Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. signed two new laws designed to strengthen the country's maritime claims and safeguard its territorial integrity amid ongoing tensions with China over disputed areas in the South China Sea. The Maritime Zones Act and the Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act will define the Philippines' maritime entitlements and establish designated sea lanes and air routes, reinforcing the country’s sovereignty and maritime rights following international law.
Marcos hailed the laws as a demonstration of the Philippines' commitment to uphold an international rules-based order, and protect its rights to exploit resources peacefully in its exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
"Our people, especially our fisher folk, should be able to pursue their livelihood free from uncertainty and harassment," Marcos said. "We must be able to harness mineral and energy resources in our sea bed".
While the two laws were envisioned to help U.S. ally the Philippines to monitor and defend against potential encroachment, questions remain about how they will be enforced and if they will impact Chinese activity in the Philippine EEZ.
China asserts its claim of sovereignty over almost the entire South China Sea through an armada of coast guard ships, some of which are accused by its neighbours of aggressive conduct and of trying to disrupt energy and fisheries activity in their EEZs.
Senator Francis Tolentino, one of the authors of the maritime zones measure, said he does not expect tensions in the Philippine EEZ will be instantly reduced with the implementation of the new laws.
"China will not recognize these, but the imprimatur that we'll be getting from the international community would strengthen our position", Tolentino told a press conference.
China's embassy in Manila has yet to respond to requests for comment on the new laws and the senator's statements. Senator Tolentino also noted that the laws would strengthen the 2016 arbitration ruling on the South China Sea, which concluded that China’s broad claims have no legal basis under international law. China has, however, rejected the 2016 ruling.