The Philippines is on the brink of initiating an international lawsuit against China, seeking accountability for alleged environmental destruction in the South China Sea. Justice Secretary Crispin Remulla announced the government’s imminent decision on selecting the appropriate international platform to file the case, underscoring the urgency and gravity of the situation.
This move marks the Philippines’ second significant legal challenge against Beijing, following the landmark 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) that invalidated China’s sweeping territorial claims over most of the South China Sea. Despite China’s staunch rejection of that ruling, the Philippines aims to pursue damages for alleged large-scale environmental degradation caused by Chinese activities within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
Speaking at a press briefing, Remulla stated, “The sins are really so obvious. In the end, this is the best way to attack. There are many ways of solving a problem, but this is one of the most novel ways.”
The Philippines accuses China of engaging in activities such as harvesting giant clams, dredging, and constructing artificial islands, which have devastated marine ecosystems in the region. These activities, Manila argues, have irreparably damaged coral reefs and marine biodiversity in waters it claims as part of its EEZ.
A 2023 report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) revealed that China’s construction projects buried over 1,861 hectares of coral reefs in the South China Sea, inflicting massive ecological and economic harm. The Philippine government has gathered extensive evidence from its coast guard and other agencies to substantiate its claims, which include environmental assessments, satellite imagery, and testimonies from fishermen.
“This is a civil case. We look for damages. We want to be awarded damages for that,” Remulla emphasized, noting the need to finalize a legal strategy and file the case within the year.
The Philippines is currently evaluating multiple international forums for its legal action, with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) among the top options. Both institutions have the authority to hear cases involving state disputes, but their procedural requirements and jurisdiction differ.
In 2016, the PCA ruled that China’s expansive “nine-dash line” claim over the South China Sea had no legal basis under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The court also criticized China’s construction of artificial islands and its interference with Filipino fishing and oil exploration activities. However, China has refused to recognize the ruling and has since escalated its presence in the region, deploying coast guard ships and maritime militias to enforce its claims.
Despite China’s defiance, the Philippines is determined to utilize legal channels to seek accountability. “We’re in discussion, and the decision has to come very soon,” Remulla said, signaling the government’s readiness to confront Beijing on the global stage once again.
Beijing has consistently dismissed accusations of environmental harm, claiming instead that its activities benefit the region. Chinese officials have accused the Philippines of damaging the marine environment at the Second Thomas Shoal, where a Philippine naval vessel has been intentionally grounded since 1999 to reinforce Manila’s territorial claim.
China has also sought to shift the blame by accusing the Philippines of harming ecosystems through unsustainable fishing practices. However, these claims have been rejected by Manila, which asserts that China’s large-scale dredging and harvesting activities far outweigh any localized environmental impact caused by Filipino fishermen.
The environmental dispute adds a new dimension to the ongoing territorial conflict in the South China Sea, a strategic waterway through which an estimated $3.4 trillion in trade passes annually. The region is rich in natural resources, including fisheries and potential oil and gas reserves, making it a critical flashpoint for geopolitical tensions.
The Philippines, a longstanding ally of the United States, has been at the forefront of opposition to China’s territorial ambitions. Confrontations between Filipino and Chinese vessels have become increasingly common, particularly around disputed areas such as Scarborough Shoal, Second Thomas Shoal, and Sabina Shoal.
China’s construction of manmade islands on reefs, equipped with military facilities and missile systems, has further escalated tensions. These artificial islands serve as strategic outposts for Beijing, allowing it to project power deep into Southeast Asia and challenge the territorial claims of other nations, including Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan.
Marine scientists and environmental advocates have long warned of the irreversible damage caused by activities in the South China Sea. Coral reefs, often referred to as the “rainforests of the sea,” are vital to marine biodiversity, supporting thousands of species and providing livelihoods for millions of people across Southeast Asia.
The destruction of coral reefs not only threatens biodiversity but also disrupts fisheries, which are a primary source of food and income for coastal communities in the Philippines. According to environmental groups, the economic losses from damaged marine ecosystems could amount to billions of dollars, exacerbating poverty and food insecurity in the region.
“The loss of coral reefs is a catastrophe for our marine ecosystems and our people,” said an official from the Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources. “It’s not just an environmental issue; it’s a human issue.”
The Philippines’ decision to pursue legal action against China comes amid growing international attention to the South China Sea dispute. The United States and its allies have conducted freedom of navigation operations in the region to challenge China’s territorial claims, while ASEAN nations have called for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
Analysts believe the Philippines’ legal case could rally international support and increase pressure on China to comply with international law. However, success is far from guaranteed. Legal rulings in international courts often lack enforcement mechanisms, and China has shown a willingness to ignore unfavorable outcomes.
Nevertheless, the Philippines views the case as a moral and political imperative. “This is all due yesterday,” Remulla said, highlighting the urgency of holding China accountable for its actions.
