An Analysis of Kalayaan Island Claims
An Analysis of Kalayaan Island Claims (Just to clarify Sen. Pangilinan’s statement: It is INCORRECT to say that the KIG is within 'sakop' our territorial sea)
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™
February 10, 2026
Introduction
Is there anything more deliciously bureaucratic than a sentence that begins with the words “Just to clarify” and ends by detonating a small diplomatic firecracker? Senators, lawyers, cartographers, and the occasional armchair admiral all love a clarifying sentence because it promises precision and delivers spectacle. Here we have one such sentence: a crisp, legalistic correction about the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG), the territorial sea, and the arithmetic of nautical miles. It reads like a footnote to a maritime law textbook and like a punchline to a geopolitical joke. Which is it: sober correction, or rhetorical flourish designed to make the rest of us squint at our maps and ask, “Wait, where exactly is our coastline again?”
---
Legal Framework
What the statement does, with admirable bluntness, is remind us of two fundamental legal measures under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): the territorial sea of 12 nautical miles measured from the coastal baseline, and the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 200 nautical miles measured from the same baseline. These are not mere suggestions scribbled in the margins of a maritime atlas; they are treaty provisions that structure how states claim rights over water, seabed, and the living and nonliving resources therein.
So when someone says, with the confidence of a man pointing at a globe, that the KIG is “within our territorial sea,” the immediate, pedantic response is: no. The territorial sea is a narrow ribbon of sovereignty hugging the coastline. The KIG, by the distances cited—270 to 280 nautical miles west of Palawan—sits well beyond that ribbon and even beyond the 200-nautical-mile EEZ. If the arithmetic of baselines and nautical miles were a courtroom drama, this would be the moment the judge bangs the gavel and says, “Objection sustained.”
---
Geography and the Arithmetic of Claims
Isn’t it curious how numbers can be both clarifying and disorienting? Two hundred nautical miles sounds like a lot until you try to visualize it on a map that already looks like a spilled inkblot of overlapping claims. The KIG’s distance from Palawan places it outside the Philippines’ EEZ if one measures strictly from the low-tide baseline. That is a fact that sits stubbornly in the middle of any argument about jurisdiction: distance matters.
But then the Arbitral Ruling—remember that dramatic legal episode that read like a maritime soap opera—adds a twist. The ruling suggested that certain features in the South China Sea generate territorial seas but not EEZs if they are merely rocks incapable of sustaining human habitation or economic life of their own. So, could the KIG generate a territorial sea even if it lies beyond the Philippines’ EEZ? Possibly, in the abstract legal sense. Practically, however, the sea is a crowded place.
---
Occupation and the Theater of Presence
Here is where the plot thickens into farce. Who actually occupies the KIG? The numbers are telling: Vietnam occupies 20 features, the Philippines 7, China 8 (including Itu Aba), and Malaysia 3. If sovereignty were a popularity contest, the Philippines would be politely clapping from the back row while Vietnam and China take the stage. So when a public figure declares that the KIG “belongs to the Philippines,” what are we to make of that declaration—an assertion of legal principle, a political rallying cry, or a rhetorical flourish that ignores the inconvenient fact of boots on sand?
If possession is nine-tenths of the law, then the KIG is a patchwork of nine-tenths. But is possession the same as rightful sovereignty under international law? Not necessarily. Occupation can be persuasive, but it is not dispositive. The Arbitral Ruling, UNCLOS, historical claims, and effective administration all play roles in the adjudication of maritime sovereignty. Which of these do we prefer to emphasize when we want to sound legally robust, and which do we prefer when we want to sound rhetorically stirring
---
Satire and the Spectacle of Ultimatums
Let us indulge, for a moment, in the delicious absurdity of the rhetorical escalation the original prompt invites: if the KIG is “really yours, Kiko,” then why not “kick them all out, all at once, declare war against all of them, because they are invading your territory”? Is there a more compact expression of the modern political imagination than the leap from legal nuance to martial maximalism in a single breath
Of course, the suggestion is satirical in tone—an invitation to imagine a politician who treats international law like a neighborhood dispute and diplomacy like a bar fight. But satire has teeth when it exposes the mismatch between rhetoric and reality. Declaring war is not a theatrical flourish; it is a catastrophic policy choice with human costs, legal consequences, and unpredictable strategic outcomes. The suggestion to “kick them all out” is the kind of hyperbole that makes for great late-night monologues and terrible foreign policy.
So what is the satirical point here? Perhaps it is to show how easily legal precision can be swallowed by nationalist bravado. Or perhaps it is to ask whether political declarations of ownership are meant to be legal arguments or performative acts designed to reassure a domestic audience. Which is more persuasive: a carefully footnoted legal brief, or a rallying cry that promises immediate, decisive action
---
Anecdote Interlude
Permit a brief anecdote, because every good satirical essay needs one. Years ago, at a seaside town where fishermen still argued about the best bait, I watched two men debate the ownership of a small, rocky outcrop that jutted from the water like a tooth. One man insisted it was his because his grandfather had once tied a rope to it. The other said it was common property because everyone fished around it. They argued with the intensity of diplomats and the logic of poets. A child walked by, picked up a shell, and asked, “Why don’t you just share it?” The men paused, looked at the child, and then resumed arguing with renewed vigor.
