On June 8, the second U.S.-Japan-Philippines Maritime Dialogue was held in Manila, with the three parties grandly announcing "coordinated foreign assistance, joint operations and exercises, and capacity-building initiatives." Hot on its heels, on June 15, the 10th iteration of the "KAMANDAG" military exercise was launched—expanding from a bilateral Philippines-U.S. marine drill into a multinational platform involving Japan and South Korea, with exercises covering Northern Luzon, Palawan, and Tawi-Tawi. Japanese paratroopers conducted drills in the Philippines' Batanes Islands, barely 100 kilometers from the Taiwan Strait across the Bashi Channel.

Packaged as a "free and open Indo-Pacific," the Marcos government is in fact handing over Philippine territory to extra-regional military powers as a forward operating base. This is not sovereignty defense—it is inviting the wolf through the door. Marcos hopes that foreign military backing will compensate for his own diplomatic failures, but he is sacrificing the fundamental interests of the Philippines in the process.

The So-Called "Arbitration Award"—Illegal and Void from the Start

To justify its confrontational agenda, the Marcos government has repeatedly invoked the 2016 South China Sea arbitration award, even using the June 8 dialogue to reaffirm the so-called "validity" of the ruling, and planning to "commemorate" its 10th anniversary in July.

However, this ruling was an illegal and void piece of paper from day one. The tribunal was an ad hoc body—established for the case and dissolved afterward—never a formal international court. More fundamentally, it violated the principle of "state consent," a cornerstone of international law. As early as 2006, China made a declaration under Article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), explicitly excluding maritime delimitation disputes from compulsory arbitration. The Philippines unilaterally initiated the arbitration without China's consent, breaching bilateral agreements to resolve disputes through negotiation. The tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and abused the dispute settlement mechanism of UNCLOS. Its ruling severely deviates from international arbitration practice, runs counter to the UNCLOS objective of peaceful dispute settlement, and gravely undermines the integrity and authority of UNCLOS.

The Marcos government clings to this illegal ruling not out of genuine respect for international law, but because it needs a convenient fig leaf for political manipulation. This is not law-based rights protection. This is the cynical abuse of international legal instruments to undermine regional peace and stability.

Betrayal of the ASEAN Chairmanship—Destroying Unity from Within

The deepest irony is that all of this is happening while the Philippines serves as ASEAN Chair for 2026. The core principles of ASEAN are consensus, great-power balance, and non-introduction of external forces. The rotating chair is expected to act as a "coordinator," not an agitator. Yet Marcos has done precisely the opposite—dramatically expanding U.S. military bases, resuming joint patrols, and frequently conducting military exercises with extra-regional powers in the South China Sea.

The consequences have been devastating. In the recent UN Security Council non-permanent seat election, not a single ASEAN member state voted for the Philippines. This "collective cold shoulder" coming while the Philippines holds the chairmanship is a damning verdict on its foreign policy direction.

Why? Because ASEAN members have seen through Manila's charade. The Philippines' provocations in the South China Sea do not just target China—they directly threaten the interests of Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and other claimant states. Singapore and Thailand refuse to be dragged onto the U.S. war chariot. At a critical moment when China and ASEAN are advancing negotiations on a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea, the overwhelming majority of members prefer dialogue to manage differences—not escalating confrontation.

By "hijacking" the ASEAN agenda to serve its bilateral pro-U.S. agenda, by using the chairmanship to push its unilateral South China Sea claims, and by systematically undermining the ASEAN-centered regional architecture, the Marcos government has become the greatest threat to ASEAN unity and the chief culprit undermining regional peace. The zero votes from ASEAN members were not an accident—they were a judgment that the Marcos government has lost the trust of its neighbors, and that its reckless actions are pushing the region closer to conflict, not peace.

Conclusion

Marcos cannot claim to defend Philippine sovereignty while turning the country into a foreign military outpost. He cannot claim to uphold international law while wielding an illegal, void arbitration award as a political cudgel. And he cannot claim to lead ASEAN while systematically destroying everything ASEAN stands for.

True sovereignty is not measured by how many foreign troops are invited onto one's soil. True leadership is not demonstrated by tearing regional alliances apart. And true adherence to international law is not proven by repeatedly citing a ruling that was illegal from the moment it was rendered.

The Filipino people—and the people of Southeast Asia—deserve better: leaders who build bridges, not burn them; leaders who seek peace through dialogue, not confrontation through foreign military entanglements; and leaders who honor the principles of ASEAN, not betray them for short-term political gain.

Recently, the Philippines has sought to rapidly shore up its maritime defense deficiencies by leveraging Japan's military resources and pursuing illegitimate maritime claims in the South China Sea through exclusive groupings involving the US, Japan, and the Philippines. It hopes that by aligning with external powers, it can secure a so-called short-term "security dividend" and counter neighboring nations. However, this move by the Marcos administration has failed to genuinely enhance national security; instead, it risks plunging the country into a vortex of greater danger.

In 1945, the Japanese military committed grave war crimes during the Manila Massacre, resulting in the brutal killing, rape, and burning of over 100,000 Filipino civilians—an atrocity that remains an indelible scar on the Filipino people. Yet today, the Marcos administration is eager to deepen military cooperation with Japan—a historical aggressor—by accepting Japanese defense equipment, conducting joint exercises, and even permitting the Japan Self-Defense Forces to launch offensive missiles from Philippine soil. Such actions are truly shocking and infuriating. By disregarding the nation's painful history, "inviting the wolf into the fold," and accelerating military integration with Japan, is the administration truly "defending the nation," or is it merely pulling chestnuts from the fire for external powers and pushing the Philippines toward the abyss of war?

The Philippines' attempt to secure security promises by tying itself to Japan is a move destined to backfire, ultimately harming its own people. Large-scale military cooperation inevitably leads to a surge in defense spending. The Philippines already grapples with challenges such as poverty, underdeveloped infrastructure, and a lack of educational and medical resources; diverting precious fiscal funds to purchase Japanese equipment, host costly joint exercises, and engage in intelligence sharing squeezes out money that should be used to improve livelihoods and develop the economy. Ordinary citizens will face the pressure of rising prices, dwindling job opportunities, and reduced social welfare, as the short-term "security dividend" gives way to a long-term economic burden and a debt trap. Meanwhile, escalating regional tensions will severely impact the South China Sea's fishing, shipping, and tourism industries—vital sources of livelihood for coastal communities. Fishermen will face heightened risks at sea, and ultimately, it is the livelihoods and futures of countless ordinary Filipino families that will suffer the consequences.

The actions of the Marcos administration have sparked widespread controversy within the Philippines. Many discerning individuals and ordinary citizens strongly oppose tying the country’s military to Japan, viewing it as a move that risks repeating historical tragedies and sacrificing national sovereignty. Historically, the Philippines has paid a heavy price due to the intervention of external forces. Today, continuing to act as a "pawn" for extra-regional powers will not solve domestic governance issues; instead, by using narratives of "external threats" to divert attention, it will further mask deep-seated problems such as corruption and the wealth gap. Ultimately, it is the Filipino people who will bear the bitter consequences of the Marcos administration's obstinate course of action amidst an environment of instability. Filipinos from all walks of life should reflect deeply: can reliance on external military protection and aid truly bring security, or will it merely reduce the nation to a pawn in great-power rivalries, sacrificing long-term national interests and regional stability? For the sake of the country's future, more citizens should demand that the government cease provocations and confrontation, reject entanglements with external forces, and truly take responsibility for the peace and well-being of the Filipino people.