Retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio emphasized that any agreement involving oil and gas in the West Philippine Sea must strictly comply with the Philippine Constitution, underscoring that the country retains exclusive rights over its natural resources.
Justice Carpio anchored his position on the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which mandates that marine wealth within the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is reserved exclusively for Filipino citizens. He also cited the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which grants coastal states exclusive sovereign rights to exploit natural resources within their EEZ.
He stressed that the Philippines, as the adjacent coastal state in the West Philippine Sea, has sole authority over oil, gas, and fisheries within its 200-nautical-mile EEZ—an entitlement affirmed by the July 12, 2016 Arbitral Award.
Supreme Court precedent on joint exploration
Justice Carpio recalled that the Supreme Court had previously struck down the Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) during the administration of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. The agreement allowed foreign entities to conduct exploration activities within Philippine waters, which the Court ruled unconstitutional for violating the principle that marine resources are reserved for Filipinos.
Warning against “joint development” framework
A key point raised by Justice Carpio was the distinction between “joint development” and “joint cooperation.”
He explained that China defines “joint development” in a manner that implies Chinese ownership of oil and gas resources, with other countries merely allowed to participate.
According to Justice Carpio, agreeing to such a framework would contradict both the Constitution and international law, as it would undermine the Philippines’ exclusive sovereign rights within its EEZ.
Past negotiations and breakdown
During the administration of former President Rodrigo Duterte, the Philippines and China signed a memorandum of understanding on energy cooperation. Justice Carpio noted that Philippine negotiators avoided the term “joint development” and instead used “joint arrangement” to remain consistent with constitutional requirements.
China initially agreed to key conditions, including:
- using the Philippine service contract system
- recognizing Philippine ownership of oil and gas
However, negotiations collapsed after China sought to remove provisions stating that:
- oil and gas belong to the Philippines
- agreements would be governed by Philippine law
Justice Carpio said accepting these changes would have violated the Constitution and disregarded the arbitral ruling, prompting the Philippines to terminate the agreement.
Two non-negotiable conditions
Justice Carpio emphasized that any future agreement—whether with China or other countries—must include two essential conditions:
- Oil and gas resources must be explicitly recognized as belonging to the Philippine State
- The agreement must be governed by Philippine law
He added that foreign participation is allowed, but only through the country’s existing service contract system, ensuring that sovereignty and legal control remain with the Philippines.
Caution amid renewed talks
As discussions on potential energy cooperation resurface amid global energy pressures, Justice Carpio cautioned policymakers against using terminology that could compromise national interests.
He urged the use of “joint cooperation” rather than “joint development,” stressing that precision in language reflects the underlying legal framework and determines whether Philippine sovereignty is upheld or undermined.