Sovereignty Risk

President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.’s approval of Republic Act (RA) 12252, extending the maximum lease period of private lands to foreign investors up to 99 years, deserves careful scrutiny beyond the applause for its investment potential.

While the law seeks to make the Philippines more attractive to long-term capital, it also walks a fine line between opportunity and compromise. 

For nearly a century, land can now be placed under foreign control—an arrangement that, while not ownership in the legal sense, comes dangerously close in practice.

Supporters argue that the reform opens doors for massive investments in infrastructure, tourism, and industry. 

Longer lease terms provide stability, encouraging foreign firms to commit resources to projects that require decades to build and operate. 

With strict requirements on investment size and timelines, particularly in tourism projects, RA 12252 aims to ensure that capital truly flows into the economy.

However, the risks cannot be dismissed. Land is not just an economic asset—it is tied to sovereignty, identity, and the rights of future generations. 

Extending leases to 99 years effectively grants foreign entities control spanning more than a lifetime, raising fears that local communities may be sidelined in favor of investors with deeper pockets and longer horizons.

Although the law empowers the President to shorten lease terms for projects involving critical infrastructure or national security, its success hinges on political will and vigilant enforcement. 

The Philippines has seen too many instances where safeguards were eroded by weak monitoring and bureaucratic complacency. Without firm oversight, “lease” could become a loophole exploited for de facto ownership.

RA 12252 is, at best, a double-edged sword. It could catalyze development if strictly regulated and transparently implemented, but it also risks igniting a new debate on sovereignty if foreign control over land is perceived to override Filipino interests.

The government must therefore ensure that the benefits of this law are tangible, broad-based, and aligned with national priorities. 

Otherwise, what was intended as a path to progress could instead become a lasting compromise of sovereignty.