THE CHART PUTS THE PHILIPPINE POSITION INTO A FORMAL GEOGRAPHIC RECORD

Baselines are the starting lines used to measure maritime zones, and a territorial sea may extend up to 12 nautical miles from the applicable baseline under UNCLOS. Republic Act No. 12064, the Philippine Maritime Zones Act, says Philippine territories located outside the main archipelagic baselines have normal or straight baselines, as appropriate.

The law includes the territorial sea of Bajo de Masinloc within the area the Philippines calls the West Philippine Sea. The new filing forms part of the government’s effort to convert that legal position into an exact geographic record.

Instead of relying only on speeches, diplomatic notes or a general drawing, the Philippines can identify the lines and coordinates it says should be used. That record can support diplomatic protests, navigation notices, maritime enforcement planning and later legal arguments.

Other governments can examine the Philippine position against UNCLOS, the physical features of the shoal and their own claims. The filing’s full legal and technical details will remain unavailable until the chart becomes public.

UNITED NATIONS RECEIPT DOES NOT SETTLE OWNERSHIP OF THE SHOAL

UNCLOS requires coastal states to give due publicity to certain charts or coordinate lists and deposit copies with the UN secretary-general. The UN Secretariat then performs its depositary and publicity functions without conducting a trial over each submission or examining competing historical claims before issuing a sovereignty decision.

A deposited chart records the submitting state’s official position, and other states may accept it, reject it or send formal communications to the United Nations. The UN’s Philippine state file shows earlier Philippine maritime deposits together with communications from China and Vietnam.

Publication of Philippine material did not erase those objections or convert the Secretariat into an international court. China has already rejected the Philippine baselines around the shoal as illegal and invalid, and its objection can be added to the UN record while the Philippine filing remains on file.

The legal dispute continues. The filing provides precision, public notice and consistency with procedures established by UNCLOS.

THE BAJO CHART IS SEPARATE FROM THE WEST PALAWAN CONTINENTAL-SHELF SUBMISSION

Some reports have linked the new chart to the Philippines’ effort to establish an extended continental shelf in the West Palawan Region. These actions involve different parts of UNCLOS and should not be combined into one proceeding.

Based on the Philippine description and China’s response, the Bajo filing concerns the geographic lines associated with the shoal and its surrounding maritime zones. Its immediate focus appears to be the baseline and territorial sea measured from the shoal’s rocks above water at high tide.

The West Palawan submission, filed in June 2024, concerns the seabed and subsoil beyond 200 nautical miles from Philippine baselines. It went to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, whose members are experts in geology, geophysics or hydrography.

The commission studies scientific and technical data and makes recommendations on the outer limits of a continental shelf. Ownership of disputed rocks falls outside its role, and its work does not prejudice boundary disputes between states.

Each process serves a different purpose: public notice of claimed maritime lines for the chart, and scientific assessment of possible seabed rights beyond 200 nautical miles for the West Palawan submission. The complete chart is still needed to determine its precise relationship, if any, with the West Palawan filing.

THE 2016 ARBITRAL AWARD DID NOT DECIDE WHICH COUNTRY OWNS BAJO DE MASINLOC

The 2016 South China Sea arbitration gave the Philippines several major legal findings, but sovereignty over Bajo de Masinloc was outside the tribunal’s decision. The case dealt with maritime entitlements under UNCLOS, the legal status of disputed features and the lawfulness of specified Chinese actions.

The tribunal did not determine whether the Philippines or China owns the rocks at the shoal. It found that the shoal contains rocks above water at high tide that are capable of generating a territorial sea, but those rocks cannot generate an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf of their own.

That finding limits the sea and seabed that can be claimed solely from the shoal. The tribunal also found that Filipino and Chinese fishermen had long used the area as a traditional fishing ground.

China unlawfully prevented Filipino fishermen from exercising those traditional rights after May 2012, according to the award. Those findings support the Philippine case against excessive Chinese maritime claims and restrictions on Filipino fishermen while leaving the separate sovereignty dispute unresolved.

The wording used by officials and commentators must reflect those limits. The tribunal rejected China’s claim to historic rights over resources beyond what UNCLOS allows and ruled on conduct around the shoal, but it did not award Bajo de Masinloc to Manila.

THE STRONGER PAPER RECORD CANNOT SECURE ACCESS ON THE WATER

China has exercised de facto control around Bajo de Masinloc since the 2012 standoff. Its coast guard presence affects who enters the lagoon, where fishermen can operate and how Philippine government vessels approach the shoal.

The new chart neither removes Chinese vessels nor prevents China from using its coast guard, military and domestic rules to press Beijing’s position. China established what it calls the Huangyan Dao National Nature Reserve in September 2025 and later issued rules against unauthorized fishing, mining, coral collection, giant-clam harvesting and other activities it classifies as harmful.

Beijing presents the reserve as an environmental measure, while the Philippines rejects China’s authority to create and enforce those restrictions against Filipinos at Bajo de Masinloc. Filipino fishermen may therefore face Chinese action based on rules their own government does not recognize.

The Philippine response cannot rely on the chart alone. Sustained coast guard and fisheries operations, accurate public documentation, diplomatic protests, support for affected fishermen and careful management of encounters will determine what happens next.