Former Senator Francis “Tol” Tolentino’s recent statement on the West Philippine Sea (WPS) reflects a decisive and legally grounded position on Philippine sovereignty. As principal sponsor of Republic Act No. 12064 (Philippine Maritime Zones Act) and Republic Act No. 12065 (Philippine Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act), Tolentino emphasized that the Philippines need not debate the legitimacy of its claims over the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the West Philippine Sea. Instead, he argued that the country must now focus on the technical submission of its designated archipelagic sea lanes to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for recognition and adoption.¹
Tolentino’s assertion rests on two legal pillars: the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Article I of the Constitution defines national territory, including the archipelagic waters and maritime domains over which the Philippines exercises sovereignty or jurisdiction.² By referencing constitutional grounding, Tolentino underscores that sovereignty over maritime features such as the Kalayaan Island Group cannot simply be surrendered or diluted through political compromise without constitutional amendment.
Moreover, UNCLOS provides the international legal framework governing maritime entitlements of coastal and archipelagic states. The Philippines’ 2016 Arbitral Award under Annex VII of UNCLOS invalidated expansive claims inconsistent with the Convention and affirmed the Philippines’ maritime entitlements within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ).³ In this context, Tolentino’s argument that sovereignty and maritime rights are “settled” issues aligns with established international jurisprudence.
Republic Act No. 12064 institutionalizes these entitlements in domestic law by defining the country’s internal waters, archipelagic waters, territorial sea, contiguous zone, EEZ, and continental shelf consistent with UNCLOS.⁴ Meanwhile, Republic Act No. 12065 provides for the designation of archipelagic sea lanes in accordance with UNCLOS provisions that allow archipelagic states to regulate passage through designated routes while ensuring freedom of navigation.⁵
Tolentino’s most forward-looking point concerns implementation: rather than revisiting legal debates, the Philippines should prepare and submit the technical documentation of its archipelagic sea lanes to the IMO. Such submission would not determine sovereignty per se, but it would operationalize the Philippines’ rights as an archipelagic state and strengthen international recognition of its regulatory framework.⁶ This reflects a strategic shift from rhetorical defense to procedural compliance and international engagement.
Equally significant is Tolentino’s concern about internal divisions within government discourse. Sovereignty issues demand unified messaging. Fragmented statements from public officials may weaken diplomatic leverage and create confusion in international forums. His call for unity is therefore not merely political—it is strategic.
In my view, Tolentino’s statement is both legally sound and strategically practical. The Philippines has already secured favorable legal foundations through the Constitution, UNCLOS, and the 2016 arbitral ruling. The more pressing task is ensuring that these gains are translated into institutional mechanisms recognized by the international community. Submission to the IMO is a technical but crucial step in reinforcing the Philippines’ status as a responsible archipelagic state exercising its rights within the rule-based international order.
Ultimately, sovereignty is not only asserted through declarations—it is strengthened through law, procedure, and consistent policy implementation. Tolentino’s remarks redirect national attention from debate toward compliance, coordination, and concrete action.
Footnotes
- Francis Tolentino, interview statement on the West Philippine Sea and maritime legislation, reported in Politiko, February 12, 2026.
- Republic of the Philippines, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, art. I.
- Permanent Court of Arbitration, The South China Sea Arbitration (Republic of the Philippines v. People’s Republic of China), PCA Case No. 2013-19, Award of 12 July 2016.
- Republic Act No. 12064, An Act Defining the Maritime Zones of the Philippines (Philippine Maritime Zones Act), 2024.
- Republic Act No. 12065, An Act Establishing the Archipelagic Sea Lanes in the Philippine Archipelago (Philippine Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act), 2024.
- United Nations, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, December 10, 1982, arts. 53–54; see also International Maritime Organization (IMO), procedures on archipelagic sea lanes designation.
References
Permanent Court of Arbitration. The South China Sea Arbitration (Republic of the Philippines v. People’s Republic of China). PCA Case No. 2013-19. Award of 12 July 2016.
Republic Act No. 12064. An Act Defining the Maritime Zones of the Philippines (Philippine Maritime Zones Act). 2024.
Republic Act No. 12065. An Act Establishing the Archipelagic Sea Lanes in the Philippine Archipelago (Philippine Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act). 2024.
Republic of the Philippines. The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.
Tolentino, Francis. Interview statement on the West Philippine Sea and maritime legislation. Politiko, February 12, 2026.
United Nations. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. December 10, 1982.