By Atty. Arnedo S. Valera

The recent pronouncement of President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. that the Philippines “will have to get involved” should an all-out war erupt between the United States and China over Taiwan is a grave misreading of our Constitution, a dangerous abandonment of our independent foreign policy, and a reckless invitation to embroil our nation in a war that is neither ours to fight nor win.

The Philippines is not a military appendage of any superpower.

Our sovereignty and national interest demand that we act as an independent nation—friends to all, enemies to none—and not as a political pawn in the great power rivalry between Washington and Beijing.

The Constitutional Mandate for Peace and Neutrality

The 1987 Philippine Constitution is explicit in its rejection of war as an instrument of national policy:

Article II, Section 2: “The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.”

Article II, Section 7: “The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination.”

By constitutional design, our foreign policy is anchored not on subservience to the military objectives of other nations but on the preservation of peace and the protection of the Filipino people.

The President’s statement suggesting inevitability in joining a Taiwan war undermines both principles.

International Law and the Principle of Neutrality

Under international law, particularly the Hague Convention V of 1907 and customary international norms, a neutral state is prohibited from participating in hostilities between belligerent states.

Neutrality safeguards a nation’s sovereignty while promoting peaceful resolution of disputes.

Moreover, the Philippines is a State Party to the Charter of the United Nations, which in Article 2(4) prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Article 33 mandates peaceful settlement of disputes through negotiation, mediation, and arbitration—not through military alignment.

In the case of Taiwan, the Philippines has long adhered to the One China Policy, recognizing the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China. Intervening militarily in a conflict that Beijing deems a domestic matter could constitute a violation of that policy, invite retaliatory measures, and escalate tensions in the region.

ASEAN Neutrality Agreements

            The Philippines is also a signatory to the 1971 Declaration on the Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) and the legally binding 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia.

ZOPFAN establishes ASEAN’s political goal of achieving regional peace and stability by preventing external interference, while the TAC provides a framework for peaceful relations among member states based on principles of mutual respect, non-interference, and the renunciation of the threat or use of force. 

National Interest Over Superpower Rivalry

The President’s framing—that the Philippines “will have to” get involved—wrongly assumes that geography and alliance commitments erase our agency.

The Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) of 1951 with the United States does not compel the Philippines to participate in an offensive war unrelated to our own defense. The MDT is triggered only by an armed attack on the Philippines, its metropolitan territory, or its armed forces in the Pacific.

A U.S.-China war over Taiwan does not automatically meet that threshold unless Philippine territory is directly attacked.

Instead of preparing to serve as a forward base in a U.S.-China war, the Philippines must focus on:

Protecting the over 150,000 Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) in Taiwan through humanitarian and evacuation measures;

Strengthening our self-reliant defense posture; and building a regional bloc for peace with ASEAN partners to defuse tensions in the Taiwan Strait.

The Moral Imperative of Peace

War in the Taiwan Strait would devastate the Asia-Pacific region, cripple economies, and endanger millions of lives—including those of Filipinos in Taiwan and across East Asia. Dragging the Philippines into such a conflict would not protect our people; it would place them in the direct line of fire.

Our leaders must heed the warning of history: small nations that serve as staging grounds for great power conflicts pay the heaviest price. The Philippines should not allow itself to become a proxy battlefield for the ambitions of others.

A Call for a Declaration of Neutrality

It is both constitutional and moral for President Marcos Jr. to affirm and declare the Philippines’ neutrality in the Taiwan issue—publicly, unequivocally, and in coordination with our ASEAN neighbors. This neutrality must be backed by diplomatic initiatives urging all parties to commit to dialogue, confidence-building measures, and the avoidance of unilateral military actions.

The Philippines’ highest duty is to its own people—not to the geopolitical designs of any foreign capital. Our legacy as a nation should be that of a peacebuilder, not a pawn.

In these perilous times, the Filipino people must remind their leaders: sovereignty is not merely the right to decide; it is the courage to decide for ourselves. Let us stand firm on our constitutional commitment to peace, uphold an independent foreign policy, and refuse to be dragged into wars that are not our own.

Peace is not weakness. Neutrality is not surrender. It is the highest assertion of our independence. 

