Calls to “just give up” the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) surface every now and then, usually framed as pragmatism or a way to avoid conflict in the West Philippine Sea.
But legally, constitutionally, and strategically, that position is deeply flawed.
Here’s why.
What is the Kalayaan Island Group?
The Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) refers to a cluster of islands, reefs, and cays in the Spratly Islands in the West Philippine Sea.
The Philippines formally claimed KIG in 1978 through Presidential Decree No. 1596, and administers it as part of Palawan province.
Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos signed the decree on June 11, 1978. It took immediate effect upon issuance. The decree formally declared a defined area in the South China Sea—including its seabed, subsoil, continental margin, and airspace—as part of Philippine territory.
Since then, the country maintains civilian residents, a local government unit, and military presence.
KIG, therefore, is not a theoretical claim—it is governed territory.
Is the Philippine claim based on history or force?
No.
Unlike other claimants, the Philippine claim over KIG is not based on ancient maps or imperial history.
It rests on geography, and international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Most features of the KIG lie within 200 nautical miles of Palawan, placing them inside the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
Under UNCLOS, coastal states have sovereign rights over fisheries, energy resources, and seabed and subsoil within their EEZ.
What does the 2016 arbitral ruling say?
An international arbitral tribunal ruled in 2016 overwhelmingly in favor of the Philippines.
Key points of the ruling: China’s “nine-dash line” has no legal basis, none of the features in the Spratly Islands generate an EEZ on their own, and large areas claimed by China overlap with the Philippines’ EEZ.
The tribunal did not rule on land sovereignty (because UNCLOS courts cannot). But it strengthened the Philippines’ maritime entitlements around KIG.
Walking away from KIG would undermine one of the Philippines’ biggest legal victories on the global stage.
Can the Philippines legally “give up” KIG?
Not easily—and not casually.
The 1987 Constitution defines national territory to include “All other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.”
KIG falls under this category.
To abandon it would require major legal and constitutional action, congressional involvement, and potentially a plebiscite.
A president or official cannot simply surrender territory by policy choice or diplomatic gesture.
Why is “giving it up” dangerous?
Giving up KIG is dangerous because it sets precedents—internally and externally. To do so could encourage further encroachment closer to Palawan, weaken protection for Filipino fishers, undermine energy and food security, and a signal that coercion overrides international law.
In geopolitics, abandonment rarely ends disputes. It often invites more pressure.
Is defending KIG the same as choosing war?
No.
Defending KIG means:
-
Standing by international law
-
Upholding constitutional duty
-
Asserting rights already recognized by global rules
The real choice is not war versus peace, but law versus lawlessness.
Why this matters beyond geopolitics
The Kalayaan Island Group is not just about reefs and rocks.
It is about the rule of law for small states, the protection of livelihoods, the kind of country the Philippines chooses to be.
To say “just give it up” is to accept that power, not law, decides borders—and that future generations inherit less because the present chose silence.
Bottom line
The Kalayaan Island Group belongs to the Philippines by law, geography, and governance. Giving it up is not realism.
It is legally wrong, constitutionally risky, and strategically dangerous.
About The Author
