TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — The Philippines enacted new laws to bolster security of the country’s maritime territory and fight encroachment by Chinese forces in disputed areas.
On Friday (Nov. 8) in Manila, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. signed the Philippine Maritime Zones Act and the Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act into law during a nationally televised ceremony, reported Philstar. The new measures were prompted by increasing hostilities between the Philippines and China over claims in the South China Sea, which is referred to as the West Philippine Sea by Filipinos.
The Maritime Zones Act codifies the Philippines’ maritime territories according to the 1982 UNCLOS ruling. The zone entails a range of 200 nautical miles from the Philippines coast, wherein the country has exclusive rights to energy and resources.
The Maritime Zones Act also outlines penalties including fines and jail terms for foreign actors encroaching upon Philippine territory or engaging in illegal activity therein. The law denotes Philippine ownership over all artificial islands in the region, including seven disputed reefs where China has constructed military installations, per Philstar.
The Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act strengthens Manila’s ability to designate routes that foreign ships and aircraft may use for transit or transporting goods. The law is intended to restrict access and activity of Chinese fishermen and foreign actors engaged in illegal activity at sea.
The move was lauded by the US and Australia for upholding international law in accordance with the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and a 2016 arbitration by the UN that found China was illegally infringing upon territory belonging to the Philippines, per PNA.
In contrast, the measure was strongly protested by China, which summoned the Philippine ambassador in Beijing following the legislation. China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mao Ning (毛寧) said the laws infringe on China’s sovereignty and are an attempt by Manila to “solidify the illegal ruling of the South China Sea arbitration case through domestic legislation.”
