opposes our ECS claim, China will have a dilemma on what ground to invoke. If China invokes the nine-dash lines again, the UNCLCS will reject it because the commission is bound by the ruling of the arbitral tribunal, which, like the UNCLCS, was created under UNCLOS. If China claims an overlapping ECS, then China will be admitting that the Philippines has a 200-mile EEZ from Luzon that negates its nine-dash lines.
“(5) If China prevents the Philippines from exploring and exploiting gas in the Reed Bank, which the tribunal has ruled is within Philippine EEZ, then the Philippines can file an arbitration case against China to recover actual damages that the Philippines may suffer from the failure to exploit Reed Bank due to China’s unlawful acts.
“(6) The Philippines can send Navy and Coast Guard vessels to patrol the Reed Bank and guard Philippine-commissioned survey ships exploring Reed Bank. If Chinese military sea or aircraft attack the Philippine Navy or Coast Guard, the Philippines can invoke the Philippine-US Mutual Defense Treaty. The US has officially clarified that the MDT covers the West Philippine Sea. While the US does not take sides in territorial disputes over geologic features there, any attack on Philippine Navy or Coast Guard vessels is covered.
“(7) In case China concretes Scarborough Shoal, the Philippines can file a new case before an UNCLOS arbitral tribunal to stop it because any reclamation there will destroy the traditional fishing ground common to fishermen from the Philippines, Vietnam, and China as ruled by the arbitral tribunal.”
None of the options foment war. Beijing’s bellicosity is avoided. Filipinos of goodwill must unite for peaceful dispute resolution. Division suits well the false friend’s design of regional subjugation.
https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2019/07/12/1934019/carpio-itemized-long-ago-what-phl-can-do
JEMY GATDULA: “China’s many lawyers”
Lawyers instinctively (even aggressively) interpret contracts or laws to support their client’s mere personal interests. Treaties are nothing but that: legal documents. Documents of national interests. Our reading thereof should be to benefit the Philippines.
No Filipino should “lawyer” for other countries, they have their own.
Consequently, in relation to the ongoing dispute over the West Philippine Sea (and, yes, we will insist in using that term): the areas we claim in Scarborough Shoal and the Kalayaan Islands are ours, as we declared through our Constitution and supporting legislation.
https://www.bworldonline.com/chinas-many-lawyers/