Palace, expert spar over planned ‘joint exploration’ with China in undisputed area

                                   

MANILA, Philippines — Is a joint exploration between Filipino and Chinese companies in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, including in areas where China never laid claim to, legal?

Malacañang earlier said areas under service contracts (SC) 57 and 72 are being considered for possible joint exploration with a company and not the Chinese government.

However, a maritime law expert warned that such a venture would elevate the Chinese firm’s status from mere sub-contractor to a “co-owner.”

Formerly called Geophysical Survey and Exploration Contract 101, the 880,000-hectare SC 72 is at the Recto Bank, which is located west of Palawan and southwest of the Malampaya gas field. In late 2014, the Department of Energy suspended exploration in the bank, which is in waters also claimed by China, as the government pursued an arbitration case against the Asian power.

Meanwhile, SC 57 is a petroleum exploration project awarded to Philippine National Oil Company in 2005 that covers the undisputed area of Northwest Palawan.

China National Offshore Oil Co. International Ltd. acquired 51 percent participating interest in the contract, while Mitra Energy Ltd. acquired 21 percent.

In a social media post, University of the Philippines maritime law expert Jay Batongbacal flagged the government’s “carelessly incorrect” and “misleading” classification of SC 57 as a “joint exploration” project.

Batongbacal explained that exploration of the uncontested site under SC 57 must be “unilateral,” whereby energy search to be conducted by CNOOC, PNOC and Mitra as consortium partners will be done under the Philippine government’s jurisdiction.

“The Philippines is allowing it (exploration) because CNOOC has been contracted to do it together with PNOC and Mitra, and therefore acting fully under Philippine control, not because there is no dispute,” he wrote.

“By classifying SC 57 as ‘joint exploration,’ government leaders seem to be elevating the status of CNOOC from mere sub-contractor-consortium partner to possibly a ‘co-owner,’” he added.

“It also implies that any and all areas, even uncontested Philippine waters, are open to joint exploration with China, even though China has never asked for this and historically has promoted joint exploration only for the area within the Nine Dashed Lines.”

The Philippines claims parts of the South China Sea within its EEZ and calls it the West Philippine Sea.

Ties between the Philippines and China have significantly improved under President Rodrigo Duterte, who has set aside a ruling from a UN-backed tribunal that invalidated Beijing’s claim to sovereignty over most of the South China Sea.

Early this week, Duterte said possible joint energy search with China in the hotly contested waters will be like "co-ownership”—a remark that critics say is tantamount to “betrayal of public trust.”

Constitutional?

In a press conference, presidential spokesperson Harry Roque maintained that a joint exploration in undisputed parts of the country’s EEZ is “constitutional.”

He cited the Supreme Court’s ruling on the case of La Bugal B'Laan Tribal Association Inc. vs. Ramos, which affirmed that the government may secure the help of foreign companies in exploring natural resources “provided that, at all times, the State maintains its right of full control.”

“The problem with administration critics is they want to be Supreme Court justices,” Roque said.

“My recommendation to Professor Batongbacal is to read the Supreme Court’s decision first before giving opinions,” he added. (Philstar)