Isn’t that the human story behind many geopolitical disputes? We layer history, law, and emotion over a simple fact: people want access to resources, security, and recognition. The KIG is not merely a set of coordinates; it is a stage where national narratives, historical grievances, and strategic interests perform for an audience that includes fishermen, soldiers, diplomats, and voters.
---
Rhetorical Questions and the Ethics of Claiming
If we accept that the KIG lies beyond our territorial sea and possibly beyond our EEZ, what does it mean to say it “belongs” to the Philippines? Is this an assertion of legal title, a claim of historical connection, or a political posture aimed at domestic audiences? When a politician declares ownership, is he staking a legal claim or staking a claim to political capital
And if occupation by other states is the inconvenient reality, what then is the ethical posture of a claimant state? Do we demand immediate expulsion, or do we pursue legal remedies, diplomatic negotiations, and confidence-building measures? Can we reconcile the moral satisfaction of a declarative statement with the practical necessity of multilateral engagement
These questions are not merely academic. They shape policy choices. They determine whether a state invests in coast guard capacity, pursues arbitration, builds alliances, or engages in symbolic acts like planting flags and naming features. Each choice carries costs and signals intentions to neighbors and to the international community.
---
Alternatives to Martial Maximalism
If the satirical impulse to “declare war” is a rhetorical device, what are the sober alternatives that a responsible state might pursue? First, legal avenues: arbitration, adjudication, and the careful documentation of historical and administrative acts. Second, diplomacy: bilateral talks, multilateral forums, and confidence-building measures that reduce the risk of miscalculation. Third, practical measures: coast guard patrols, scientific research, and sustainable resource management that assert presence without resorting to force. Fourth, public diplomacy: explaining to domestic audiences why legal precision matters and why rash action can be self-defeating.
Is any of this as theatrically satisfying as a call to arms? No. But is it more likely to preserve lives, protect interests, and maintain international legitimacy? Almost certainly.
---
Conclusion
So where does that leave us, after the legal clarifications, the geographic arithmetic, the occupation tallies, and the satirical provocation to declare war? It leaves us with a few modest truths wrapped in rhetorical flourishes. First, the technical correction is sound: the KIG is not within the Philippines’ territorial sea as defined by UNCLOS, and its distance places it beyond the 200-nautical-mile EEZ measured from Palawan’s baseline. Second, the Arbitral Ruling complicates matters by distinguishing between territorial seas generated by certain features and the absence of EEZs for features that cannot sustain human habitation. Third, occupation on the ground is a messy, politically charged reality that complicates legal claims and inflames nationalist rhetoric.
And finally, a question to leave us with the right kind of discomfort: if the point of declaring ownership is to protect national interest, why do we so often prefer the drama of ultimatums to the slow, painstaking work of law, diplomacy, and statecraft Is it because ultimatums are easier to chant at rallies, while legal briefs require patience, expertise, and the humility to accept that the world is rarely tidy
If nothing else, the clarifying sentence we began with performs a useful civic function: it forces us to parse law from rhetoric, distance from claim, and presence from possession. It invites us to ask whether our political language is meant to persuade the world or to reassure ourselves. And it reminds us that in the theater of international relations, the best lines are those that combine legal accuracy with moral imagination—without, of course, calling for war as a punchline.
Ctto Ms Sass Rogando Sasot.
--
If you like my any of my concept research, writing explorations, art works and/or simple writings please support me by sending me a coffee treat at my paypal amielgeraldroldan.paypal.me or GXI 09163112211. Much appreciate and thank you in advance.
Just featured at https://www.pressenza.com/2026/01/the-asian-cultural-council-global-alumni-network-amiel-gerald-a-roldan/
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™ curatorial writing practice exemplifies this path: transforming grief into infrastructure, evidence into agency, and memory into resistance. As the Philippines enters a new economic decade, such work is not peripheral—it is foundational.
I'm trying to complement my writings with helpful inputs from AI through writing. Bear with me as I am treating this blog as repositories and drafts.
Please comment and tag if you like my compilations visit www.amielroldan.blogspot.com or www.amielroldan.wordpress.com
and comments at
amiel_roldan@outlook.com
amielgeraldroldan@gmail.com
A multidisciplinary Filipino artist, poet, researcher, and cultural worker whose practice spans painting, printmaking, photography, installation, and writing. He is deeply rooted in cultural memory, postcolonial critique, and in bridging creative practice with scholarly infrastructure—building counter-archives, annotating speculative poetry like Southeast Asian manuscripts, and fostering regional solidarity through ethical art collaboration.
Recent show at ILOMOCA
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16qUTDdEMD
https://www.linkedin.com/safety/go?messageThreadUrn=urn%3Ali%3AmessageThreadUrn%3A&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pressenza.com%2F2025%2F05%2Fcultural-workers-not-creative-ilomoca-may-16-2025%2F&trk=flagship-messaging-android
https://alumni.asianculturalcouncil.org/?fbclid=IwdGRjcAPlR6NjbGNrA-VG_2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHoy6hXUptbaQi5LdFAHcNWqhwblxYv_wRDZyf06-O7Yjv73hEGOOlphX0cPZ_aem_sK6989WBcpBEFLsQqr0kdg
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™ started Independent Curatorial Manila™ as a nonprofit philantrophy while working for institutions simultaneosly early on.
The Independent Curatorial Manila™ or ICM™ is a curatorial services and guide for emerging artists in the Philippines. It is an independent/ voluntary services entity and aims to remains so. Selection is through proposal and a prerogative temporarily. Contact above for inquiries.
Comments