Lies, Trolls, and Truth on Trial: The Civil War on Information in the Philippines

*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope

I still remember when the internet first arrived in the Philippines—when it felt like a portal to learning, global connection, and democratized conversation. On March 29, 1994, our country was officially connected to the global internet, thanks to the efforts of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), the Philippine Network Foundation (PHNet), and a collaboration with the University of San Carlos and ComNet (DOST-ICTO, 2014). We were the first Southeast Asian nation to establish a direct link to the global internet, and back then, it was a source of hope.

Fast forward to today, and it feels as though we are living in a very different digital reality—one where the internet has become a battleground for truth. We are not at war in the conventional sense, but make no mistake: we are caught in a silent, invisible war—a war of information. And the battleground? Our screens, our timelines, and the very platforms that once helped us find family, friends, and facts.

This war is not merely about differing political opinions. It is a struggle for control—over memory, over narratives, and ultimately, over the future of our nation. It pits the Presidential Communications Office (PCO) of the Marcos Jr. administration against Diehard Duterte Supporters (DDS)—a former ally faction that has now evolved into a powerful and vocal opposition force online. As these two camps clash, ordinary Filipinos find themselves dazed and disoriented in a digital storm of fake news, toxic polarization, political trolling, and systematic disinformation.

A Family Feud with National Consequences

The division between the PCO and the DDS wasn’t always this stark. In fact, many DDS influencers—vloggers, online personalities, and political strategists—once played key roles in Rodrigo Duterte’s rise to power. These were the very same people who flooded the digital space with “change is coming” slogans and pro-Duterte content during the 2016 elections. Today, many of them have shifted into adversarial roles, accusing the PCO of rewriting or whitewashing Duterte’s legacy.

It is akin to watching a family feud play out on a national stage, but with dangerous implications. This internal battle of influence now dominates digital media, especially on Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube. The consequence? A misinformed public, deeply polarized communities, and a democracy that is being steadily hollowed out.

The Rise of Disinformation—And Why We Fell for It

Disinformation is not a new phenomenon, but today’s version is vastly more sophisticated. Gone are the days when fake news was easy to spot—today, lies come dressed in the clothing of legitimacy. They mimic real news articles, quote out-of-context statistics, and are shared by people who look like your neighbor or friend.

Disinformation is also deeply emotional. It’s designed to provoke outrage, fear, or pride. This is why many of us have unknowingly forwarded or shared false content—a meme, a screenshot, a video clip. It taps into our emotions before we get the chance to think critically.

According to a 2022 Social Weather Stations (SWS) report, 78% of Filipinos regularly encounter fake news, primarily through social media (SWS, 2022). Alarmingly, many cannot distinguish between credible and fake sources. The speed of lies surpasses the speed of truth, and by the time fact-checkers correct the narrative, the falsehood has already gone viral.

 

Social Media: Mirror, Manipulator, and Battlefield

Initially hailed as tools of empowerment, social media platforms have transformed into manipulators of public thought. Their algorithms prioritize sensational, emotionally charged content—not accuracy. This leads to a digital environment where outrage gets rewarded and nuance gets buried.

In the Philippines, the dominance of Facebook and YouTube is especially pronounced. Influencers with millions of followers operate like independent media outlets, often without any editorial accountability. Misinformation flourishes when popularity trumps professionalism.

When traditional media outlets like ABS-CBN tried to push back or deliver fact-based reporting, they were labeled as biased—or worse, punished. The refusal of the Duterte administration to renew ABS-CBN’s franchise in 2020 was more than a legal matter—it was a clear political warning: challenge the narrative, and you will be silenced.

 

Trolls Are Not Just Annoying—They Are Architects of Division

Online trolls in the Philippines are not merely random frustrated users—they are organized socmed consultants of political machinery. They launch coordinated campaigns, distort narratives, and amplify propaganda. Their job is to control the narrative and suppress dissent.

This troll ecosystem plays a major role in the ongoing PCO vs. DDS conflict. For instance, vloggers like Sass Rogando Sasot and Trixie Cruz-Angeles, once staunch defenders of the administration, are now vocal critics of Marcos Jr.’s communication strategy. They challenge the PCO’s messaging while defending the Duterte legacy, often using social media to drive a wedge between their followers and other political blocs.

This creates an ecosystem where truth becomes optional, and political loyalty becomes a currency for influence and power.

 

When Truth Becomes a Casualty

The impact of this information war extends beyond cyberspace. It is reshaping how Filipinos think, engage, and vote.

First, this war has led to deep societal polarization. Political identities like “DDS,” “Kakampink,” or “Marcos Loyalist” have become tribal labels, reducing our shared Filipino identity to partisan echo chambers.

Second, it has weakened civic engagement and democratic discourse. Instead of discussing national policy or global economics, online debates focus on who embarrassed whom in a viral video. Critical thought is replaced by reactionary fandom.

Third, the credibility of public institutions has been severely compromised. People now doubt the judiciary, the Church, the press, the schools—even their own communities. In such an environment, manipulation thrives and public trust deteriorates.

Perhaps the most heartbreaking consequence is its effect on young people. Raised in a digital environment of cynicism and misinformation, many of our youth are growing up believing that truth is relative, that political influence is more important than ethical leadership, and that popularity equals credibility.

