EDITOR’S NOTE: The President Benigno Simeon Aquino III Memorial Lectures on Leadership and Democracy was launched on June 24 at the Ateneo de Manila University. The launch, one of the activities that marked the fourth anniversary of the former leader’s passing, was held under the auspices of the Ninoy and Cory Aquino Foundation, the Ateneo School of Government, the Dr. Rosita G. Leong School of Social Sciences, and the Ateneo School of Humanities. Representative-elect Leila M. de Lima delivered the inaugural lecture.

Today, we mark the fourth anniversary of President Aquino’s passing. It still feels unreal to me, and I believe to many of us, that our beloved Sir is gone. I was still in detention on the trumped-up charges filed against me by the Duterte administration when I received the sad news about his sudden demise in the morning of June 24, 2021. I broke into tears upon receiving a note from a staff bearing that sad news. I could not believe that Sir PNoy was gone. I didn’t know he was ill.

It was not evident at all in those visits he made at the PNP Custodial Center. I did notice his loss of weight, that’s all. No indication of any illness. Obviously, I was not able to attend his wake to pay my final respects and to thank him for the trust he placed in me—first, when he appointed me as his secretary of justice, and again, when he asked me to run for the Senate in the administration slate in 2016.

I was told that when President Aquino heard news of my impending arrest on Feb. 24, 2017, he cancelled his appointments on that fateful day, which coincided with certain events related to the People Power anniversary celebration. I guess he must have been affected by the spectacle, if not the irony of it all, that Duterte’s Malacañang was celebrating Edsa while at the same time silencing an opposition critic.

Behind the scenes, he worked quietly to check on the legality of my arrest. On that morning, he was among the last people I spoke with on the phone before I was arrested and detained. He visited me several times while I was in detention, always without media coverage or fanfare. And each time, he went through the regular process for visitation, getting clearance from the proper authorities of Camp Crame. He brought me books to read. Our conversations were moments that eased the burden of detention. We discussed both serious and light matters. We also had moments of levity. I wish all of you had experienced the President’s sense of humor. These small gestures spoke volumes about his kindness and empathy.

Around that time, PNoy was already bothered with the way things were going under the Duterte administration. Whatever he felt then he kept privately, until he finally came out of his self-imposed seclusion from the public in November 2019 during the event that marked my 1,000th day in detention. He said then: “So mga kasama, simpleng-simple lang ho, ano? … Puwede tayong magwalang-kibo. Puwede nating hindi intindihin ’yung nangyayari sa kapaligiran natin. At hinahanda na natin ’yung pagkakataon na tamaan tayo. Tanong ho, habang hindi pa tayo tinatamaan, hindi kaya mas marapat na tayo ay manindigan? Dito na tayo magsabing hindi tama ang nangyayari? Kaysa naman, ’di ba, maramdaman na natin ang nararamdaman ni Leila nang dire-diretso.”

That first public appearance ever since he became Citizen PNoy was also one of his last, as he was to leave us all behind less than two years later. Exactly a year ago today, I was cleared of all the charges leveled against me, giving me back my complete, unmitigated freedom after seven long years and allowing me to be with you today.

Last May, the ML or Mamamayang Liberal Partylist, the sectoral arm of the Liberal Party, won a seat in Congress. It was nothing short of a miracle that we got one seat because we ranked very low in pre-election surveys. This one seat, which I now hold, allows me to represent the people once again and restore our fight for “Daang Matuwid.”

I believe that these two milestones in my life—my acquittal and our electoral victory—made PNoy happy in Heaven. And what better way to thank him, honor his memory, and preserve his legacy than through this memorial lecture.

Principled leadership

Today’s lecture centers on the leadership of President Aquino—a principled leadership that we, his colleagues in government, witnessed firsthand as we worked alongside him to confront an issue of profound national significance: the West Philippine Sea (WPS).

Except for a few points, I will not dwell on the finer, more substantive legal points of the issue because I do not claim to be of any knowledge and expertise on this subject in any way near the level of expertise of other officials such as retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio. We all know Justice Carpio as the foremost legal expert on WPS. My role here is to present how PNoy worked on this matter, from my perspective as his secretary of justice whom he regularly consulted on legal and constitutional matters. President Aquino took to heart the oath he took on June 30, 2010—to faithfully and conscientiously fulfill his duties as president of the Philippines, to preserve and defend its Constitution, to execute its laws, to do justice to every man, and to consecrate himself to the service of the nation.

