SPEAKING at the 23rd IISS Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore on May 31, 2026, Defense Secretary Gilberto “Gibo” Teodoro Jr. advanced his vision of the Philippines as an “Archipelagic Sentinel.” The concept presents the country as a frontline maritime state tasked with safeguarding an “international order” in an increasingly contested region.
As part of his remarks, Teodoro referred to the 10th anniversary of the 2016 South China Sea arbitral award. He said the decision affirmed a fundamental principle of international law that maritime entitlements are derived from the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or Unclos, and not from broad assertions of historic rights. In this regard, the secretary was correct. The arbitral tribunal upheld the principle that maritime claims must be measured against the standards established by international law rather than unilateral historical narratives.
However, Teodoro’s remarks raise an important question that deserves careful public discussion: What exactly does it mean to transform the Philippines into an Archipelagic Sentinel?
The term carries obvious military implications. A sentinel is not merely an observer. A sentinel occupies a forward position. A sentinel stands watch at the frontier where danger is expected to first emerge. When applied to a nation, the concept suggests a country that assumes an active role in monitoring and responding to regional security threats.
Such a policy should not be accepted without scrutiny. The Filipino people are entitled to a clear explanation of its objectives, risks and consequences. If the government intends to place the Philippines at the forefront of strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific, it must explain what preparations are being undertaken to protect the citizens who will ultimately bear the consequences of that decision.
This concern becomes even more significant when viewed in the light of the 1987 Constitution. Article II, Section 2 expressly declares that the Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy. This provision does not require weakness, nor does it prohibit the maintenance of a capable national defense. What it does require is that national policy remain anchored on the preservation of peace and protection of the Filipino people.
The constitutional mandate, therefore, raises another important question. Does the concept of an Archipelagic Sentinel primarily advance diplomacy and peaceful resolution, or does it place increasing emphasis on military solutions to regional disputes?
The irony is difficult to ignore. The very arbitral award cited by Teodoro stands as one of the greatest diplomatic and legal victories in Philippine history. It was achieved not by military force, but through the peaceful application of international law. The award demonstrated that Philippine interests can be defended through legal institutions, diplomacy and adherence to established international norms.
Ten years later, however, public discussion appears increasingly focused on deterrence, military preparedness, and strategic rivalry among major powers. These measures may have a role in national defense but should not obscure the lesson of the arbitral award itself. The Philippines secured an important victory because it chose the path of law rather than confrontation. Hence, this victory should be pursued also by means of law and not through hostility.
Prior to the introduction of the Archipelagic Sentinel concept, the Philippines embraced another strategic approach known as “Assertive Transparency.” The said policy was presented as a means of strengthening the country’s position in the “West Philippine Sea” by exposing and publicizing incidents at sea. However, years after its implementation, it is still difficult to identify any significant improvement in the country’s position in the disputed area where maritime tensions remain and confrontations continue.
This experience invites a further legitimate question. If the earlier strategy failed to produce meaningful results, what reason is there to believe that the Archipelagic Sentinel concept will succeed where Assertive Transparency did not? The public is entitled to a clear justification of how this new approach differs from the last one and why a different outcome should be expected.
Before the country embraces the role of an Archipelagic Sentinel, Teodoro should provide the public with a full explanation of what that role entails. Filipinos have the right to know the risks being assumed in their name and the measures being taken to protect them should those risks materialize.
The question is simple. If the Philippines is to become a sentinel, who protects the sentry?
Rafael P. Tuvera is a lawyer who taught law and political science. He analyzes geopolitics and diplomatic strategy with an emphasis on productive approaches with legal and historical context. He is also a contributor to IDSI and other publications.