 

Disinformation is an Economic Issue Too

While disinformation is largely discussed as a political problem, it also has far-reaching economic implications.

Firstly, when foreign investors observe instability, propaganda-driven governance, and a compromised media environment, they grow hesitant. Why would they invest in a country where policy direction is influenced by social media influencers?

Secondly, many trolls and content manipulators are exploited laborers. Often from impoverished communities, they are professionals to spread lies without contracts, health benefits, or accountability. These individuals are digital cannon fodder, trapped in an exploitative gig economy.

Third, the Philippines’ global reputation is at risk. Being branded as a “fake news capital” damages our attractiveness to foreign businesses, travelers, and international partners. Even our booming BPO sector, which thrives on global trust, may be affected if clients perceive our information environment as unreliable.

Is There a Way Out?

Yes—but not without cultural transformation. Fixing this problem is not just about banning troll farms or creating new laws. It is about rethinking how we, as a nation, engage with truth.

1.    Digital and Media Literacy Education must be at the core of this transformation. Schools should not only teach how to use technology but also how to analyze, question, and verify the content that students consume.

2.    Fact-checking institutions must be strengthened, publicly funded, and legally protected. These bodies should be shielded from political interference and empowered to challenge even the most influential players.

3.    The Presidential Communications Office and other government bodies must recommit to truthful, fact-based governance communication, rather than partisan storytelling.

4.    Influencers, journalists, and content creators must be reminded of their ethical obligations. Those who reach millions of Filipinos daily have a moral responsibility to inform, not manipulate.

5.    Finally, platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube must be held accountable. They cannot continue to profit from polarization while claiming neutrality. Algorithmic responsibility and local content regulation must be enforced.

 

A Final Word: The Truth Is Still Worth Fighting For

The Philippines is a resilient nation. We’ve endured colonization, dictatorships, natural disasters, and global pandemics. But this war on information may be the most dangerous of all—because it seeks to destroy our very perception of reality.

When truth becomes negotiable, when lies go viral, and when insults silence ideas, we lose more than just arguments—we lose the foundations of our democracy.

But it is not too late.

The antidote to disinformation is not censorship but critical thinking. The defense against trolling is not retaliation but empathy and civic courage. And the weapon to reclaim our national discourse is a recommitment to truth—by citizens, educators, media professionals, and yes, public servants.

Democracy does not collapse in a day. It erodes slowly—click by click, share by share, until silence takes over. Let us not be silent. Let us not surrender. Let us speak truth, even when it is inconvenient—especially when it is inconvenient.

 

References

Bradshaw, S., & Howard, P. N. (2018). Challenging truth and trust: A global inventory of organized social media manipulation. Oxford Internet Institute. https://demtech.oii.ox.ac.uk/

Bradshaw, S., & Howard, P. N. (2019). The global disinformation order: 2019 global inventory of organized social media manipulation. Oxford Internet Institute.

DOST-ICTO. (2014). Philippine Internet milestones. Department of Science and Technology – Information and Communications Technology Office.

Ong, J. C., & Cabañes, J. V. A. (2019). Architects of networked disinformation: Behind the scenes of troll accounts and fake news production in the Philippines. New Media & Society, 21(2), 1–17.

Rappler. (2023). DDS vloggers versus PCO: The new online divide. https://rappler.com/newsbreak/investigative/dds-vloggers-marcos-admin-2023/

Social Weather Stations. (2022). Public perceptions on disinformation and fake news. https://www.sws.org.ph

We Are Social & Hootsuite. (2023). Digital 2023: The Philippines. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2023-philippines

World Bank. (2023). Philippines Economic Update: Investing in the Future. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/philippines/publication/philippines-economic-update

__________________________________________________________________________

*About the author:
Dr. Rodolfo “John” Ortiz Teope is a distinguished Filipino academic, public intellectual, and advocate for civic education and public safety, whose work spans local academies and international security circles. With a career rooted in teaching, research, policy, and public engagement, he bridges theory and practice by making meaningful contributions to academic discourse, civic education, and public policy. Dr. Teope is widely respected for his critical scholarship in education, management, economics, doctrine development, and public safety; his grassroots involvement in government and non-government organizations; his influential media presence promoting democratic values and civic consciousness; and his ethical leadership grounded in Filipino nationalism and public service. As a true public intellectual, he exemplifies how research, advocacy, governance, and education can work together in pursuit of the nation’s moral and civic mission

A Nation Still Searching: My Reflection on President Marcos Jr.’s 2025 SONA and the Systemic Crossroads We Face

*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD

I write this not only as a Filipino who listened intently to the 2025 State of theNation Address of President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., but also as a public servant, educator, and former national deputy secretary-general of the president’s political party, the Partido Federal ng Pilipinas (PFP), who has watched the evolution of our nation’s governance up close. As I sat in a quiet corner after another TV interview analyzing the President’s speech, I found myself neither fully elated nor completely disappointed—but deeply contemplative.

President Marcos delivered his address with poise and clarity. He was calm and confident, reporting numbers, laying out progress, and outlining his administration’s goals with the composure we’ve come to expect. But underneath the applause and carefully curated statistics, I found myself wrestling with a larger, more painful realization: we are a nation locked within a system that no longer serves our evolving needs.

