13/04/2026
Atin ang West Philippine Sea. 🇵🇭
DOJ's Senior State Counsel Atty. Fretti Ganchoon explains the 2016 Arbitral Award on the South China Sea - our West Philippine Sea.
https://www.facebook.com/share/1G6St7Bi3u/?mibextid=wwXIfr
https://www.facebook.com/share/14Z1KgXvB12/?mibextid=wwXIfr
https://www.facebook.com/share/1DoyVfHwWg/?mibextid=wwXIfr
LAW, NOT LIES: How DOJ’s Fretti Ganchoon Dismantles the Dangerous Myth Machine on the West Philippine Sea
April 2, 2026
In a moment that cuts cleanly through years of confusion, distortion, and politically convenient storytelling, Fretti Ganchoon delivered a firm, legally grounded clarification on March 31, 2026: the 2016 arbitral ruling on the West Philippine Sea did not cost the Philippines a single inch of territory. It did the opposite—it fortified the country’s maritime rights under international law.
That simple, precise truth matters. And it arrives at a time when misinformation has become not just widespread, but weaponized.
Ganchoon’s statements are not opinions—they are anchored in the binding decision of the South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v. China 2016 arbitral award) under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Her clarification is surgical: the ruling resolved maritime entitlements, not territorial sovereignty. It did not—and legally could not—decide who owns land features like the Kalayaan Island Group or Bajo de Masinloc.
Therefore, the persistent claim that the Philippines “lost territory” is not just misleading—it is legally baseless.
Yet this false narrative has not emerged in a vacuum. It has been repeatedly echoed, normalized, and amplified over the years—particularly during and after the administration of Rodrigo Duterte. His public rhetoric frequently downplayed the arbitral victory, framing it as impractical, unenforceable, or even dangerous to invoke.
That framing did not merely shape policy—it shaped public perception. It created fertile ground for confusion, where legal clarity was replaced by political convenience.
Today, we continue to see the same pattern. Sara Duterte has echoed a preference for “pragmatic engagement,” often interpreted as sidelining legal assertion.
Meanwhile, Duterte-aligned figures such as Rodante Marcoleta, Robin Padilla, and Alan Peter Cayetano have publicly questioned or de-emphasized the arbitral ruling—suggesting it is of limited utility, secondary to diplomacy, or even dispensable in favor of joint development arrangements.
Let’s be clear: diplomacy is not the problem. Diplomacy without a legal backbone is. The arbitral ruling is that backbone. It is the Philippines’ strongest legal instrument—one that invalidated sweeping foreign claims, affirmed our Exclusive Economic Zone, and clarified the status of disputed maritime features.
To treat it as optional is to negotiate with one hand tied behind our back.
Ganchoon’s intervention directly dismantles several dangerous misconceptions. First, the idea that the ruling is “useless” because it cannot be enforced militarily betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of international law.
Enforcement is not limited to force; it includes diplomatic pressure, coalition-building, and norm-setting. The ruling is invoked in protests, cited by allies, and recognized globally as authoritative. That is power—legal power.
Second, the claim that invoking the ruling provokes war flips reality on its head. Arbitration under international law is a peaceful mechanism precisely designed to avoid conflict.
Law is the alternative to escalation, not its trigger. Suggesting otherwise discourages lawful assertion and rewards coercion.
Third, the narrative that bilateral negotiations should replace reliance on the ruling ignores a basic principle: negotiations derive strength from legal position.
Without the ruling, the Philippines negotiates from ambiguity. With it, the country stands on a clear, internationally validated entitlement framework.
What makes this issue more urgent—and more troubling—is how these misconceptions are amplified beyond official statements.
Duterte-aligned influencers and bloggers, including figures like Sass Rogando Sass, have played a significant role in recycling and spreading these narratives across social media ecosystems.
Through repetition, simplification, and emotional framing, complex legal truths are reduced to misleading soundbites. Over time, these distortions begin to feel like facts.
This is why Ganchoon’s clarification is not just timely—it is essential. It is a direct counterstrike against a sustained campaign of narrative erosion. It reasserts that law is not negotiable, that facts are not optional, and that national interest cannot be subordinated to political messaging.
And this is where the stakes extend beyond the present moment into the future of Philippine policy itself.
Because the consequences of leadership that sidelines the arbitral ruling are not theoretical—they are measurable, cumulative, and difficult to reverse.
When legal victories are downplayed or treated as expendable, several strategic costs follow. Maritime rights become harder to assert consistently.
Diplomatic protests lose coherence without a firm legal anchor. International support weakens when a state appears uncertain about its own legal position. Over time, this creates space for competing claims to solidify on the ground—or more precisely, at sea.
The economic implications are equally concrete. The West Philippine Sea is not just a legal concept; it is a living source of food security, energy potential, and national livelihood. Fisheries access, resource exploration, and maritime trade routes all depend on clear and assertable rights.
When those rights are ambiguously defended, the cost is borne by Filipino fishermen, by future energy planning, and by long-term national development.
There is also a deeper institutional cost. A rules-based position—grounded in international law—strengthens state credibility. It signals consistency, predictability, and adherence to norms.
When that position is diluted, policy becomes reactive rather than principled. It shifts from law-driven to personality-driven. And that shift, once normalized, is not easily corrected.
This is why the conversation sparked by Ganchoon’s clarification is not merely academic. It is a stress test of national direction. It forces a fundamental question: will the Philippines continue to anchor its maritime policy on law, or will it drift into ambiguity shaped by shifting political narratives?
The answer will determine not just diplomatic posture, but the durability of the country’s rights in one of the most contested maritime regions in the world.
Ganchoon has done her part—precise, principled, and grounded in law. The question now is whether that clarity will be sustained, institutionalized, and defended with equal resolve in the years ahead.
Because in the end, this is not just about a legal ruling. It is about whether truth—and the rule of law—can hold the line.