For six years, he gave his all to uplift the lives of Filipinos, restore their dignity, and make them proud of their identity. No issue more clearly exemplifies this commitment than his resolute defense of the West Philippine Sea. China then had grown increasingly aggressive in its expansionist claims, invoking the so-called nine-dash line that covered nearly the entire South China Sea. The situation was fast becoming untenable.

President Aquino committed himself to finding a principled and peaceful resolution to a decades-long maritime dispute. The maritime dispute between the Philippines and China has often been described as a David-versus-Goliath confrontation. What could a small nation like ours do to stand up to a powerful, resource-rich, and influential state? And yet, the President believed and constantly reminded us that might does not make right. For him, it was right that makes might.

While the Aquino administration worked to upgrade our military capabilities and relied on the expertise of our gallant soldiers and strategic thinkers, we knew we could not confront China militarily. Instead, we pursued every possible diplomatic avenue. We strengthened alliances, championed the rule of international law, especially the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas or Unclos.

We invoked the Asean-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), signed in 2002. However, as a legally nonbinding agreement, it lacks enforceability. The DOC was intended to serve as a stepping stone toward a legally binding Code of Conduct for the South China Sea. Yet, more than two decades later, negotiations towards a final agreement remain slow. In the meantime, China’s actions continue to undermine the principles set forth in the DOC.

Scarborough Shoal

Nevertheless, we continued to engage China in political and diplomatic dialogues in the pursuit of a peaceful resolution, even if our efforts were often met with rejection. The day that things came to a head vis-à-vis China is marked in history as the Scarborough Shoal stand-off of April 2012.

The crisis started when the Philippine Navy accosted eight Chinese fishing vessels caught violating Philippine fishery laws around the shoal. I remember during that time that tension was high in Malacañang. This was because the Philippine Navy ship BRP Gregorio del Pilar was confronted by two Chinese maritime surveillance vessels in order to block the arrest of the Chinese fishermen.

I remember being consulted then by the President if he would violate any law in case he authorized the release of the Chinese fishermen in exchange for a Chinese withdrawal. This option was then the only way to prevent an escalation of the incident into a full-blown international crisis. I thus submitted a legal memorandum essentially stating that he can make a decision from a law enforcement point of view as President, or treat it as a national defense and security matter as the Commander in Chief. I said that if enforcing the law will result in the loss of life of navy personnel and the start of a war with a superpower, the choice was obvious.

There were other ways to skin a cat. Maybe firing broadsides on Chinese militia vessels and coast guard ships was not exactly the brightest way to approach the problem. If not for the Scarborough Shoal stand-off, I don’t think the choice of challenging China before an international tribunal would have been ultimately considered, and eventually undertaken. This served to be an important lesson in international conflicts—that the use of force can unwittingly unravel before the world the very illegitimacy of the claim for which China was only too willing to use force.

In the final analysis, this is what the Unclos ruling in the case of Philippines v China amounted to. It showed the world the illegitimacy of China’s claim, and that its use of force to defend such an illegitimate claim is a violation of international law. The Scarborough incident, I think, paved the way for the general strategy the Aquino administration was to take on the West Philippine Sea for the rest of its term. It then became clear that our sovereign rights over the WPS were to be secured through peaceful means instead of armed confrontation.

Confrontation and violence can only be resorted to when there are no other options left. This is why up to now, the Philippine government has adopted a maximum-tolerance policy in the West Philippine Sea when it comes to confrontations with Chinese militia and coast guard vessels.

We do not escalate. We protect and persevere. President Aquino was the nation’s foremost diplomatic voice in asserting the Philippines’ maritime rights on the global stage. At the Asean Summit in November 2012, when Cambodia as the Asean chair announced that all 10 member-nations of the bloc had agreed not to internationalize the maritime disputes, President Aquino spoke up and insisted that there was no such consensus made.

My then colleague in the Cabinet, the late Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario, shared with the media the President’s comments to his fellow leaders. I quote: “While the Philippines was for Asean unity, it has the inherent right to defend its national interests when deemed necessary.”

As we all know, the late Secretary Del Rosario was a key figure in pursuing the Philippine case. He was a quiet but hard worker; his mellow demeanor concealed the warrior within. His fighting fortitude and steady courage guided and supported PNoy, especially during those times when everything was up in the air and there was no certainty as to where a legal challenge against China will bring the country.

Going back to PNoy’s protestations on Cambodia’s declaration as Asean chair, media reports also mentioned that in a letter sent to all the Asean leaders following the meeting, the Philippine delegation emphasized that there was no consensus made on not internationalizing the South China Sea issue.