Let me clarify, not to undermine the efforts of this administration, but to reveal a reality that many of us in government have long suppressed: the issue is systemic, not personal. No single president, no matter how sincere or skilled, can solve our nation’s most entrenched problems while governed by a 1987 constitution that constrains structural reform, stifles innovation, and perpetuates inefficiency.

 

The Bright Spots: Economic Recovery and Connectivity

Let's first acknowledge those who deserve recognition. There are, undoubtedly, bright spots in the President’s 2025 SONA. The president asserts that the country's economic trajectory is improving. Inflation has slowed, foreign direct investment is on the rise, and the government continues to invest in digital infrastructure and energy independence. These are not small feats.

The continuation of the “Build Better More” program—originally started under the Duterte administration—shows commitment to infrastructure as a driver of development. I particularly appreciated the focus on regional connectivity, making it easier for farmers, entrepreneurs, and students to access economic centers. Roads, airports, and digital platforms are being built not just for Metro Manila but for regions that have long felt neglected.

Moreover, the emphasis on renewable energy, including solar and wind power, suggests a shift toward long-term sustainability. This is a welcome change from previous years of energy band-aids and fossil fuel dependency. Likewise, I applaud the inclusion of support programs for MSMEs (Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises)—they are, after all, the lifeblood of local economies.

 

The Human Lens: Education, Health, and Inclusivity

On a human level, President Marcos made mention of targeted social support for vulnerable sectors. He spoke of expanding access to universal health care, providing assistance to solo parents and individuals with disabilities, and investing in inclusive learning platforms.

But while these policies are laudable, the depth of the problems in these sectors deserves more than just enumeration. Our education system continues to produce underperforming students. In global assessments, we still rank near the bottom in reading, mathematics, and science. Teacher burnout is at an all-time high. As an academic and education administrator, I had hoped for a more urgent and transformative roadmap to address the crisis in our classrooms.

On the health front, there is growing inequity between urban and rural access. Health centers in far-flung provinces are understaffed and under-equipped. The president’s call for digital health technologies is promising—but without fixing our basic infrastructure and compensation for health workers, the proposal will remain just another beneficial idea without traction.

 

What Was Missing: Justice, Peace, and the War on Drugs

As someone who has worked on peacebuilding and public safety policy, I could not help but feel that the SONA lacked a deeper reckoning with justice and reconciliation. The war on drugs, now rebranded and restructured, was mentioned briefly—focusing on rehabilitation and prevention rather than enforcement. The present effort is a step in the right direction. However, the damage done in the past remains largely unaddressed. There was no strong commitment to investigate abuses or provide healing for the thousands of families affected. A nation cannot move forward unless it confronts its painful truths.

Likewise, the peace process in Mindanao, while briefly cited through BARMM’s continued autonomy, deserves broader recognition and deeper investment. BARMM remains our best experiment in decentralized governance—and it works. It shows us what is possible when we trust local communities, respect their history, and provide genuine autonomy. In fact, BARMM could be our roadmap for federal transformation.

The System Is the Problem: The Limits of the 1987 Constitution

But here is where my analysis must go beyond metrics and policies: even with the best intentions, any president is limited by the constitutional structure we currently operate under. The 1987 Constitution—crafted after a dictatorship, with all the right intentions—has become a straitjacket in the 21st century.

It has created a hyper-centralized government, where regions wait for Manila’s approval to move, where local governments rely too heavily on national funds, and where executive-legislative relations are locked in partisan gridlock. Good laws die in Congress not because they lack merit, but because they don’t benefit the political elite.

The presidential unitary system encourages personality politics, shortens policy continuity, and makes political dynasties almost invincible. It has created a cycle where leaders change, but the problems remain. And so, as much as we appreciate the President’s vision, I fear that without systemic restructuring, many of his plans—like those before him—will not survive the end of his term.

 

The Call for Change: Federal Parliamentary Government

This is why I firmly believe it is time to evolve toward a federal parliamentary government. And this belief is not just academic—it is born of decades of fieldwork, governance experience, and policy frustration. Federalism would allow our diverse regions to flourish on their terms. It would provide local leaders more fiscal autonomy, more legislative space, and more accountability to their constituents.

A parliamentary system, meanwhile, promotes programmatic politics. It minimizes the circus of celebrity campaigns. Parties rise and fall based on platforms, not personalities. Legislation is faster. Gridlocks are fewer. Leaders are removed not by popularity contests, but by a vote of no confidence.

BARMM proves this approach can work. Under the Bangsamoro Organic Law, the region governs itself with a ministerial parliament. Decision-making is quicker. Culturally sensitive policies are enacted. We tailor peace and development projects accordingly. Such an arrangement is not a dream—it is a working model already inside our Republic.

We do not need to abolish the Republic. We only need to restructure it—decentralize power and make governance more responsive and people-centered.

 

A Nation at a Crossroads

President Marcos Jr.’s 2025 address was steady and informative. It gave the impression of a government at work, a government trying to correct what it can. But no amount of presidential will can overcome a system that protects the status quo more than it enables transformation.

