Philippines Says Chinese Coastguard Blocked Anti-Blast-Fishing Operation; Beijing Says Vessel Was Not Chinese
Updated: 52 minutes ago
MANILA, 4 October 2026
The Philippine Coast Guard said on Sunday that Chinese coastguard vessels blocked an inter-agency law-enforcement team near Philippine-held Thitu Island, preventing it from inspecting a foreign fishing vessel suspected of blast fishing, while a People’s Liberation Army Navy helicopter circled overhead. China’s embassy in the Philippines later said the fishing vessel was not Chinese, that the China Coast Guard was acting lawfully in waters over which Beijing claims jurisdiction, and that Manila had concealed key information and misled the public. The parties’ accounts conflict directly. The material released so far is insufficient to establish independently the vessel’s nationality, whether blast fishing occurred, or the complete relative movements of the vessels.Philippine Coast Guard spokesperson’s statement; Reuters; local report of the Chinese embassy’s response
The incident occurred near Sandy Cays 2 and 3, about three nautical miles west of Thitu, which the Philippines calls Pag-asa and China calls Zhongye Dao. The Philippines occupies the island and maintains security personnel and a civilian community there; China also claims sovereignty. China-controlled Subi Reef, substantially enlarged through land reclamation, lies to the south-west. Fishing grounds, rival sovereignty claims and frequent operations by coastguards, naval vessels and aircraft therefore overlap in the area.Reuters; Chinese Foreign Ministry position, 29 September
The Philippine account
A statement published by Philippine Coast Guard spokesperson Jay Tarriela said a joint task unit on Thitu saw a foreign mother ship and several small boats at about 7.20 am and suspected that the smaller craft were blast fishing. The coastguard, navy, marines and national police maritime group formed an enforcement team, deploying a high-speed response boat, rigid-hulled inflatable boats and a rubber boat. They left the island’s sheltered port at 9.50 am. The statement did not say whether the initial observation was made visually or by radar, drone or another sensor, and it did not publish forensic material showing explosions, shock waves, dead fish, explosives or underwater damage.Philippine Coast Guard spokesperson’s statement; NewsWatch Plus
According to the statement, China Coast Guard vessels 5102 and 21581 soon moved towards the team’s path, sounded their horns and issued radio challenges. At about 10 am, the Philippine boats reached the target vessel approximately 500 metres east-south-east of Sandy Cay 2. The smaller craft said to have been involved in blasting had by then returned to the mother ship. The Philippine team repeatedly ordered the ship to stop, but it did not comply and headed south-west towards Subi Reef.Philippine Coast Guard spokesperson’s statement; GMA News, including the statement and video still
The coastguard said vessel 21581 then shadowed and blocked the smaller Philippine boats, at one point coming within about ten yards of response boat HSRB-019. At 10.13 am, a PLA Navy helicopter bearing tail number 09 circled over the personnel four times. The team stopped following the fishing vessel at 10.23 am, about 1.2 nautical miles east-south-east of Sandy Cay 5, and returned safely to Thitu at 10.48 am. The published accounts reported no collision, gunfire or injury.Philippine Coast Guard spokesperson’s statement; Agence France-Presse
The Philippines characterised the mission as routine civilian enforcement against destructive fishing rather than an operation directed at any country. The Philippine Fisheries Code prohibits fishing with explosives, poisonous substances or electricity and provides for administrative and criminal penalties. Tarriela said the incident would be documented and referred to the Department of Foreign Affairs through existing channels. No full diplomatic protest was publicly available when this report was completed.Philippine Coast Guard spokesperson’s statement; Republic Act No. 10654
Chinese embassy says the fishing vessel was not Chinese
Reuters reported earlier on Sunday that China’s embassy in Manila had not responded immediately to a request for comment. A follow-up article published by the Chinese Commercial News in the Philippines at 11.33 pm local time quoted embassy spokesperson Ji Lingpeng as saying that the suspected vessel was “not a Chinese vessel”. The embassy said China attached great importance to protecting the South China Sea’s ecology and fishery resources and firmly opposed blast fishing, poison fishing and other illegal practices. It accused the Philippines of first impeding lawful Chinese enforcement and then concealing key information, misleading the public and smearing China.Reuters; Chinese Commercial News
