The court brought the issue in because it was necessary to rule on Philippines' claim that Mischief Reef is within its EEZ, because if Itu Aba is an island EEZ generated by it needs to be considered. I think this was a bad idea and an underhanded tactic.
I'm reading the ruling now and it appears the Tribunal based its decision on Itu Aba lacking a "stable community of people." I think most observers expected the opposite decision based on the fresh water on Itu Aba and its capacity to support human habitation.
I do agree though that this is probably the one point in the ruling I disagree with.
Well, that "island" created via an act of human intervention that must be utilized on a regular basis, I'm not sure the habitation angle is completely supportable.
You can see some of the before/after picutres of Itu Aba and some of the other features here: http://amti.csis.org/before-and-after-the-south-china-sea-tr...