I do not question the sincerity of President Marcos Jr., nor do I ignore the gains his administration has made. But I do question our national reluctance to confront the truth: we cannot keep applying new paint to a house with broken foundations.

We are a country of extraordinary talent, rich natural resources, and resilient people. But we are also a country haunted by a constitution that no longer reflects our time, our realities, or our aspirations. The problem is not the President’s failure. This is our shared responsibility.

 

Closing Reflections: From Critique to Courage

As I end this reflection, I ask myself—not just as an analyst, but as a citizen and a single father—what kind of country will we leave behind?

The SONA gave us numbers, policies, and promises. But beyond those, what we need is a courageous national conversation: Are we ready to restructure our governance? Are we willing to transfer power back to the regions? Can we finally outgrow our obsession with personalities and build a nation based on programs, systems, and shared values?

Federalism is not a panacea, but it represents a start. And BARMM is our living laboratory. Let us not waste the chance to replicate its successes. Let us not wait for another crisis to push us into reform.

I commend President Marcos Jr. for trying to govern within the limits he inherited. But as a nation, we must now demand more—not just from our leaders, but from ourselves.

The next SONA should not just be a speech from the podium—it should be our collective declaration that the time for system change is now.

 _________________________________________________________________________________

*About the author:

Dr. Rodolfo “John” Ortiz Teope is a distinguished Filipino academic, public intellectual, and advocate for civic education and public safety, whose work spans local academies and international security circles. With a career rooted in teaching, research, policy, and public engagement, he bridges theory and practice by making meaningful contributions to academic discourse, civic education, and public policy. Dr. Teope is widely respected for his critical scholarship in education, management, economics, doctrine development, and public safety; his grassroots involvement in government and non-government organizations; his influential media presence promoting democratic values and civic consciousness; and his ethical leadership grounded in Filipino nationalism and public service. As a true public intellectual, he exemplifies how research, advocacy, governance, and education can work together in pursuit of the nation’s moral and civic mission

Resilience Revisited: The Hidden Costs of Being Happy in the Filipino Spirit

*Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, Ph.D, EdD, DM, DES

We often hear it said: Filipinos are among the toughest people on Earth. We can laugh when things are at their worst, find humor in the most dire situations, and still manage a smile when everything goes wrong. It's true. Even though we live in one of the most disaster-prone countries with constant economic struggles, we were once named among the happiest nations by TIME Magazine and other international news agencies. You've seen the photos: people affected by floods, smiling as they wade through chest-deep water, or sharing a beer amidst their destroyed homes. We admire this "cheerful disobedience," even romanticize it. But for a long time now, I've been asking myself, what are we really going through?

Back in 2009, I wrote an essay, “My Mindset Thru My Mindscape,” about being able to feel both happiness and pain at the same time. Then, I was looking at it as a scholar, a social observer. But my views have changed a lot over the years. My work as an educator with multiple doctorates, a public servant, an international development official, and an advocate for mental health and national transformation has given me a different perspective.

My own life shows this struggle between strength and hidden pain. I didn't grow up rich, but our family cannot be considered poor, having a retired general-ranked father and a businesswoman mother. My early years were shaped by instability, rejection, and bullying. Constantly changing elementary schools meant many kids either didn't understand me or made fun of me. But I chose to rise above my circumstances, not give in. With the help of my education, my faith, and a purpose bigger than myself, I pushed forward. I started as a student activist and a community organizer and became an educator, a municipal councilor, a radical media commentator, a national policymaker, a political strategist, intelligence analyst, a public safety specialist, and eventually an academic leader. Each step not only proved my resilience but also forced me to face the suffering I had buried for so long.

As I served our communities, I saw the same patterns in our people. The tiis (endurance), kimkim (suppression), and pagpapanggap na masaya (pretending to be joyful) I experienced, I found echoing in the communities I worked with. Even if it's part of our culture, this cheerful mask takes a toll.

At wakes, grief is often turned into laughter. Broken hearts are drowned out by videoke. "Bahala na" becomes an easy "don't worry about it." Children who've lived through floods and wars are told to "be brave," but rarely taught how to deal with their emotions. Women are more likely to stay silent in the face of abuse, men choose to drink away their shame, and older folks only speak in metaphors when discussing loss. When someone finally breaks down and hurts others, society calls it "madness," not "accumulated silence."

Working as a policy consultant for national government agencies and organizations, and later as a presidential consultant and special envoy, I saw countless times how people tried to hide their mental and emotional struggles behind a brave front. Poverty isn't just about not having enough money; it's also the exhaustion of trying to keep smiling through intense stress, unhealed trauma, and deep social inequality.

And there's even a language for this internalization. Words like dalamhati (deep anguish), bangungot (fatal nightmares), and nerbyos (nervous breakdowns) are uniquely Filipino and show just how much we try to hide our feelings. Not talking about your loss can even lead to physical symptoms like fatigue, insomnia, and stomach pain. Doctors might call it "functional illness," but in reality, it's emotional weight showing itself physically.

It's crucial that we stop creating this perception of silent suffering.

I want to see more comprehensive public policies that connect mental health, poverty, and violence. I've studied law enforcement at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and helped shape our national peace and order frameworks. I developed PROSAFE in 2001 (Promotion of Safety Against Fire Emergencies), the SET Approach in 2003 (Scanning the Environment Tool Approach, foundational for public safety doctrines and police procedures), and in March 2022, ADORE (Anti-Drugs Operation through Reinforcement and Education), my plan to end illegal drug use through the 8 E’s, which the President praised in his 2024 State of the Nation Address. The core idea behind this approach is that healing starts in the mind, not just on the streets—and more frameworks in my brain are still in progress.

We need to redefine "real resilience." It doesn't mean pretending everything is okay or smiling despite your misery. True resilience is about facing suffering, being honest about your sorrow, grieving authentically, and then getting back up again—not with a fake smile, but with genuine strength.

Our government needs to offer more than just financial aid. They should help people recover from trauma, get therapy, feel proud of their culture, and regain their dignity. Our nation needs leaders who understand that public policy must touch both the mind and the heart. And we need educators who don't just teach kids to pass tests but also how to cope with loss, worry, and uncertainty in a way that builds emotional resilience.

As a policy consultant of public and private institutions as well as president of an international university based in Delaware, USA, and director-general of an international non-profit organization for sustainable development supported by the United Nations, I'm committed to bringing about these fundamental shifts in human development, education, government, and international policy. I firmly believe that a progressive, responsible, and organized democracy can emerge when individuals receive not just sustenance but also hearing and healing. This can happen.

I believe that every Filipino has the same potential to find their voice and change their path, just as I, a shy and timid child from a complicated home, found mine.

It is essential that we ensure the next generation understands that it is acceptable to express their emotions, engage in conversation, and seek assistance. True strength doesn't originate from toughness but rather from the process of healing. Being tough doesn't necessarily make you stronger. Healing does. We have the power to turn our suffering into purpose.

And only when we learn to confront our buried scars will the smile on a Filipino's face truly be complete. It won't be a mask; it will be a reflection of our authentic, winning spirit.

________________________________________________________________________________

*About the author:

Dr. Rodolfo “John” Ortiz Teope is a distinguished Filipino academic, public intellectual, and advocate for civic education and public safety, whose work spans local academies and international security circles. With a career rooted in teaching, research, policy, and public engagement, he bridges theory and practice by making meaningful contributions to academic discourse, civic education, and public policy. Dr. Teope is widely respected for his critical scholarship in education, management, economics, doctrine development, and public safety; his grassroots involvement in government and non-government organizations; his influential media presence promoting democratic values and civic consciousness; and his ethical leadership grounded in Filipino nationalism and public service. As a true public intellectual, he exemplifies how research, advocacy, governance, and education can work together in pursuit of the nation’s moral and civic mission

My Ample Reflection on the Thailand–Cambodia Conflict: Lessons the Philippines Must Learn in Defending the West Philippine Sea

*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD

When I started teaching Research and Doctrine Development at the Philippine Public Safety College in 1999, I, a very boyish-looking educator, never imagined that border conflicts—especially those occurring far from our shores—would profoundly shape my understanding of national sovereignty. The events unfolding between Thailand and Cambodia over their border dispute may seem geographically and politically distant from the Philippines, but as I watch the ongoing tensions in the West Philippine Sea, the parallels are both instructive and urgent.

Before rummaging through these lessons, allow me to lay some groundwork. When we talk about border conflicts, we refer to disputes over the physical delineation between two or more nations—often complicated by history, politics, and differing interpretations of international treaties. When these disagreements reach waters—like our situation in the West Philippine Sea—they evolve into maritime disputes, which involve overlapping claims of sovereignty over islands, fishing grounds, and exclusive economic zones (EEZs), as defined under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). And in the modern world, one of the few peaceful tools smaller nations like ours have in these disputes is arbitration—a legal mechanism where an international tribunal issues a binding ruling, such as the 2016 Hague decision, which invalidated China’s sweeping claims in our waters.

Now, the Thailand–Cambodia conflict is primarily land-based, revolving around areas like the Preah Vihear Temple, whose ownership was muddied by colonial cartography and later decisions by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Yet what resonates with me is not just the geography but the human behavior, the political miscalculations, and the institutional weaknesses that led a manageable disagreement into armed confrontation.

As a dedicated advocate of public safety, peacebuilding, and internationalism as the highest form of nationalism, I see a mirror image in the Philippines’ struggle in the West Philippine Sea. We, too, face a larger, more powerful neighbor. We, too, have turned to legal mechanisms—our landmark arbitration victory in 2016—only to face rejection by China and ambivalence from many in the international community. What valuable insights can we gain from the experiences of our neighbors?

Lesson One: Legal Clarity is Non-Negotiable

Upon studying the Thai-Cambodian case, the first thing that struck me was the potential consequences of ambiguous or politically manipulated historical documents. Despite the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling in 1962 favoring Cambodia’s sovereignty over Preah Vihear temple, the court did not settle the territorial status of the surrounding lands. The result? Ten years of simmering mistrust culminated in conflicts, leading to the reassertion of the ruling in 2013 and its subsequent contestation in 2025.

In our case, we must treat the 2016 Arbitral Tribunal ruling under the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) not merely as a trophy of legal victory, but as a cornerstone of enduring national policy. It defines our maritime entitlements and delegitimizes China’s expansive and historically unsound “nine-dash line.” However, I have advised numerous young scholars, police officers, and policy students that failing to assert a ruling is a waste. Cambodia upheld the legal clarity of its ICJ victory until it achieved both verbal and practical recognition. Likewise, the Philippines must integrate the arbitral ruling into every level of statecraft—from bilateral engagements to UN speeches to educational curricula. Our laws, media narratives, and even community-level awareness must reflect this clarity.

Clarity must not be confused with rigidity. We must defend our claims without becoming diplomatically immovable. We should remain open to collaborative arrangements on resources or scientific research—but these must always proceed from the baseline of our legal victory. As history shows, clarity in claim allows flexibility in cooperation. Ambiguity breeds conflict.

Lesson Two: Guard Against Nationalism Turning into Demagoguery

I have seen how nationalism, when anchored in dignity and truth, is a source of strength. But I’ve also seen how, when weaponized by politicians or media, it becomes a reckless force.

In the Thailand–Cambodia conflict, nationalism became a convenient tool for political survival. Leaders in both countries, especially when facing domestic unrest or electoral instability, revived historical grievances to rally support. What followed were armed skirmishes, border closures, and widespread displacement—all in the name of patriotic assertion.

In the Philippines, we follow a similar path. Chinese incursions justify our collective outrage, particularly when they ram our coast guards or harass our fishermen in their ancestral waters. But as an international diplomacy researcher, I’ve seen how unfiltered rhetoric can backfire. Public statements that provoke rather than persuade can trap us in a cycle of escalation. Foreign policy must be grounded in strategic nationalism—not performative outrage.

We must also be wary of political actors who use sovereignty issues to distract from governance failures. True patriotism involves supporting our military and fisherfolk not just through words, but by strengthening our maritime capabilities, our legal diplomacy, and public awareness. Our leaders must rise above using nationalism as fuel for popularity and instead wield it as a compass for prudent, long-term action.

Lesson Three: ASEAN Must Grow Up

The impotence of ASEAN during the Thai–Cambodian conflict was one of the most disappointing revelations in my research. Despite its mechanisms—like the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, the ASEAN Regional Forum, and the High Council—ASEAN failed to mediate effectively. The principle of "non-interference" resulted in paralysis for ASEAN's ability to act.

In our context, this notion is dangerously relevant. ASEAN’s muted response to China’s aggressive behavior in the West Philippine Sea is not just disappointing—it weakens regional solidarity. The Philippines must be bold enough to lead—not by issuing ultimatums, but by pushing for institutional reforms.

We should champion a “Code of Conduct with Consequences” in the South China Sea, strengthen the ASEAN Secretariat’s authority to mediate maritime conflicts, and encourage Track 1.5 and Track 2 dialogues that allow experts and civil society to keep communication channels open when diplomacy stalls. In an era of transnational threats—climate change, terrorism, illegal fishing—ASEAN cannot afford to be merely ceremonial. Today, functional institutions, not just flags, defend sovereignty by speaking and acting when one of their own is in danger.

Lesson Four: Civilian Presence is Power

One of the more constructive developments in the Thai–Cambodian border standoff was the effort to build peace from the ground up: joint cultural programs, shared markets, Buddhist pilgrimage access, and community-level patrols helped cool tempers—until politics got in the way.

In the Philippines, particularly in the Kalayaan Island Group and Scarborough Shoal, we have an opportunity to assert presence beyond military deployments. Civilian infrastructure—such as schools, renewable energy sites, marine research centers, and even artist residencies—can strengthen our claim. The law recognizes effective occupation, and nothing is more effective than life itself. Where there is family, there is sovereignty.

We should also consider governance based on ecosystems. Empower local fisherfolk cooperatives, encourage scientists to map coral habitats, and let the islands be learning hubs for our youth. The presence of a child in a classroom in Kalayaan sends a stronger message to the international community than a gunboat. Soft presence, if done wisely, can be a challenging claim.

Lesson Five: Human Security is National Security

The Cambodian conflict displaced over 150,000 civilians. Homes were bombarded, schools shuttered, and lives upended. And yet, many analysts gloss over those events in favor of geopolitical narratives.

In our case, we often speak of the West Philippine Sea in legal or military terms—but forget the people most affected. Filipino fisherfolk in Masinloc, Palawan, and Pangasinan face daily intimidation. Their boats are boarded. Their livelihoods are choked. Some have even quit fishing altogether, migrating to urban slums or informal jobs.

Human security must be at the heart of maritime policy. We need localized emergency protocols for harassment incidents, fuel subsidies for distant fishing trips, cooperatives that can collectively bargain or ship catch, and a maritime social safety net. We also need to integrate maritime awareness into public education so young Filipinos grow up understanding both their rights and responsibilities in defending our marine wealth.

If we cannot protect our people, we cannot protect our territory. The map may say “Philippines,” but only when our people thrive in those waters do we truly own them.

Lesson Six: Coalitions Are Crucial

Cambodia, for all its legal strength, struggled because it lacked robust allies. Thailand, with a more diversified global portfolio, could leverage economic and political alliances to its advantage.

The Philippines enjoys a strategic edge in this regard. Several key democracies, including Japan, Australia, the United States, and increasingly the European Union, align with us. The Quad and other Indo-Pacific platforms offer support not just militarily but diplomatically and economically. These coalitions can help amplify our legal narrative and push back against coercion.

But our partnerships must be principled. We cannot trade the 2016 ruling for promises of aid or temporary protection. Our allies must respect and reinforce our legal foundations. Additionally, we must expand coalition-building beyond governments: academic exchanges, joint university research on maritime law, civil society dialogues, and diaspora lobbying are equally powerful

I often tell my former Public Safety Directorial Staff Course students in a Viber group that their greatest ally is not always a navy; it might instead be a foreign non-government organization that cites their cause or a documentary that garners international empathy. Coalitions built on truth, law, and trust will outlast those built on weapons alone.

Conclusion: A Call to Collective Reflection

As I reflect on these lessons, I am reminded that conflict is never inevitable. It is made—or avoided—by the decisions of leaders, the strength of institutions, and the vigilance of citizens. The Thailand–Cambodia border conflict may seem like a distant matter, but its implications echo loudly for us in the Philippines, especially as we confront our own maritime challenges in the West Philippine Sea.

We cannot afford to wait for another flashpoint or allow history to repeat itself due to inaction. We must strengthen our legal position, support our citizens, reform ASEAN, and build national unity—not through emotional outrage or performative rhetoric, but through thoughtful, strategic patriotism grounded in truth and law.

More importantly, we must prepare our next generation of leaders, scholars, and diplomats to understand these conflicts not just as matters of statecraft but as human stories—stories of communities disrupted, laws tested, and ideals defended under pressure. These are not distant narratives; they are blueprints for future peace and justice.

In educational forums, I often emphasize that sovereignty is not about dominance, but rather about uncovering the underlying truth and conveying the enduring narrative of legitimacy and resilience.

Let us stand on that truth. Let us assert it with dignity. And let us defend our seas not only for today, but for every Filipino child who will one day cast a fishing line into those waters, believing—rightfully—that they are home, protected by both history and the conscience of a vigilant nation.

 

References

 • ASEAN Briefing. (2025, July 26). Thailand–Cambodia Border Clashes: Causes, Escalation, and ASEAN Impact.

 • Crisis Group. (2011, December 6). Waging Peace: ASEAN and the Thai–Cambodian Border Conflict. Crisis Group Asia Briefing.

 • E-IR. (2025, July 4). Sovereignty Performed, Regionalism Denied: What the Thai–Cambodian Clash Reveals.

 • Emmers, R. (2003). Maritime Security and the South China Sea: Strategic Rationale, Interests and Approaches. Journal of Contemporary Asia.

 • RSIS. (2025). CO11021: Thai–Cambodian Skirmishes: Endangering ASEAN’s Raison d’être? RSIS Republic of Singapore.

 • Setyawati, D., & Nurulita, A. (2025). The Role of ASEAN in Dispute Resolution between Thailand and Cambodia. ILDISEA, Univ. Negeri Semarang.

 • The Guardian. (2025, July 26). Cambodia and Thailand Continue Fighting Despite Trump Claim of Ceasefire Talks.

 • Time. (2025, June–July). What to Know About the Thailand–Cambodia Border Dispute.

_________________________________________________________________________________

*About the author:

Dr. Rodolfo “John” Ortiz Teope is a distinguished Filipino academic, public intellectual, and advocate for civic education and public safety, whose work spans local academies and international security circles. With a career rooted in teaching, research, policy, and public engagement, he bridges theory and practice by making meaningful contributions to academic discourse, civic education, and public policy. Dr. Teope is widely respected for his critical scholarship in education, management, economics, doctrine development, and public safety; his grassroots involvement in government and non-government organizations; his influential media presence promoting democratic values and civic consciousness; and his ethical leadership grounded in Filipino nationalism and public service. As a true public intellectual, he exemplifies how research, advocacy, governance, and education can work together in pursuit of the nation’s moral and civic mission

The Real Cost of a Deal: What You Need to Know About the Tariff Agreement Between the US and the Philippines

*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD

Let me start my post by talking about a simple but significant word: tariff.

A tariff is a levy that you have to pay when you buy or sell products from another country. Think about getting a car from another country. If your government charges a 20% tariff, the car will cost 20% more. Tariffs make it more expensive to buy goods from other countries, which helps local businesses. But they can also produce problems between governments, especially when one side thinks it's paying more than the other.

So, what does this mean?

In July 2025, President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. met with U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington to conclude a trade deal. Under the deal, Philippine commodities sent to the U.S. would be taxed at 19%, while U.S. goods sent to the Philippines would not be taxed at all. It's not just about money. It's about independence, strategy, and how we plan for the future of our country.

What the Philippines Could Gain

Let's start with the positive news. As a Filipino professor and policy researcher, I see a few clear benefits.

1. Filipinos can buy U.S. goods for less.

When there are no taxes on U.S. goods, pharmaceuticals, agricultural inputs like wheat and soy, and even machines and cars cost less. This is a nice comfort for Filipino families who are having trouble with inflation (Reuters, 2025). Hospitals might get medical equipment for less money, while farmers may save money on feed and fertilizers.

2. Aligning strategically with a global power

This deal makes the Philippines' relationship with the United States stronger. Being considered as a trustworthy U.S. partner in the Asia-Pacific area, which is getting more hostile, might have military, economic, and diplomatic benefits (Channel NewsAsia, 2025). President Marcos said it was a "victory for stability," which shows that the Philippines is willing to work with other countries.

3. A Small Edge Over Neighbors in the Region

Vietnam and Indonesia are said to have agreed to a 20% tariff on the same grounds. The Philippines seems more competitive with a 19% rate, notably in areas like electronics and business process outsourcing (Asean Briefing, 2025). Some of our tech-related exports are completely free from the tariff because of agreements made by the World Trade Organization.

4. Chance for new investment

As American businesses try to move their supply chains away from China, the Philippines may gain from being perceived as a stable, tariff-friendly option. If we do things right, like putting money into infrastructure and cutting down on red tape, this pact might lead to factories, jobs, and centers for innovation.

But there are real costs as well.

But we can't ignore what this deal also takes away.

1. Tariffs of 19% make Filipino goods less competitive.

Our clothes, seafood, coconut products, and many other agricultural exports now have a hard time getting into the U.S. market. That 19% price rise could make American buyers look for cheaper solutions in foreign countries. This will have an immediate effect on exporters (South China Morning Post, 2025).

2. Local businesses can be pushed out

If there were no taxes on U.S. imports, our marketplaces could be flooded with items from other countries. Local manufacturers, who are already having a hard time, might not be able to compete. Think about how a small car parts store in Laguna can lose business to cheaper, tax-free imports from Detroit or Texas. These firms might have to close or cut back if they don't get help.

3. The trade gap could get bigger.

When a country purchases more than it exports, it has a trade imbalance. Because of this contract, the Philippines might acquire more from the U.S. than it can sell back. That mismatch can have an effect on our money, employment growth, and the long-term health of our economy (Reuters, 2025).

4. The terms of the deal seem unfair.

A lot of observers say that we gave up too much and got too little in return. The U.S. put a 19% tariff on goods, but we got rid of ours completely. It's like giving up a whole meal for a short snack. Marcos was happy with the deal, but others say it was "one-sided diplomacy" (Channel NewsAsia, 2025).

What Can Be Done?

This is only the start, not the end. Like tools, trade treaties are only as good as the way we use them.

First, we need to provide our exporters money, training, and new ideas to help them compete even when there are tariffs.

Second, the government should help industries that are affected by the changes, such as local automakers, agri-processors, and small manufacturers.

Third, let's put money into infrastructure and digitization so that we can satisfy the growing demands of trade more quickly.

Finally, we need to open up new markets for our exports. We need strong ties with ASEAN, Japan, India, and the EU in case the U.S. becomes too expensive or unstable. 

A Personal Reflection

As a Filipino educator, I think that economic diplomacy is a tricky and strategic skill that needs both bravery and caution. We might not be the most powerful country in the world, but we are proud, smart, and full of talent and potential. We shouldn't just accept deals that put us at a disadvantage, though. Instead, it implies that we need to negotiate with dignity—firm but fair, ambitious but realistic, visionary but always practical.

This new tariff agreement isn't a failure; it's a wake-up call. It means that we can't depend on old alliances or courteous handshakes to shape our economic future anymore. People may cheer when we sign agreements in other countries, but the actual work starts at home: in our schools, factories, farms, ports, and innovation centers. You don't guarantee progress; you prepare for it.

Don't let this moment be characterized by naive jubilation, as if headlines alone can sustain a population. Instead, let it be a call to action: to put money into our industries, protect our workers, give our exporters more power, and build a country that can compete not by making deals, but by being smart and creative. Those who prepare with purpose, not those who are the strongest, will own the future.

 

References

Asean Briefing. (2025, July 24). Inside the Philippines–U.S. trade deal: Zero tariffs for America, 19% for Manila. Retrieved from https://www.aseanbriefing.com

Channel NewsAsia. (2025, July 23). Marcos–Trump tariff deal: Who wins, who loses? Retrieved from https://www.channelnewsasia.com

Reuters. (2025, July 22). Trump says US, Philippines ‘very close’ to finalizing trade deal. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com

South China Morning Post. (2025). Philippines gets the short end of the tariff stick? Retrieved from https://www.scmp.com

_________________________________________________________________________________

*About the author:

Dr. Rodolfo “John” Ortiz Teope is a distinguished Filipino academic, public intellectual, and advocate for civic education and public safety, whose work spans local academies and international security circles. With a career rooted in teaching, research, policy, and public engagement, he bridges theory and practice by making meaningful contributions to academic discourse, civic education, and public policy. Dr. Teope is widely respected for his critical scholarship in education, management, economics, doctrine development, and public safety; his grassroots involvement in government and non-government organizations; his influential media presence promoting democratic values and civic consciousness; and his ethical leadership grounded in Filipino nationalism and public service. As a true public intellectual, he exemplifies how research, advocacy, governance, and education can work together in pursuit of the nation’s moral and civic mission