THE progressive political party Akbayan on Saturday condemned what it described as a “blatant attack” by the Chinese Embassy in Manila against the Philippine government and the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), as tensions escalate anew over competing claims in the West Philippine Sea. In a statement, Akbayan expressed full support for PCG West Philippine Sea spokesman Commodore Jay Tarriela following accusations by Chinese Embassy Deputy Spokesperson Guo Wei that the PCG official had been “slandering” and “smearing” China and its leaders when he used a caricature of President Xi Jinping in a public presentation. Akbayan said the embassy’s remarks were “unsurprising,” saying they reflect Beijing’s aversion to facts and transparency in maritime disputes. “If anyone is guilty of slander and smear, it is the Chinese Embassy itself, peddling lies through their fictitious nine-dash line claim over the West Philippine Sea and defending their acts of violence against our fishers and frontliners,” Akbayan President Rafaela David said. The nine-dash line refers to China’s expansive claim over most of the South China Sea, which overlaps with the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ). In 2016, an international arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines, declaring China’s sweeping maritime claims without legal basis under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos). Beijing has consistently rejected the ruling. David, who also serves as a co-convenor of Atin Ito, a civil society coalition that organized three civilian-led supply and solidarity missions to the West Philippine Sea, said China’s statements amount to interference in Philippine internal affairs. She cited the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which obliges foreign missions to respect the sovereignty of host states. “No foreign regime, particularly aggressors, has the right to dictate what our frontliners can or cannot say, especially when those statements are grounded in facts, evidence, and the rule of law,” David said. She added that recent remarks from the embassy appeared aimed at projecting toughness under a new Chinese ambassador in Manila. “But spare the West Philippine Sea from their drama. We will not let facts and international law be twisted or obscured for their show,” David said. Akbayan urged the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to issue a firm response to the Chinese Embassy, stressing that foreign interference “on Philippine soil is unacceptable.” The party also called on the public to continue expressing support for the PCG and other Filipino frontliners tasked with safeguarding maritime security and fishermen in contested waters. The Chinese Embassy, for its part, doubled down on its accusations against Tarriela in a strongly worded statement, saying it had lodged “solemn representations and protests” with Malacañang, the DFA, and the PCG. The embassy accused the PCG spokesman of making “malicious attacks and smears” against a Chinese leader, claiming that his remarks constituted a “serious violation of China’s political dignity” and an “open political provocation.” Rejecting claims of interference, the embassy cited Article 3 of the Vienna Convention, which outlines the functions of diplomatic missions, including protecting the interests of the sending state and conducting negotiations with the host government. It said its actions were “lawful” and part of normal diplomatic practice. The embassy also criticized Tarriela for allegedly making disparaging remarks during a university engagement, questioning whether such statements fell within his official mandate. It further dismissed the Philippines’ transparency efforts in the West Philippine Sea as a “smear initiative,” insisting that China’s activities in the disputed waters are lawful and consistent with international and domestic law. The exchange comes amid heightened scrutiny of confrontations at sea, where the PCG has repeatedly accused Chinese vessels of dangerous maneuvers, water cannon use, and harassment of Filipino fishermen and resupply missions. Manila has increasingly adopted a transparency strategy, releasing photos and videos of incidents to rally domestic and international support. Despite Beijing’s objections, Philippine officials have maintained that public disclosure of maritime incidents is necessary to uphold international law and protect national sovereignty. Contrary view On the other hand, an international law expert and a geopolitical analyst on Saturday separately raised concerns over the diplomatic and social implications of a controversial caricature used by Tarriela, warning that the image — while not illegal — could be construed as an official expression of the Philippine government’s position toward Chinese President Xi Jinping and risk normalizing racist tropes in public discourse. It remains unclear whether Tarriela was acting as an authorized spokesman of the Philippine Coast Guard, the National Task Force for the West Philippine Sea, or the National Maritime Council when he presented the caricature, according to Melissa Loja, an international law expert. “That distinction matters,” Loja said, noting that if Tarriela was acting in an official capacity, his public statements and materials, whether written or verbal and regardless of the forum, are presumed to reflect official Philippine government policy, especially if delivered while in uniform. Loja said under such circumstances, the caricature of Xi used by Tarriela would be deemed an official representation by the Philippine government of the Chinese leader, unless explicitly withdrawn or disavowed by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) or the Office of the Executive Secretary (OES). “That representation, as it stands, clearly conveys a lack of respect toward President Xi Jinping,” Loja said, emphasizing that the issue is diplomatic rather than criminal in nature. She clarified, however, that the use of political caricatures does not violate international law and does not breach the Treaty of Amity between the Philippines and China. “There is no prohibition under international law against political caricatures,” she said. Loja added that no Philippine domestic law was violated by the use of the caricature, notwithstanding past law enforcement practices in which protesters have been arrested for burning effigies of foreign or local political figures. She said that had Tarriela acted purely in his personal capacity as a private citizen, the act would fall under constitutionally protected speech. Given this, Loja said China’s recourse should not be to pursue legal action against Tarriela in Philippine courts, such as filing libel charges. Instead, she pointed to established diplomatic practice, citing the Charlie Hebdo precedent, where the appropriate response would be to summon the Philippine ambassador in Beijing to formally convey China’s protest. While stressing that Tarriela did not commit a crime, Loja warned that the incident sets a “dangerous precedent.” “He is signaling to the public that it is acceptable to use caricatures of public figures,” she said. “In a country like the Philippines, even a single caricature of a religious figure could ignite a serious social conflagration.” Separate from the legal and diplomatic analysis, geopolitical expert Sass Rogando Sasot criticized the imagery itself, saying the caricature went beyond political satire and echoed racist depictions historically used to dehumanize Asians. In a statement, Sasot said the exaggerated facial features in the image mirrored “Yellow Peril” cartoons from a century ago, which were used to incite fear and justify exclusion and violence. She said the use of such imagery undermined education and reduced complex geopolitical realities into stereotypes. Sasot added that by allowing the caricature to be shown from a position of authority, Tarriela normalized prejudicial imagery and implicitly suggested that such depictions were acceptable in serious political and academic discussions. She described this as a failure of public duty and a distortion of the purpose of education. According to Sasot, the deeper risk lay not in territorial disputes or maps, but in the erosion of historical memory and critical thinking, warning that the normalization of hate-filled imagery could have lasting consequences on public understanding and future policy discourse.