Comments to the Editorial

Chinese Foreign Ministry: Don’t play with fire

There is but one China in the world. Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. The Taiwan question is China’s internal affair which is at the very core of China’s core interests. How to settle it is a matter for the Chinese ourselves, which brooks no interference.  

The Philippine government has made serious commitments to China that it adheres to the one-China policy, recognizes that Taiwan is an integral part of the Chinese territory and understands the Chinese government’s efforts to realize national reunification.

The Philippine leader also said clearly to China that the Philippines is committed to the one-China policy, and the Taiwan question is purely China’s internal affair that must be solved by the Chinese people. As these words are still ringing in our ears, the Philippines is going back on its words in disregard of the grave consequences.

It has kept making wrong and provocative remarks and actions, kept fudging and hollowing out the one-China principle, and kept harming the China-Philippines relations. China firmly opposes this. The Chinese Foreign Ministry and Embassy in the Philippines have lodged serious protests with the Philippine side.

It needs to be further stressed that “geographic location” and “large volume of Filipinos” in Taiwan should not be used as pretexts to interfere in the internal and sovereign affairs of other countries.

These claims not only contravene international law and the ASEAN Charter, but also harm regional peace and stability and the fundamental interests of its own people.

We urge the Philippines to earnestly abide by the one-China principle and the spirit of China-Philippines Joint Communiqué on the establishment of diplomatic relations, and refrain from playing fire on issues bearing on China’s core interests.

Anna Malindog Uy: Logically incoherent and Politically Reckless

Marcos Jr.’s retort, “Playing with fire? I was just stating facts,” might sound defiant on the surface, but in the realm of international law, Philippine foreign policy commitments, and even his own government’s records, it’s logically incoherent and politically reckless.

The One China Policy isn’t a matter of “subjective opinion or “alternative facts.” It is an established, documented, and binding framework for Philippine diplomacy. The Philippines formally recognized the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China in 1975, under President Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr., with diplomatic relations established on that basis.

This is not just a handshake agreement; it is enshrined in official treaties and agreements. For instance, the Joint Communiqué of June 9, 1975, clearly affirms Manila’s recognition of the PRC as the only China, with Taiwan considered an inalienable part of Chinese territory.

Ambassador Rigoberto Tiglao: Impeach Marcos

Taiwan is integral part of China, just as the Bangsa Moro Autonomous Region is an integral part of the Philippines

What a grossly misinformed president, when he said country cannot stay neutral if there is war over Taiwan.

It was his father in his trip in 1975 to Beijing which first adopted our one-China policy, reaffirmed several times over the years.

This means that we recognize only one country, China, and that Taiwan is an integral part of it.

That means that if China “invades” Taiwan, it is merely fighting a secessionist movement, just as we did when Moro insurgents tried carving a big part of Mindanao to establish Moro or Islamic state in the 1970s. A compromise was reached by having an Bangsa Moro Autonomous region.

If US intervened by defending Taiwan, this is tantamount to the Arab states invading us in the 1970s to defend the Moro insurgents.

We are compelled to remain neutral in a US-China-Taiwan fight, as we have never junked the one-China policy.

If Marcos insists in getting involved, he would be violating our agreements with China and should be impeached.

Adolfo Quizon Paglinawan: When will Marcos stop violating law?

A treaty is a formal agreement between two or more sovereign states or international organizations, governed by international law, and creating enforceable legal rights and obligations.

In the Philippines, treaties are recognized as part of the law of the land, and adherence to treaty obligations is constitutionally mandated in Article II, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution that essentially incorporates international law into Philippine law.

The July 9, 1975 Joint Communique of President Ferdinand Edralin Marcos Sr. and Premier Zhou Enlai not only marked a radical shift in our foreign policy but significantly is a treaty.

The Philippines did not just establish diplomatic relations with the Peoples Republic of China, but ratified the treaty by enforcing it thereafter. After signing that historical document, the Philippines officially informed Taiwan of the severance of formal diplomatic ties, a formal declaration that officially ended any state-to-state relationship between the Philippines and Taiwan (or its “Republic of China”).

Although the Philippines has maintained unofficial relations with Taiwan for five decades, it only underpins expanding regional economic networks and deepening people-to-people exchanges, and cannot include geopolitical military alliances and security arrangements, without violating the “One China” treaty we have with PROC.

