The Filipino people was never told how much the arbitration would cost them. The Constitution provides that no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law, yet no appropriation has been disclosed for this particular purpose. One report says that on lawyer's fees alone, the government has spent $30 million (or P1.4 billion). It was supposed to split the total cost of the entire process with the other party, but since China (the other party) did not participate, then the Philippines must have absorbed the entire cost. 


How much then is it? Are any foreign donors involved?


On top of the large number of lawyers and experts the government sent to The Hague, it engaged the services of noted foreign lawyers led by the famous Harvard professor Paul Reichler, who represented Nicaragua in its celebrated case in the ICJ against the United States in the 1980s. There was understandable excitement about Reichler's formidable skills which helped Nicaragua win its case against the US, for supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and for mining Nicaragua's harbors.


But there was hardly any mention of the fact that the US refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its objection questioning the Court's jurisdiction to hear the case, and refused to comply with the judgment embodied in resolutions before the UN Security Council and the General Assembly in 1986. The judgment commanded the US to pay actual compensation to the Nicaraguan government. Shouldn't the public have been forewarned that like the US, China could simply ignore the arbitral ruling should it lose?


The World Court found the US in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another state, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty, and to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce, and in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation signed between the two countries in Managua on January 21, 1956.


But from 1982 to 1985, the US vetoed the Security Council resolution urging full and immediate compliance with the ICJ judgment; on October 28, 1986, it imposed a final veto on the measure before the Security Council. France and the United Kingdom, two permanent SC members with veto powers, together with Thailand, abstained during the voting. On Nov. 3, the same resolution was brought to the UN General Assembly and approved with only the US, Israel and El Salvador voting against it. Still the US refused to pay the fine.

<div class="image-450">
<img loading="lazy" src="https://cdn.kahimyang.com/resources/paul-reichler-nicaragua.webp" alt="Harvard professor Paul Reichler" />
<div>
(Harvard Professor Paul Reichler, right, representing Nicaragua in the 1980s)
</div>
</div>

Then-US Permanent Representative to the UN Jean Kirkpatrick explained that the World Court was a "semi-legal, semi-judicial, semi-political body, which nations sometimes accept and sometimes not". The common impression about superpowers elsewhere is that they cannot be bound by penalties and sanctions; they decide what international law is, and what it is not. The US never paid actual damages to Nicaragua; the burden was lifted from the shoulders of the US by action of the Violeta Chamorro government after the defeat of the Sandinista President Daniel Ortega in 1990. The US-supported government repealed the law requiring it to seek compensation from the US for its role in the Contra revolt, and in September 1992, withdrew its court complaint against the US.


Another critical point not well-appreciated by the public is that although the Philippines was eager to submit to the arbitral process, China rejected it from the very beginning and refused to participate. Thus the arbitration proceeded with only one party present, and China's side was never heard. Against the 7,000-page submission of the Philippine government, there is not a single page from China defending its position on the "nine-dash line". Is it fair then, to compel China to accept a ruling in a process whose validity it had rejected from the very beginning?




Sources: 

<ol class="article-sources">
<li>
Breaking the South China Sea stalemate by Francisco Tatad, July 18, 2016 (http://www.manilatimes.net)
</li>
<li>
Permanent Court of Arbitration (https://en.wikipedia.org)
</li>
</ol>

How much did the Hague arbitration actually cost the Filipino taxpayer?