MANILA, Philippines — Retired Supreme Court justices Antonio Carpio and Adolfo Azcuna allegedly misrepresented international maritime law and endangered the Philippines’ claims in the South China Sea by promoting what he called a misleading theory of “automatic” maritime entitlements, a former diplomat and geopolitical analyst said on Friday. In a presentation during a forum organized by Manila-based think tank Asian Century Philippines Strategic Studies Institute (ACPSSI) on Friday, Adolfo “Ka Ado” Paglinawan said Carpio’s long-standing argument that the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ) existed automatically under international law ignored key provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos), particularly those governing overlapping maritime claims. Paglinawan was reacting to recent remarks by Carpio and Azcuna in an online interview, where they dismissed Sen. Rodante Marcoleta’s legal competence and reiterated that a coastal state did not need to publish geographical coordinates to assert its EEZ. According to Paglinawan, Carpio’s reliance on Articles 76 and 77 of Unclos — which recognize inherent rights over the continental shelf — was incomplete and misleading without reference to Articles 74 and 75, which require delimitation agreements and publication of coordinates when maritime zones overlap. “Automatic entitlement alone is not enough,” Paglinawan said, citing Article 74 of Unclos, which requires states with overlapping EEZs to negotiate boundaries or adopt provisional arrangements pending agreement. He argued that without formally defined and publicized coordinates, Philippine maritime claims remained legally weak, diplomatically vulnerable, and difficult to enforce. “Without defined coordinates, a claim cannot be objectively tested, peacefully contested, or credibly defended,” he said, echoing the views of Washington-based international lawyer Arnedo Valera, whom he quoted in his presentation. Paglinawan also criticized Carpio’s claim that satellite-based GPS measurements were sufficient for determining the country’s EEZ, saying this oversimplifies enforcement and ignores the legal requirement for official charts and deposited coordinates under Article 75 of Unclos. The former diplomat further linked the debate to ongoing tensions in the West Philippine Sea, arguing that the Philippines’ assertion of “automatic” rights without negotiated delimitations has contributed to confrontations at sea, including incidents involving blockades, water cannons, and boarding. Paglinawan defended Marcoleta’s call for legislative review of existing maritime laws, saying the senator’s position was aimed at improving enforcement and strengthening diplomacy rather than political grandstanding. He also questioned the Philippine Maritime Zones Act (Republic Act 12064), authored by former senator Francis Tolentino, claiming it contains internal contradictions and may conflict with both Unclos and the 2016 arbitral ruling in favor of the Philippines. Paglinawan said failure to address these legal gaps could weaken Philippine claims in the South China Sea and expose the country to greater external influence, particularly from major powers involved in regional disputes. He said that while land generates maritime rights, as Carpio often argues, international jurisprudence shows that such rights must eventually be translated into precise and publicly verifiable boundaries to be legally operable.