The embassy reiterated that the Spratly Islands, including Thitu, Sandy Cay and adjacent waters, belonged to China, and said Chinese coastguard patrols and enforcement in waters under Chinese jurisdiction complied with international law. On 29 September, China’s Foreign Ministry had similarly said that Thitu formed part of China’s Spratly Islands and called the Philippines’ related claims illegal and invalid. Beijing therefore rejects Manila’s description of the location as Philippine territorial waters and does not recognise exclusive Philippine enforcement authority there.Chinese Commercial News; Chinese Foreign Ministry press conference, 29 September
The new embassy response was found principally in one local Chinese-language newspaper and had not yet appeared as a matching notice in the embassy website’s spokesperson-remarks section. It was not accompanied by the vessel’s flag, registration, name, Chinese operational logs or evidence for the allegation that Manila obstructed Chinese enforcement. Those propositions remain attributed Chinese claims requiring underlying documentation. The Philippine statement called the vessel “foreign” but did not describe it as Chinese. A course towards Subi Reef, by itself, cannot establish nationality, ownership or command.Philippine Coast Guard spokesperson’s statement; Chinese Commercial News; Chinese embassy spokesperson-remarks index
What the public footage establishes — and what it does not
The Philippine Coast Guard released edited video and still images. The material reproduced by news organisations supports the presence of Philippine small boats, Chinese coastguard ships and a helicopter, and is consistent with the basic account of a close encounter. It is not a continuous, multi-angle record and does not provide complete timecodes, coordinates, tracks or radio audio. It cannot on its own prove that the target vessel used explosives, determine whether the Chinese ship’s manoeuvres were unsafe under collision-avoidance rules, or show whether Philippine boats altered course towards the Chinese vessels.GMA News; Philippine Coast Guard spokesperson’s statement
Blast fishing uses explosive shock to kill or stun fish and can damage coral-reef food webs, giving the allegation a clear public-interest and livelihood dimension. General scientific evidence, however, is not evidence that this vessel committed the offence. Confirmation would ordinarily require explosives or related equipment aboard, characteristic injuries to fish, acoustic data, coral damage or reliable eyewitness testimony. The team did not board the ship or seize catch and equipment. “Suspected blast fishing” therefore remains the accurate description.Smithsonian Ocean; Republic Act No. 10654; Philippine Coast Guard spokesperson’s statement
Sovereignty and enforcement authority
Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea permits a coastal state to establish a territorial sea of up to twelve nautical miles from its baselines. Manila consequently says the location, roughly three nautical miles from Thitu, lies in Philippine territorial waters. China and the Philippines both claim sovereignty over Thitu, however, and which country is entitled to generate a territorial sea from the island is central to the dispute. The 2016 South China Sea tribunal addressed maritime entitlements and the legal status of features, but expressly did not decide sovereignty over land territory or delimit a boundary between the parties. Its rejection of a legal basis for Chinese historic-resource rights beyond the limits of UNCLOS did not by itself resolve sovereignty over Thitu.UNCLOS, Part II, Articles 2–3; Permanent Court of Arbitration press release
China rejects the 2016 award, says the tribunal lacked jurisdiction and describes the decision as illegal and void. It maintains that the relevant disputes should be settled through negotiation by the states directly concerned. The Philippines treats UNCLOS and the award as central legal foundations of its South China Sea policy. In this case, each side can invoke its domestic law and sovereignty position, but neither unilateral assertion substitutes for a factual investigation of navigation, the alleged environmental offence and the safety risks.Chinese Foreign Ministry statement, July 2026; Permanent Court of Arbitration press release
Separate aviation-safety allegation
The Philippine military separately said that on 3 October a Chinese J-16 fighter repeatedly approached a Philippine Cessna 208 conducting a routine patrol near Scarborough Shoal, manoeuvring ahead of and around it and entering its wake. The Philippine aircraft completed its mission safely, but the military said the manoeuvres created an aviation-safety risk. AFP and Reuters reported the statement; China had not publicly responded to the air incident by their publication deadlines. The episode involved a different location, service and legal setting from the maritime operation, and the accessible evidence again comes principally from the Philippine military. The two events are not proof of a single coordinated operation.Agence France-Presse; Reuters
Sources
Comments