SEN. Rodante Marcoleta’s persistent claim that “we do not know” the limits of the West Philippine Sea and of our exclusive economic zone is not an innocent error. It is not a harmless difference of opinion. It is a canard, a blatant lie that undermines settled law, weakens Philippine sovereignty and insults the intelligence of the Filipino people.
Let us dispense with the fiction immediately. We know where our exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is. We have always known. And the law has never been unclear.
Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos), an exclusive economic zone extends 200 nautical miles from a coastal state’s baselines. This is not an abstract principle subject to political whim. It is a mechanical, rule-based entitlement. The Philippines enacted Republic Act 9522 precisely to bring our domestic baselines regime into conformity with Unclos. From those baselines, our EEZ is not guessed at, debated or negotiated. It is calculated.
Marcoleta’s suggestion that the Philippines somehow lacks knowledge of its own maritime limits pretends that the entire architecture of modern maritime law does not exist. It invites Filipinos to believe that EEZs are mysterious, indeterminate spaces, undefined until blessed by the approval of more powerful states. That is not how international law works. That is how surrender is rationalized.
Worse, this narrative ignores the single most decisive legal event in Philippine maritime history: the 2016 arbitral ruling in favor of the Philippines. An international tribunal constituted under Unclos categorically rejected China’s nine-dash line claim and affirmed that vast areas of what we call the West Philippine Sea fall squarely within the Philippines’ EEZ. The ruling is final. It is binding. It is part of international law.
China may refuse to accept it. But China’s refusal does not erase the ruling. Law does not disappear because a violator refuses to comply. If that were the case, no rule of law, domestic or international, would ever survive power. To argue otherwise is to reduce international law into a suggestion rather than a constraint, and that logic ultimately benefits only the strongest violator in the room.
Marcoleta’s rhetoric performs a subtle but dangerous inversion. Instead of demanding that China justify claims already demolished by international adjudication, he asks Filipinos to doubt their own rights. Instead of insisting on clarity, he cultivates confusion. Instead of reinforcing a legally sound position, he corrodes it from within. This is not neutrality. This is surrender disguised as caution.
This is how sovereignty is weakened in the modern world. Not always by invasion. Not always by force. Sometimes by internal erosion of legal confidence, carried out by those who should know better, or who benefit from pretending not to.
There is a reason why China relentlessly repeats the lie that maritime entitlements in the region are “disputed” or “unclear.” Ambiguity serves power. Doubt delays action. Confusion paralyzes resolve. When a Filipino legislator echoes the same uncertainty, he becomes, whether intentionally or not, a multiplier of foreign propaganda. At some point, repetition stops being coincidence and starts functioning as alignment.
Let us be blunt. No serious maritime state claims ignorance of its EEZ. Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia and Japan all assert, map, patrol and enforce their EEZs based on Unclos every day. They may face disputes. They may confront violations. But they do not pretend that the law itself is unknowable. They understand that clarity is a strategic asset, not a liability.
Only in the Philippines do we see elected officials perform this peculiar act of national amnesia, forgetting laws we enacted, victories we secured and rights we possess. This selective forgetfulness does not make us safer. It makes us smaller.
The damage is not merely rhetorical. When public officials repeatedly declare uncertainty where the law provides clarity, they weaken the country’s bargaining position, confuse the public and embolden external actors who profit from hesitation. International relations are not conducted in a vacuum. Statements are heard, recorded and interpreted. Doubt expressed domestically is doubt exploited externally.
At this point, Marcoleta has exhausted the benefit of misunderstanding.
If he genuinely does not understand how EEZs are defined, then he has no business pontificating on foreign policy. Ignorance is not a virtue in governance. If he does understand, and continues to claim otherwise, then his conduct veers into something more troubling: the deliberate manufacture of uncertainty. And manufactured uncertainty, when repeated often enough by officials, becomes policy by default.
There is a particularly insidious implication in this narrative. It suggests that asserting Philippine rights is reckless, provocative or irresponsible, that restraint requires silence, and prudence requires acquiescence. This is a false dichotomy. International law does not reward timidity. It rewards consistency. Rights not asserted are rights eroded, and silence is often interpreted as consent by those eager to take advantage of it.
The West Philippine Sea is not a metaphysical puzzle. It is not a diplomatic Rorschach test. It is a legally defined maritime space where the Philippines enjoys sovereign rights over fisheries, energy resources and marine environment protection. These rights are grounded in treaty law, domestic legislation and international adjudication. Denying their clarity does not make conflict disappear. It merely shifts the costs to future generations.
The only thing uncertain here is the willingness of some political actors to defend those rights without flinching.
History teaches us that territorial loss is rarely sudden. It often begins with language, by softening claims, blurring boundaries and normalizing doubt. Once confusion becomes common sense, surrender becomes reasonable. Once surrender sounds reasonable, resistance sounds extreme.
That is why statements like Marcoleta’s are not trivial. They are not just wrong. They are dangerous.
The Filipino people deserve leaders who speak with legal precision, not strategic ambiguity. They deserve clarity rooted in law, not confusion dressed up as realism. And they deserve honesty, especially when the stakes involve sovereignty, resources and national dignity.
We do not lack knowledge of our EEZ.
What we risk lacking is the courage to defend it if we allow falsehoods to circulate unchallenged and confusion to pass as wisdom.
Disclosure: The author is a professor at the University of the Philippines Los Baños and a member of the board of the state-run PTV Network Inc. The views expressed here are his own.