Before this particular Asean Summit, in September 2012, the President had signed Administrative Order No. 29, officially naming as the West Philippine Sea the South China Sea waters within the country’s 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone. The maritime areas on the western side of the Philippines include the Luzon Sea as well as the waters around, within and adjacent to the Kalayaan Island Group and Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal.

On Jan. 22, 2013, the Philippines filed the case with the Permanent Court of Arbitration where we challenged China’s nine-dash line claim which interferes with the Philippines’ exercise of its sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the West Philippine Sea.

Important distinctions

I take this opportunity to reiterate the important distinctions between a maritime dispute and a territorial dispute, and between sovereignty and sovereign rights. These were carefully considered when President Aquino made the decision that the Philippines will pursue legal action against China. Sovereignty refers to a state’s jurisdiction or political authority over a defined territory. Sovereign rights, on the other hand, pertain to a state’s entitlement to explore and exploit natural resources within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ). A maritime dispute involves disagreements over maritime zones, such as the EEZ, while a territorial dispute concerns claims over land and questions of sovereignty. This distinction was to matter in the presentation of the Philippine case during the Unclos arbitration.

The Unclos Arbitration Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide territorial disputes. This means it cannot decide who among the claimant nations like the Philippines, Vietnam, China, or Malaysia has sovereignty over specific islands or land features that make up the Spratly Islands or the Kalayaan Island Group. It can only decide on matters involving the provisions of the Unclos, specifically the claimant countries’ respective maritime entitlements or sovereign rights within their exclusive economic zones. This EEZ projects 200 nautical miles from a country’s baselines.

An island generates a 200-mile EEZ of its own. This is why it was important for the Philippine case to settle if its EEZ that encompasses the West Philippine Sea is overlapped by China’s EEZ by virtue of its claim that certain land features in the Spratly Islands are part of its land territory.

If any of these land features claimed by China is an island, then it will necessarily overlap with the Philippines’ EEZ. If it is not an island—i.e., it is incapable of sustaining human habitation—then it can only generate a 12-nautical mile territorial sea, and not a 200-nautical mile EEZ that will overlap with our own.

This was the crux of the matter in the deliberations of PNoy’s legal team on whether or not to gamble on the issue of Itu Aba in the Unclos case against China. Being the largest land feature in the Spratly Islands, Itu Aba will generate a 200-nautical-mile EEZ if it is declared an island, thus greatly diminishing the Philippines’ sovereign rights over the West Philippine Sea. However, if it is not declared an island, then we have a categorical ruling that the Philippines’ EEZ in the West Philippine Sea as we know it now remains undisturbed.

It was a sort of an all-or-nothing gamble. Fortunately, we won the issue on Itu Aba. No country’s EEZ—namely, that of China and Vietnam—overlaps with our own in the West Philippine Sea with regard to their mainland coastlines because of distance. And, now this is also true with regard to their Spratly claims because of the Itu Aba ruling. But more on that later.

As the administration’s WPS legal team and our foreign counsel studied the case, it was determined that the strongest legal argument we could present before the Tribunal was to seek a declaration of the respective maritime rights, or the sovereign rights, of the Philippines and China under the Unclos, to which both countries are signatories.

We aimed to establish that China’s so-called nine-dash line, which encompasses nearly all of the South China Sea, has no basis under the Unclos. The Philippines’ filing of the arbitration case before the United Nations Arbitral Tribunal was our country’s way of saying, “Enough is enough.”

‘The world has to say it’

In an interview with The New York Times a year after we sought arbitration, President Aquino called on the world to support the Philippines in resisting China’s assertive claims in the South China Sea, seeing how we will all be affected by China’s aggression. I quote the President in that interview: “If we say yes to something we believe is wrong now, what guarantee is there that the wrong will not be further exacerbated down the line?” He added: “At what point do you say, ‘Enough is enough’? Well, the world has to say it—remember that the Sudetenland was given in an attempt to appease Hitler to prevent World War II.”

The President was not afraid to make the comparison between what was happening in the South China Sea to what happened when the world failed to support Czechoslovakia after Hitler demanded the annexation of Sudetenland to Germany. Just to clarify, I played more of a supporting role in the arbitration case. The lead responsibilities lay with the Solicitor General, the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel, whom I collectively refer to as the “WPS Team,” and our foreign counsels led by Mr. Paul Reichler. They made up the core of the Philippine delegation for the oral arguments before the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Peace Palace in The Hague.

From time to time, the President would invite me to their meetings and ask for my opinion.

