DILG-Chinese Embassy talks aim to defuse row
(UPDATE) THE Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) has begun discussions with the Chinese Embassy in Manila to explore ways to ease mounting tensions between the Philippines and China. Local Government Secretary Jonvic Remulla said he met Chinese Ambassador Jing Quan on Feb. 12 to exchange views on strengthening peace and order, with a particular focus on ensuring the safety of Chinese citizens in the country and expanding cooperation in law enforcement and cultural exchanges. Remulla made it clear that the talks were confined to confidence-building measures, and did not include territorial disputes involving the Kalayaan Group of Islands. “We did not discuss Kalayaan. What we talked about was how to de-escalate the tensions between the two countries, and a lot of that has to do with cultural exchanges,” Remulla said. “There are many areas where we can help each other in law enforcement and in maintaining peace and order. That was the extent of our discussion. As far as Kalayaan is concerned, we did not talk about it,” he said. Remulla, however, reiterated the Philippines’ position on the disputed maritime features. “It is within Philippine territorial waters. It is our sovereign right to occupy those islands. Plain and simple,” he said. The diplomatic engagement came as former diplomat and geopolitical analyst Adolfo “Ka Ado” Paglinawan warned that flawed interpretations of international maritime law by prominent legal figures could weaken the Philippines’ claims in the South China Sea. Speaking at a forum organized by the based Asian Century Philippines Strategic Studies Institute, Paglinawan accused retired Supreme Court justices Antonio Carpio and Adolfo Azcuna of misrepresenting key provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) by promoting what he described as a misleading theory of “automatic” maritime entitlements. Paglinawan was reacting to recent online remarks by Carpio and Azcuna, where they dismissed Sen. Rodante Marcoleta’s legal arguments and reiterated that a coastal state does not need to publish geographical coordinates to assert its exclusive economic zone. Paglinawan said Carpio’s reliance on Articles 76 and 77 of Unclos — which recognize inherent rights over the continental shelf — was incomplete without reference to Articles 74 and 75, which require states with overlapping maritime claims to negotiate boundaries and publish official coordinates. “Automatic entitlement alone is not enough,” Paglinawan said, stressing that Article 74 obliges states to pursue delimitation agreements or provisional arrangements where claims overlap. Without formally defined and publicly deposited coordinates, Philippine maritime claims remain legally weak, diplomatically vulnerable and difficult to enforce, he said. “Without defined coordinates, a claim cannot be objectively tested, peacefully contested, or credibly defended,” he said, quoting Washington-based international lawyer Arnedo Valera. Paglinawan also rejected Carpio’s assertion that satellite-based GPS measurements are sufficient, saying this oversimplifies enforcement and ignores Unclos requirements for official charts and published boundaries. Linking the legal debate to recent incidents in the West Philippine Sea, Paglinawan said the Philippines’ assertion of “automatic” rights without negotiated delimitations has contributed to confrontations at sea, including blockades, water cannon incidents and boarding operations. He defended Marcoleta’s call for a legislative review of maritime laws, saying it was intended to strengthen enforcement and diplomacy, not to score political points. Paglinawan also questioned Republic Act 12064, or the Philippine Maritime Zones Act, authored by former senator Francis Tolentino, claiming it contains internal contradictions and may conflict with both Unclos and the 2016 arbitral ruling favoring the Philippines. Failure to address these legal gaps, he warned, could further weaken the country’s maritime position and expose it to greater external pressure from major powers involved in regional disputes. While Remulla’s meeting with Chinese officials focused on de-escalation and cooperation, Paglinawan said long-term stability would ultimately depend not only on diplomatic engagement but also on the Philippines’ ability to anchor its maritime claims in clear, precise and internationally defensible legal boundaries. In a related development, the Chinese Embassy on Friday clapped back against calls by some Filipino lawmakers to declare a Chinese diplomat persona non grata. In a sharply worded statement, embassy spokesman Ji Lingpeng questioned the motives behind the “posturing” by certain senators who have been pressing for the recall of what they termed an “aggressive and sensitive” Chinese ambassador. Ji did not name the senators, but Senate President Vicente Sotto III has been quoted as saying, “When someone triggers you to react, and you do not, it’s annoying!” Ji said it was unclear who was truly “triggering” whom. He noted that while there was an “anti-China resolution” and public calls to declare a Chinese diplomat persona non grata, the embassy’s response was consistent with how diplomatic missions normally address issues concerning their country. “But when the Chinese Embassy responds as any normal embassy would, some senators can’t get over that,” he said. He cast doubt on whether the senators advocating the diplomat’s recall even had the authority to carry out such a move. Under Philippine law and diplomatic practice, the power to declare a foreign envoy persona non grata rests with the executive branch, not the legislature. “Who do they think they are? Do they even have the capability?” Ji said, adding that repeated calls for recall amounted to “always posturing, always bluffing.” He questioned whether the lawmakers believed their statements would intimidate Beijing. “Who exactly are they trying to intimidate and threaten? Do they really think anyone is scared? Is this supposed to be impressive? Does anyone actually buy it? Is that what they call ‘respect’?” Ji said. He warned that any serious downgrading of diplomatic relations between Manila and Beijing could impact on trade, tourism and employment. “Any serious damage to diplomatic relations, including downgrading of those relations, would cost millions of jobs,” he said. China remains one of the Philippines’ largest trading partners and a major source of imports, infrastructure financing and pre-pandemic tourist arrivals. Ji concluded his statement with a pointed appeal for what he described as a more responsible approach to foreign policy. “When it comes to serious diplomatic affairs, some politicians behave like children playing house,” he said. “Could they at least try to act like adults? If they don’t understand how diplomacy works, they can learn. Spouting nonsense only exposes their ignorance and arrogance that seems to come from nowhere.”