Philippines Rejects China's Demand to Remove BRP Sierra Madre

However, Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr. promptly rejected this demand.

"Tensions in the West Philippine Sea have once again returned to the center of attention after China renewed its call for the Philippines to remove the BRP Sierra Madre from Ayungin Shoal," Global Front reported.

Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr., serving as of September 17, 2026, asserted that China lacks the authority to dictate the status of the grounded naval vessel. He emphasized that the demand falls outside China's jurisdiction.

Teodoro stated, "They have no right to say that, so it is beyond their jurisdiction and beyond any form of intervention under international law."

The Chinese Embassy reiterated its claim that the Philippines had previously committed to removing the BRP Sierra Madre from Ayungin Shoal, while also criticizing Philippine activities at Pag-asa Island and other disputed waters. Beijing refers to Ayungin Shoal as Ren'ai Jiao, considering it part of Nansha Qundao.

Global Front reported, "The Chinese Embassy again raised its claim that the Philippines have previously committed to removing the ship from Ayungin Shoal, while also criticizing Philippine activities at Pag-asa Island and elsewhere in the disputed waters."

He argued that Beijing cannot disregard the arbitration process and still expect its demands to be recognized.

"China cannot reject the arbitration process while at the same time acting outside the legal framework established by the convention," Gilberto Teodoro Jr. stated. Beijing, however, maintains that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction and prefers direct negotiations between states.

The 2016 arbitral tribunal award did not determine sovereignty over land territory in the South China Sea or delimit maritime boundaries between China and the Philippines. Instead, its focus was on maritime entitlements and historic rights.

Global Front noted, "An important distinction is that the tribunal did not decide sovereignty over land territory in the South China Sea, nor did it delimit a maritime boundary between China and the Philippines." The ruling found China's nine-dash line claims incompatible with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) issued a statement on September 15, 2026, categorically denying the existence of any agreement obligating the Philippines to remove the BRP Sierra Madre. This directly refutes China's claims of a prior commitment.

"There is no agreement between the Philippines and China obligating the Philippines to remove the BRP Sierra Madre," the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs stated. The DFA further reaffirmed that Ayungin Shoal is well within the Philippines' Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

An Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is legally distinct from sovereign territory, a crucial point in understanding maritime law. Coastal states do not possess full sovereignty over an EEZ in the same way they do over land territory.

Global Front explained, "An exclusive economic zone is legally different from sovereign territory." States hold sovereign rights within their EEZ specifically concerning resources and certain jurisdictional matters, rather than complete territorial control.

The DFA further characterized Ayungin Shoal as a low-tide elevation. According to Manila's interpretation of the 2016 ruling, such elevations cannot independently generate their own territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, or continental shelf.

This classification means that China cannot use Ayungin Shoal as a basis for maritime law enforcement. The DFA's position underscores the limitations on maritime features that are submerged at high tide.

Defense Secretary Teodoro dismissed Chinese statements as lacking importance, asserting that they were made in an area where China has no legitimate reason to comment. Manila prioritizes international law and its rights under it, rather than historical claims.

Teodoro stated, "Well, I will not regard their statement with any importance because it was made in an area where they have no rhyme, no reason to make any comment about." This position reiterates that China's nine-dash line claims do not override the sovereign rights granted under UNCLOS.

Global Front reported, "China maintains that it has sovereignty over the islands and reefs it identifies as part of the Nansha Qundao and says its rights and interests in the South China Sea are supported by history and international law." This fundamental legal impasse continues to persist between the two nations.

China alleges that a promise of removal was made, but Philippine officials categorically deny the existence of any legal obligation to tow the vessel away.

Global Front emphasized, "Philippine officials deny that any agreement states that legally obligates Manila to tow the vessel away." This disagreement forms the crux of the ongoing dispute.

In August 2026, the DFA clarified that these arrangements concern the practical conduct of personnel rotation and the delivery of essential supplies.

The DFA emphasized that these operational agreements do not restrict Philippine sovereign rights and jurisdiction under international law. This distinction allows for communication and logistical coordination despite the irreconcilable claims of sovereignty.

President Marcos Jr. consistently emphasizes the Philippines' maritime rights.

Global Front concluded, "It will remain one of the most visible symbols of the continuing China-Philippines maritime dispute in the West Philippine Sea." The dispute is deeply rooted in competing views of international law and historical claims, with both sides favoring peaceful dialogue despite their fundamental opposition.