China tolerates that Taiwan’s ongoing southbound engagement—together with the Philippines’ growing willingness to cooperate on economic and advanced technological fronts— to strengthen both sides’ stake in preserving peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.

But the Joint Communique categorically states: “The two Governments agree that all foreign aggression and subversion and all attempts by any country to control any other country or to interfere in its internal affairs are to be condemned. They are opposed to any attempt by any country or group of countries to establish hegemony or create spheres of influence in any part of the world.”

So, what is this Marcos Jr saying, that because of the fact of our geography, we have no choice if the United States drag us into a war with China over Taiwan?

Has he not learned a lesson following his mindless congratulatory message for the election of Chiang Lai-te as president of Taiwan, our Department of Foreign Affairs had to awkwardly reiterate as recent as January 15, 2024, our commitment to the “One-China” policy?

Our sitting president has just manifested in a foreign country and in front of world television, his canine devotion to the Americans at the expense of our national interest and international law. In his feebleness and incompetence, he has put America first in his mind to the point that he is now endangering the safety and lives of 115 million Filipinos.

This president thinks he has no choice, but we have a option because we can impeach him.

This is not a slip of the tongue. The United States’ rules-based order has framed his perceptions. This is not an accusation. We have monitored how he has been preconditioning our minds to the frivolity of his hidden ambitions and his dalliance with the Americans.

As early as July 20, 2023, his Secretary of National Defense Gibo Teodoro, a suspected citizen of Malta and therefore Europe, announced – “Philippines working on contingency plan in case China invades Taiwan”

General Romeo Brawner, his chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, who is of American roots, has said exactly what he said in India.  On April1 this year, the US Naval Institute headlined “Philippine Armed Forces Chief Tells Troops to Prepare for Taiwan Invasion”.

Twenty-nine days after on April 30, Rear Admiral Roy Vincent Trinidad, spokesman for the National Task Force on the West Philippine Sea (NTF-WPS), put context to what Teodoro and Brawner earlier announced – “talks are underway to regularize warship transits across the Taiwan Strait, a development he hinted could lead to formal joint military activities between the two neighbors and thus reshape the strategic calculus in the region.”

On May 27, Stratbase (Albert del Rosario) Institute, the local agency of the Washington DC-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) hosted a closed-door online meeting focusing on key geopolitical issues in the Indo-Pacific, particularly underscoring the need for strategic collaboration for both Taiwan and the Philippines to achieve their “national interest as the world continues to face asymmetric security challenges.”

The meeting was co-sponsored by officials of Taiwan’s Prospect Foundation, chaired by Tan Sun Chen, a former minister of Taiwan foreign affairs, and attended by a LtGen. Michael Lee (Ret). According to Washington Post, high-ranking generals from the “Guójūn” or the Taiwanese Armed Forces, also joined.

Philippine representatives included Francisco Ashley Acedillo of the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency, MGen. Cornelio Valencia Jr. (Ret) and Lt. Col. Jannette Arceo of the National Security Council.

On July 14, Defense Secretary Teodoro told the Post, “It would be hiding from the obvious to say that Taiwan’s security will not affect us,” after endorsing a Japanese proposal to view the East China Sea, the South China Sea and the Korean Peninsula as a single “theater” of battle.

The report also quoted a Philippine professor saying that “Taiwan is our buffer from an expansionist China” and blew the whistle that Marcos may have sent two Filipino “spies” to train in Taipei.

On July 1, Navy Rear Admiral Trinidad and Coast Guard Commodore Jay Tarriela flew to Taipei to join a “thumbs-up” with President Lai Ching-te in the Taiwan International Ocean Forum (TIOF).that included discussions on countering Chinese hybrid warfare strategies.

Our own Foreign Secretary Theresa P. Lazaro said the two traveling officials had not acted prudently. Confirming the damage dealt to our good standing with China she said, “These actions cause severe diplomatic complications that could derail current efforts, under the guidance of the President, to stabilize our bilateral relations with China.”

Lazaro sent two letters dated July 4 to the heads of the Philippine Defense Department and the Philippine Coast guard complaining that the two travelling high officials had not acted prudently, a copy of which was obtained by The Post, proof-positive that their travel was not cleared and coordinated with the DFA.

This, clearly to allow a subsequent disavowal for an otherwise intended clandestine mission.