A few days before the submission of the Philippine memorial, then Supreme Court Justice Carpio, who had served as a resource person for our case, requested a meeting with me. This moment was later recounted by veteran journalist Marites Dañguilan Vitug in her book “Rock Solid.”

I hope everyone has read “Rock Solid.” It is the definitive account on how President Aquino took the whole country on a journey of dealing with China on the West Philippine Sea. As a testimonial on PNoy’s work and his government’s effort to defend what is ours, the storytelling is very engaging and it almost reads like a suspense novel. I encourage especially the students who are here with us today to find a copy and read it.

As I mentioned earlier, a stalemate had emerged within the WPS Team over whether to include a discussion on Itu Aba in the memorial. It became one of the most contentious debates in the entire process—one that only the President could resolve.

What is Itu Aba?

Let us review the facts. What is Itu Aba? It is the largest feature in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, which is being claimed by the Philippines, China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan. Taiwan, which calls it Taiping Island, has long controlled Itu Aba and has developed it by building an airstrip, an airport, a hospital, and other facilities.

Justice Carpio explained to me the importance of including Itu Aba in our memorial. Under international law, rocks are entitled only to a 12-nautical mile territorial sea, while islands can generate a 200-nautical mile EEZ and a continental shelf.

If Itu Aba were classified as an island, its 200-nautical mile EEZ would overlap with the coast of Palawan and the Reed Bank (or Recto Bank)—believed to be rich in oil and natural gas, making it very attractive to China. It was crucial to present to the court that our position was that Itu Aba is a rock—incapable of sustaining human habitation or economic life—even though Taiwan insists that it is an island.

Prior to this, the filing of the case against China generated a flurry of activity among international experts and members of the academe. Some of them were engaged by China to develop its position even when it refused to be a party to the case and submit its pleadings officially. Some of these China-sponsored experts criticized the Philippines’ initial submissions for not including Itu Aba among the land features it intended to take up in the case. They said it was bad faith on the part of the Philippines to contest the island status of several land features without, however, including Itu Aba.

After much study, the foreign legal team arrived at the conclusion that excluding Itu Aba from the Philippine memorial will not sit well with the arbitral tribunal. Eventually, they decided that it was necessary to include Itu Aba in its memorial. But there was opposition from within the Philippine WPS Team on the inclusion of Itu Aba. Those who opposed its inclusion believed there was a risk that the Tribunal will rule that Itu Aba is an island, thereby generating a 200-mile EEZ that will overlap with Palawan. They were certain that keeping quiet about it was better than risking it being ruled as an island by the Tribunal.

I was convinced by the argument of Justice Carpio, Secretary Del Rosario, and the foreign legal team, that the issue of Itu Aba had to be raised in the Philippines’ memorial. It was just a matter of presenting a case in which we had a high degree of confidence in winning.

Remember, we were up against a giant, and we could not afford to be the underdog who lost. The next step was to bring the matter directly to the President.

I share this story because, to me, it illustrates the President’s decisiveness and courage under immense pressure. I was able to set a meeting with him the very next day. I waited for a couple of hours as he was attending an event outside Malacañang. When he returned and saw me, he said, “Leila, what is it?” and led me to his private office so we could speak.

I explained the issue on Itu Aba briefly. He listened intently, and I remember how he tried to maintain a neutral expression. And when he wore that look –focused and withholding emotion—you knew he was absorbing the weight of a serious situation.

I later learned that after our meeting, the President spoke with Secretary Del Rosario. He then called for a meeting with the WPS Team and myself, in which the Itu Aba issue was explained to him in greater detail.

It became apparent that the President was deeply disappointed. He asked us why he had not been informed earlier of Itu Aba’s importance to our case against China. On this issue which could determine the success or failure of our arbitration case, he made the decision to include Itu Aba in the memorial.

We were fortunate to have a President who had the wisdom to grasp the complexities of the issue and make the right call. When the Philippines submitted its memorial to the Permanent Court of Arbitration on March 30, 2014, the 15 paragraphs on Itu Aba as prepared by the law firm of Foley Hoag were included and became part of the Philippine case.

Hope in a just cause

The oral presentation of the Philippine case before the Unclos Arbitral Tribunal took place on July 8, 2015. I clearly remember that on that day, excitement was in the air. There was also tension and anxiety. But for the most part, there was a feeling of hope in fighting for a just cause.

For the Philippine contingent, it was a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Never before was the highest of Philippine officialdom gathered in one place in a foreign country to go against a superpower. The first to speak for the Philippines on the first day of the oral arguments was Solicitor General Florin Hilbay, who introduced the case and presented the order of speakers for the Philippines. SolGen Hilbay was followed by Secretary Del Rosario, who explained the reason for the Philippines’ decision to seek arbitration in the maritime dispute with China. He also made an impassioned plea for the Tribunal to recognize its jurisdiction because of the importance of the case not only to the region but to the entire world, and its impact on the application of the rule of law in maritime disputes.

