The Philippines has done its part, it’s time for the West to step up in the West Philippine Sea

A June 2024 survey by OCTA Research saw 76% of Filipinos seeing China as the “greatest threat” to the Philippines. And indeed, the Philippine defense budget reflects this, with significant increases in recent years. The General Appropriations Act pegs Philippine defense spending rising from P204 billion in 2023 to P238 billion in 2024. That the defense budget is projected to expand by another 6.4% in 2025 could only be gratifying.

Yet, compare that with United States’ defense spending being 3.38% of its GDP. Singapore’s defense budget is around 2.5% of its GDP, followed by South Korea at 2%, and Japan increasing its defense budget to 1.6% (from its formerly flat spending of around 1% for the past couple of years). Philippine GDP currently P26.55 trillion, this means that the country’s defense spending share to GDP is only at 0.896% (see “The existential importance of Philippine defense spending,” Rocio Salle Gatdula, Manila Times, Sept. 15).

Although the Constitution does prioritize spending for education, nevertheless, Article II.IV does mandate that: “The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military or civil service.” So clearly more must be done.

Indeed, the government admirably undertook the upgrade in defense industry standards, modernized regulations, and established linkages through various trade and investment frameworks, signed the Arms Trade Treaty, and enacted the Strategic Trade Management Law. Yet with the upgrade of capabilities is the need for our legal framework to maintain consistency with such developments. Our rules of engagement must be responsive to our defense capabilities, ensuring not merely the upholding of human rights in relation to combatants and civilians, but also to align the Philippine response to the variety of potential political and military scenarios that could ensue.

Speaking of legal frameworks, a recent report (“Investing in Narratives: How Beijing promotes its development projects in the Philippines”) by AidData found China resorting to thousands of troll accounts, PRC-sponsored journalist training in China to socialize Filipino journalists to Beijing’s perspectives, as well as heavy reliance on mainstream and social media.

This should be enough for the government to initiate prosecution for violations of CA 616, PD 79, and the Revised Penal Code (including updating the laws on treason to cover “peacetime” scenarios). Also, prosecutions for possible violations of tax laws, media, lawyers’ ethics, and others.

Quite significant in the aforementioned report is that Chinese objectives circle around three main narratives involving development financing assistance to the Philippines: that cooperation with the People’s Republic of China is a win-win, its rise is inevitable, and Asia should be led by Asians. China’s propaganda thus emphasizes its investments, focusing on infrastructure projects and their economic benefits.

Which leads us therefore to the fact that, in the same way it is axiomatic in domestic economics that citizens vote daily with their wallets, so the same is true in international relations.

And here we see the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) announcing that it is expecting applications within the year for six expansion projects by Chinese locators valued at around P4.6 billion. Many of these are for expansion projects of existing registered business enterprises, construction, and energy. There are now reportedly 189 Chinese Registered Business Enterprises in PEZA, which have generated P47.3 billion in investment and 46,501 direct jobs.

For the Philippines, total external trade reached $17.37 billion in July, up from $16.62 billion a year earlier. Of the total, imports accounted for 64%, while exports made up the remaining 36%. This means that the Philippines had a trade deficit of $4.87 billion in July and $29.9 billion for the first seven months of the year.

Our main export market remains the United States, with $1.06 billion in goods. Japan followed with $872.43 million, then China with $791.29 million, Hong Kong with $744.82 million, and South Korea with $305.17 million.

China was the Philippines’ largest supplier of imported goods in July, with shipments valued at $3.08 billion. Indonesia followed with $947.55 million, Japan with $893.54 million, South Korea with $810.32 million, and the United States with $675.58 million.

Matters certainly are not improved when the EU, for example, would suspend a few years back our GSP (generalized system of preferences) privileges due to alleged “human rights” abuses, while not doing the commensurate acts to China (not exactly the most compliant in terms of human rights). The point is that while our allies laud the Philippines’ stand against China, declaring our common allegiance to the rule of law and the international legal order, yet it is those same countries that continue to have China as their main trading partner. This is unfortunate considering a substantial amount of their trade passes by our seas.

In the recent 60 Minutes piece on the West Philippine Sea, this exchange involving Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro occurred:

Gilbert Teodoro: If China were to take the Sierra Madre, that is a clear act of war on a Philippine vessel.

Cecilia Vega: And you would expect American intervention…

Gilbert Teodoro: And we will react. And naturally, we would expect it.

It was a good answer. But the question actually should not have been asked of Teodoro but of our American allies and the West in general.

The discussion that we should be having is not what the Philippine response is — we’ve been doing already all that we can — but rather (considering the admitted common stakes we all have involving our area in the world) is what is the West prepared to do and commit to protect our common interests and values?

Jemy Gatdula is the dean of UA&P Law, as well as a Philippine Judicial Academy law lecturer for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence.