MANILA— Philippine Coast Guard spokesperson for the West Philippine Sea Jay Tarriela has challenged China’s justification for the presence of its research vessel near Hubo Reef, Escoda Shoal and Katimugan Bank, arguing that international law supports the Philippines’ maritime rights in the area.

In a statement, Tarriela said China’s response confirmed the Philippine Coast Guard’s reports that the Chinese research vessel operated near the maritime features with Chinese Coast Guard and People’s Liberation Army Navy vessels in nearby waters.

He argued that the central disagreement concerns which country has legal rights over the waters, citing the 2016 arbitral ruling on the South China Sea dispute.

Tarriela said the ruling rejected China’s attempt to treat the Spratly Islands as a single unit for drawing archipelagic or straight baselines and determined that none of the high-tide features in the group generates an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or continental shelf.

He also argued that Hubo Reef, Escoda Shoal and Katimugan Bank cannot independently generate territorial or maritime entitlements, citing the tribunal’s findings on low-tide elevations and submerged features.

Tarriela maintained that China’s claims of sovereign rights and jurisdiction rely on its nine-dash-line claim, which the tribunal ruled has no lawful effect to the extent that it exceeds the maritime entitlements allowed under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

He added that China cannot use its domestic laws to override its obligations under international treaties, noting that Beijing ratified UNCLOS in 1996.

Tarriela also questioned China’s characterization of the nearby naval and coast guard presence as routine patrols, describing the vessels as escorts for the research ship.

On the issue of the Philippine Coast Guard’s challenges to the Chinese vessel, Tarriela cited UNCLOS provisions requiring coastal state consent for marine scientific research within an EEZ.

He pointed to Article 246(2), which requires such consent, Article 248 on advance notification, and Article 253, which provides for the suspension or cessation of research activities under specified circumstances, including noncompliance with the applicable requirements.

The Department of Foreign Affairs previously confirmed that China had not requested Philippine consent for the research vessel’s activities, according to the PCG’s earlier statement.

Tarriela also cited the vessel’s declaration of diving operations, its interruption of automatic identification system (AIS) transmissions and its failure to respond to repeated radio challenges from the Philippine aircraft.

He said the Philippine position was grounded in UNCLOS and the 2016 arbitral award, which he noted is binding on the parties to the dispute.

Addressing China’s characterization of the Philippine response as a form of persecution, Tarriela argued that marine scientific research could proceed through the appropriate consent process under international law.

He also highlighted the potential resource and military value of seabed data gathered by deep-sea research vessels, arguing that such information should not be collected within the Philippine EEZ without authorization.

Tarriela further disputed China’s characterization of the Philippine position as delusional, saying the PCG’s reports were supported by vessel tracking data, Dark Vessel Detection and aerial observations.

He maintained that China’s response had not disputed the specific coordinates published by the Philippine Coast Guard.