Third to speak was the chief counsel for the Philippines, Paul Reichler of the US-based Foley Hoag law firm. Reichler presented the justification for the tribunal’s jurisdiction over the Philippine claims under the Unclos. He was followed by other foreign legal experts, who explained how the Philippine claims did not raise questions of sovereignty over land or raise questions of maritime delimitation.

President Aquino did not join us in The Hague. Well, he was not expected to. By that time, he already had confidence in his cause to bring the WPS issue to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. At the very least, he had confidence enough in the fact that he had made the right decision. Before we left for The Hague, those of us around him felt his energy. We knew that he was proud of the team that he put together to challenge China and bring one of the most powerful nations in the world to court.

That great moment in Philippine history is preserved in the iconic picture of the Philippine delegation taken before the grand staircase of the Peace Palace in The Hague. Three months later, in October 2015, the Philippines achieved its first victory in its case against China when the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled affirmatively on the issue of jurisdiction. What followed after was the major battle of arguing that China’s nine-dash line claim has no basis in international law and the Unclos. China, therefore, is not entitled to any portion of the Philippines’ EEZ in the West Philippine Sea.

On July 12, 2016, the Tribunal ruled unanimously in favor of the Philippines, affirming the country’s maritime entitlements under the Unclos and invalidating China’s nine-dash line claim over the South China Sea.

Itu Aba became one of the highlights of the ruling. The Tribunal declared that Itu Aba was a rock incapable of sustaining economic life or human communities. As expected, the ruling was rejected by both China and Taiwan.

We had successfully defended what is rightfully ours. As the President said, “Ang Pilipinas ay sa Pilipinas.”

“Victory has many fathers; defeat is an orphan,” as the saying goes.

This was evident after we won the arbitration. Many were frequently mentioned in various forums and in the media for their roles and contributions to the arbitral victory. And yet, the significant actions of the very person who believed the Philippines was worth fighting for, who made the courageous decision to stand up to China, have rarely been mentioned. But humility has always been an Aquino trait. In his statement following the Tribunal’s decision, the President expressed his gratitude to all those who “worked hard to defend our shared cause.” He mentioned several names, including mine.

Credibility and courage

Today, I honor, recognize, and express our deepest gratitude to President Aquino for showing us that we can, and must, defend the Philippines. His honest and principled leadership, marked by a firm stand against corruption and a commitment to economic reform, earned the trust and respect of the international community.

This credibility played a critical role as we sought the support of allied nations in asserting our rightful maritime claims. President Aquino also possessed the wisdom and clarity to navigate an immensely complex geopolitical landscape. And let us not forget his eloquence. He had a remarkable ability to articulate the Philippines’ position clearly, confidently, and with moral authority before the world.

He was a collaborative leader, though engaging with him could often be a formidable experience. He asked incisive, challenging questions that compelled those around him to be thoughtful, prepared, and precise. He listened carefully, made difficult decisions, and stood by them with conviction. He championed a rules-based approach anchored in international law, and remained steadfast in pursuing peaceful and legal means to assert our sovereign rights.

Most of all, he had the courage to stand up to a global superpower, one that is militarily and economically far stronger. President Aquino willingly shouldered the burden and the responsibility of whatever consequences such a stance might bring.

It was deeply painful to witness much of what he fought for nearly undone during the Duterte administration, which chose to set aside the arbitral victory and implement a foreign policy that was in stark contrast to President Aquino’s principled vision.

But the Filipino people themselves have taken up the cause. No issue has galvanized Filipinos in recent decades more than the West Philippine Sea. When quite recently, a former congressman, now a newly elected senator, claimed that the West Philippine Sea did not exist, he was swiftly rebuked by both experts and the broader public.

We now see ordinary citizens taking meaningful action. One brilliant example is the Atin Ito Coalition that has brought civilian presence right to the heart of the West Philippine Sea, asserting our sovereign rights and amplifying the Filipino voice on the global stage.

Without question, President Aquino was able to unify the nation behind this cause. His enduring message was simple yet powerful: Love your country with all your might—just as his father, our hero Ninoy Aquino, once told him when he was only 13 years old.

Rest easy now, Mr. President, my President. Itutuloy namin ang laban.

Read more: PNoy’s ‘right makes might’ principle recalled