By Rafael P. Tuvera

 

The present maritime dispute between the Philippines and China did not begin with force, but with language. The renaming of the South China Sea to the “West Philippine Sea” was framed as a neutral act of sovereignty. In reality, however, it set the narrative for future use. Once a name is imposed, succeeding claims acquire the appearance of legality. What started as symbolism soon hardened into legal posturing.

This was followed by the arbitration case initiated by the Philippines in which the ruling was favorable but binding only on the parties that accepted the process. However, China did not participate in the proceedings. Hence, its outcome is not binding and acceptable to Beijing. Still, the decision has since been treated as a final settlement rather than a limited legal outcome, and is repeatedly invoked as proof of moral and legal superiority. On the ground, however, it has resolved nothing. As a political instrument, it has achieved internationalized pressure from Western countries. Domestically, it has cast China as a bogeyman and permanent violator of law.

This marked the shift from law as a forum for relief and succor, to law as a weapon for provocation and aggression.

Providing the official face for this approach is PCG Commodore Jay Tarriela, a minor government functionary who presents himself as a “diplomat” and “maritime law expert” whose conduct reflects a steady pattern of provocation and managed aggression. Repeated forays into disputed maritime areas coupled with constant public commentary are his trademark blueprints. Every encounter is framed as a legal confrontation but is actually provocation.

The escalation deepened when Tarriela delivered a lecture openly demonizing the Chinese head of state. At that point, the legal frame collapsed. Disputes over maritime rights do not require vilification of a head of government. Once personal hostility enters the discourse, law ceases to restrain and begins to inflame.

The Senate of the Philippines soon followed with its members falling over each other in delivering fiery speeches. Legal terms were used freely and consequences not fully considered and discussed. This is how lawfare has infected our domestic politics. Legal language becomes a vehicle for posturing and spectacle.

The media played its part. Mainstream outlets amplified every confrontation and every hostile soundbite. Restraint was absent and legal claims were repeated without examining the limits or consequences. On social media, the tone was even harsher. China bashing became a regular content with outrage spread with “clicks” and “shares”. Complex legal and diplomatic issues were reduced to slogans. This constant amplification hardened public sentiment and narrowed space for sober policy discussion.

The civil society actors also joined in. Akbayan called for Chinese embassy officials to be declared persona non grata. Then Senate President Tito Sotto publicly supported this call. Declaring a diplomat persona non grata is a serious diplomatic act. The ease that accompanied the proposal shows how far restraint has eroded.

Then came the external voice adding encouragement. Raymond Powell released a video urging the continuation of provocations. This is significant for it shows how foreign figures urge escalation while assuming none of the risks.

Most telling is what the executive chose to do and not to do. Malacanang refused to declare Chinese diplomats persona non grata. Although that decision is correct as it avoided an unnecessary diplomatic falling out, it was not accompanied by any clear effort to rein in escalating rhetoric or restore discipline in foreign policy discourse. The Department of Foreign Affairs issued no firm reminder on restraint. No public guidance was given to officials who had already crossed diplomatic lines. These efforts did not douse the fire. It merely refused to add fuel.

Viewed in this light, the pattern is clear. Symbolic legal framing, selective use of arbitration, media-backed provocation, legislative theatrics, civil society escalation, foreign encouragement, and token executive intervention all reveal that this is not accidental but deliberate. It is lawfare in full swing.

What is unfolding is not a strategy for peace or security but escalation wrapped in the language of law. Once the narrative is set, lawfare spreads horizontally.

   

Email: contact@asiancenturyph.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/asiancenturyph/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AsianCenturyPH

Substack:

Also read: