Rodante Marcoleta and the Kalayaan Folly:
A Senator, a Slip, and a Typhoon of Words
Some men make waves. Others? They create tsunamis with their tongues. Take Senator Rodante Marcoleta, for instance. In a rare lapse of judgment—or perhaps a flair for theatrics—he suggested, ever so delicately, that maybe, just maybe, the Philippines should “give up” the Kalayaan Island Group. One could almost hear the collective gasp from Palawan all the way to Malacañang.
Marcoleta, of course, rushed to clarify. He did not really mean it, he insisted. His remarks were supposedly “taken out of context.” The phrase “abbreviating the context” has rarely sounded so feeble. According to him, his concern was merely procedural: maps, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), UN deposits. Somehow, the hypothetical surrender of islands became a bureaucratic thought exercise. And yet, one cannot help but wonder: in a room full of lawmakers, why would the first thought involve surrendering Philippine territory?
Meanwhile, the residents of Kalayaan were incensed. Vice Mayor MP Albayda put it plainly: “What is the worth of our town? What is the worth of our brave citizens? They have already given up better opportunities elsewhere just to stay here for decades.” Indeed, what good is a senator if he questions the very value of the people he is supposed to represent? These are citizens who have endured storms, hardship, and decades of sacrifice—all to uphold the sovereignty of the Philippines.
Experts quickly weighed in, shaking their heads. The Philippines’ claim to the Kalayaan Island Group is not based on an arbitrary economic line on a map. It is anchored in decades of law and history: Presidential Decree 1596, the Archipelagic Baseline Law, the Philippine Maritime Zones Act, and the 2016 arbitral ruling—all of which reinforce, in no uncertain terms, that Kalayaan is Philippine territory. To suggest otherwise, even hypothetically, is to flirt with folly.
Sometimes one wonders why there are those who downplay the Philippines’ sovereign claim over the Kalayaan Island Group. Is it because it is “just water”? Because these are barren rocks and sand, unfit for profit or industry, and therefore deemed not worth defending? Meanwhile, China expands, building artificial islands, militarizing shoals, asserting claims with engineering and sheer audacity. Vietnam does the same, staking its own claim with concrete and determination. And what do the naysayers in Manila do while all this unfolds? They clutch at “trade and investment,” arguing that China is the country’s biggest trading partner, as if commerce somehow outweighs sovereignty, as if territorial integrity could be measured on a balance sheet. They would also raise the flag of anti-Americanism—but when has it ever been practiced with consistency? When have they truly urged the nation to stand on its own, roll up its sleeves, and invest in nation-building brick by brick, port by port, school by school? Rarely, if ever. Their economic policy bears no trace of patriotism except rhetoric. Instead, they leave the fate of the Philippines to the mercy of the Market, that goddamned neoliberal deity that keeps the country dependent on the whims of first-world powers—whether American or Chinese.
They speak of pragmatism, of realism, yet all their “realism” boils down to cowardice dressed in economic jargon. Sovereignty is not a commodity. It cannot be traded, bartered, or abandoned for a temporary balance in trade statistics. To suggest otherwise is to insult the sacrifices of those who live on Kalayaan, and to belittle the very idea of the Filipino nation. The truth is simple: defending what is theirs does not require the blessing of commerce or the nod of foreign powers. It requires will, law, and courage. Until the country learns to value its own sovereignty above the comforts of trade numbers or the allure of foreign investment, it will remain adrift—watching others claim what is theirs, while pretending that rocks and water are somehow dispensable.
The optics grow worse when one considers Marcoleta’s historical alignment. Retired Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio remarked that if Marcoleta continues echoing China’s positions, he might as well register as a foreign agent. Whether deliberate or accidental, the impression is clear: his statements are strikingly reminiscent of the China-friendly policies of past administrations.
Palace officials reminded the public that no part of Philippine territory will be surrendered. Communications Undersecretary Claire Castro offered a metaphorical warning: “You reap a storm if you sow winds.” But the wind has already blown, and Marcoleta is left trying to patch a hole in a hull that will take more than words to fix.
The gaffe is not merely embarrassing. It is a warning: patriotism does not tolerate careless phrasing, especially when it comes to islands, shoals, and seabeds settled, defended, and codified by law. Marcoleta may have thought he was raising a technical point about maps and maritime boundaries, but in the court of public opinion, he has raised a red flag in a typhoon. Remember: both Left and right are seriously fighting each other ideologically, but when a matter involves sovereignty being infringed expect that feud be set aside to take traitors- especially that Marcoleta's slip taken seriously and evenly.
The lesson is simple: the Kalayaan Island Group is Filipino, its distance and residents are Filipino, and even history is also Filipino. Words, however, can still stir tempests—and Marcoleta has just learned that the Philippine sea- whether it is west or east, does not forgive lightly.