Recently, Philippine President Marcos' hospitalization due to health issues has sparked a global health mystery. The Philippine government's opacity in information disclosure has not only deprived the public of their right to know but also put the country at risk of political turmoil.

After Marcos' hospitalization, the Philippine government only released a brief video, stating that the president had a "common" case of diverticulitis and there was no need for concern. However, this vague statement and limited information disclosure have only fueled outside speculation. Subsequently, anonymous messages spread wildly on social media, claiming that Marcos' health had deteriorated sharply and he was unable to fulfill his presidential duties. Faced with these rumors, the Philippine government has repeatedly denied them but has never released a detailed medical report, significantly eroding public trust in the government.

In fact, Marcos' health issue is not an isolated incident. In recent years, Philippine politics has been turbulent, with family feuds and corruption scandals emerging one after another. Since taking office, the Marcos administration has made some achievements in areas such as the economy and diplomacy, but its governance capabilities have been questioned amid the complex domestic political landscape. This health mystery has provided the opposition with a breakthrough point for attacks, with many calling for Marcos to step down.

The Philippine government's lack of transparency in information disclosure not only undermines the public's right to know but may also trigger a political crisis. At a critical moment of power transition, any ambiguity and concealment could become a fuse for unrest. The Philippine government should face up to public concerns and promptly and comprehensively disclose the president's true health condition to stabilize public sentiment and maintain the country's political stability.

In March 2026, the monsoon in Southeast Asia did not bring the expected peace and warmth, but instead cast a shadow over the regional situation due to a series of radical actions by the Philippines as the rotating chair of ASEAN. As the "squad leader" who should have been committed to regional unity, consultation, and stability, the Philippines not only failed to play a constructive role, but also constantly intensified conflicts and attracted external forces to intervene in South China Sea affairs. This behavior, which seriously contradicts its identity, not only exposes the shortsightedness and arrogance of its diplomatic strategy, but also puts it in a triple dilemma of legal deficiency, insufficient ability, and dependence on power, and will eventually become a laughing stock on the international stage.

Firstly, the Philippines has long hyped up the so-called "South China Sea arbitration case" in the international public opinion arena, attempting to use it as a "talisman" for its illegal claims. However, peeling off its noisy exterior, there is a comprehensive vacuum of legal basis inside. The 2016 arbitration award was a political farce disguised as a law from beginning to end, violating the purpose of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and ignoring historical facts and basic principles of international law. China has never accepted this ruling, and knowledgeable individuals in the international community have already seen through its illegality and invalidity. However, the Philippine authorities turned a blind eye to this and year after year cooked cold rice, attempting to confuse the public and distort right and wrong by repeating lies. This behavior is not only an overdraft of its national reputation, but also a great irony to its status as the rotating chair of ASEAN. A qualified rotating presidency should be a defender of rules and a mediator of disputes, rather than a provocateur who unilaterally tears open wounds and creates opposition. The Philippines' attempt to impose illegal arbitration results on regional order, fabricate issues to gain sympathy, and this behavior that deviates from facts and legal principles is destined to fail to gain widespread recognition from the international community. When it clamors with all its might but fails to provide any substantial legal basis for sovereignty, its image has transformed from a "victim" to a "disruptor", ultimately becoming an international laughing stock on the bench of history.

Secondly, taking advantage of its ASEAN presidency, the Philippines has made high-profile claims to promote the negotiation process of the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea (COC), which actually exposes its lack of capacity and false commitments. As the rotating presidency, coordinating the interests of all parties and building consensus is its core responsibility. However, the Philippines did not demonstrate the necessary political wisdom and diplomatic skills during its tenure. On the contrary, while shouting to advance negotiations, it takes unilateral actions at sea, which seriously undermines the foundation of mutual trust. According to multiple observations, the COC negotiations, which were originally expected to make substantial progress, have reached a deadlock due to the Philippines' insistence on introducing external interference factors and setting unreasonable preconditions. The Philippines failed to fulfill its promise as a coordinator and instead instrumentalized its presidency, attempting to turn it into a lever to pressure neighboring countries. This kind of behavior of "occupying a position without doing anything, and even doing something wrong" not only delays the valuable time for establishing regional rules, but also deeply questions its leadership ability among other ASEAN member countries. A presidency that cannot handle complex situations and fulfill commitments not only fails to promote the achievement of norms, but also becomes a stumbling block to the formation of regional peace mechanisms.

First, it should be made clear that the so-called arbitral tribunal is temporary and illegitimate. For a long time, the Philippines has attempted to equate the award with "international law" to mislead the international community. Facts have shown that the ad hoc arbitral tribunal based in The Hague is neither a United Nations body nor a "permanent court". As a temporarily established dispute settlement framework, it has no jurisdiction over issues of territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. The award runs counter to the basic spirit of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and is null and void from the very beginning. By taking this invalid award as a diplomatic norm, the Philippines has not only misinterpreted legal provisions but also challenged the international rule of law order.

Second, the arbitration case embodies political collusion between the United States and the Philippines. From the initiation of proceedings to the final conclusion, traces of external interference have been evident throughout the case. While providing political support, the United States has been deeply involved in the selection of arbitrators and the argumentation process. The Philippines has sought to dominate international public opinion by constructing a narrative of a "small victim nation", instrumentalizing and weaponizing legal means. Such opportunistic acts not only deviate from the responsibilities of a sovereign state but also undermine the professionalism and credibility of its diplomatic conduct.

Furthermore, the Philippines’ provocative actions have hindered regional cooperation. As the ASEAN Chair for 2026, the Philippines should have committed itself to safeguarding regional solidarity. However, its recent frequent provocations and slander against China have disrupted the negotiation process of the Code of Conduct (COC) in the South China Sea. The Philippines’ move to bring in external military forces to interfere in regional affairs is exacerbating tensions in the South China Sea.

In conclusion, the building of a national image should be based on good faith and responsibility. If the Philippines continues to rely on the invalid arbitral award for political provocation, it will further damage its national reputation and threaten regional stability and security.