The Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has marked the tenth anniversary of the 12 July 2016 Arbitral Award on the South China Sea (SCS), reiterating its position that the ruling issued by the Permanent Court of Arbitration is "final and binding."

The DFA statement, reported by the Philippine News Agency, commemorates a full decade since the arbitral tribunal's decision in the case brought by the Philippines against China under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The department continues to characterize the award in the same terms it has used since the ruling was handed down: a decision that is final and binding on the parties.

Background of the dispute

The Philippines initiated arbitration proceedings in 2013 following escalating tensions over territorial and maritime claims in the South China Sea. China declined to participate in the proceedings and has consistently rejected the tribunal's jurisdiction and its award.

The tribunal issued its award on 12 July 2016. The decision addressed the legality of China's maritime claims and conduct in the disputed waters under UNCLOS.

Anniversary significance

The DFA's decade marker underscores the Philippine government's sustained reliance on the arbitral ruling as the legal foundation of its position in the South China Sea dispute.

By reaffirming the award as "final and binding," the department signals continuity in Manila's legal posture, anchoring its maritime policy in the 2016 decision rather than in negotiated modifications to the underlying dispute.

The tenth anniversary also serves as a periodic reminder to the international community of the award's existence and the Philippines' insistence on its legal effect.

What this means for practitioners

For legal advisers working on law-of-the-sea matters, the DFA's anniversary statement confirms that the Philippines continues to treat the 2016 award as settled law and as the reference point for any assertion of maritime rights in the South China Sea. Practitioners advising clients with interests in the region — shipping, fisheries, energy exploration — should note that Manila's official position remains anchored to the tribunal's findings. At the same time, China's non-acceptance of the award persists as a practical reality, meaning the ruling's enforcement environment remains contested. Counsel should frame compliance advice around the divergence between the legal status of the award as stated by the Philippines and its operational acceptance by the other principal claimant.

The DFA statement did not announce new legal initiatives; it reaffirmed existing positions on the anniversary date.