LET me begin by setting the record straight: I am not and have never considered myself a blogger. I am a scholar/academic, a columnist and a commentator, with roles that demand intellectual rigor and a deep commitment to the truth, critical inquiry and public accountability. The distinction is not a matter of vanity or status; it is central to understanding the nature and intent of my profession and preoccupation.
Yet despite this, Commo. Jay Tarriela of the Philippine Coast Guard saw fit to recklessly drag my name into what can only be described as a witch hunt during the recent House tricom hearing. In a sweeping generalization that lacked any substantiating evidence, he tagged me as one of two Filipino “bloggers” supposedly linked to an imagined disinformation network related to the South China Sea (SCS). This kind of narrative construction is dangerous, built on hearsay, sustained by presumption and driven more by political insecurity than national interest.
My writings and commentaries on the SCS dispute are public records. They are grounded in research, critical analysis and strategic reflection, not sensationalism or agenda-driven talking points. I challenge Tarriela to point to a single instance where I have propagated disinformation.
Criticism of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s administration’s confrontational, almost theatrical approach to maritime tensions in the contested waters of SCS does not constitute “fake news,” misinformation or disinformation. Rather, it is an exercise of responsible citizenship and independent thought.
Critiquing the Marcos administration’s confrontational, belligerent and combative stance in the SCS, which has arguably intensified tensions with China rather than defused them, should not be misconstrued as undermining the Philippine position or parroting Chinese propaganda/narrative. On the contrary, advocating for diplomacy, peaceful engagement and sustained dialogue with China reflects a principled and pragmatic approach rooted in internationally recognized conflict resolution and crisis management frameworks.
To frame such a position as subversive merely because it diverges from the prevailing narrative espoused by the Marcos administration and figures like Tarriela is not only intellectually dishonest but also deeply concerning. It suggests an erosion of democratic space, where alternative views are silenced or delegitimized, no matter how reasoned or rooted in global best practices. If critical engagement and calls for diplomacy are treated as disloyal or dangerous, then the democratic principles the state purports to uphold are seriously questioned.
Democracy’s bedrock
One of the bedrock principles of a democratic society is the encouragement of diverse perspectives. That includes the right to critique government policy, especially concerning matters as sensitive and consequential as national interest, peace and security, and foreign relations.
Unfortunately, we are witnessing a growing inclination among officials like Tarriela to equate dissent with fake news, disinformation or misinformation. The moment someone articulates a position that deviates from the official line, particularly if that position calls for diplomacy, restraint and multilateral dialogue, they are cast as purveyors of disinformation, if not outright traitors. This is not governance; it is paranoia and jingoism masquerading as patriotism.
Such tactics betray a deep discomfort with democratic norms. They reveal an administration more interested in dictating and consolidating narratives than confronting inconvenient truths. In the context of today’s global realities, this mindset is not only misguided but dangerously counterproductive.
A flawed strategic posture
The Marcos administration has increasingly positioned itself within the gravitational pull of major power rivalries, particularly the US-China strategic competition. Rather than pursuing an independent and neutral foreign policy that serves the national interest, the government appears to be pivoting toward a confrontational stance that invites risk without securing tangible strategic or economic benefits.
This posture is most evident in its handling of the SCS dispute. While asserting Philippine sovereign and maritime rights is essential, doing so under the pretext of undermining diplomatic channels has escalated tensions without yielding results. What’s more alarming is the politicization of the issue: those who call for engagement and dialogue are dismissed as “pro-China,” while hawkish rhetoric is rewarded with media mileage and perks.
Indeed, the Marcos administration’s foreign policy is increasingly defined by strategic rigidity and short-term theatrics. The handling of the SCS dispute exemplifies a posture that substitutes diplomatic nuance with dramatic escalation and replaces long-term vision with headline-chasing bravado.
Don’t get me wrong, assertiveness is essential, but assertiveness is not the same as aggression. Effective foreign policy, especially in disputes involving multiple claimant states, requires negotiation, multilateralism and strategic restraint. The administration’s failure to pursue these avenues weakens the Philippines’ position internationally and exposes the country to greater geopolitical and economic risks.
Likewise, sovereignty is not defended with slogans. It is protected through a smart, strategic foreign policy anchored in the national interest, not ideological alignment or military alliances. It requires a sober assessment of geopolitical realities, cultivating diverse partnerships and recognizing that conflict is not the only path to assertion.
Global headwinds require policy maturity
This tendency toward hardline posturing is all the more troubling given the global context. The world faces intensifying geopolitical and economic headwinds, from rising inflation and supply chain disruptions to tariff wars and protectionist trade regimes to military conflicts. In such a volatile environment, countries that thrive are those that maintain flexibility, neutrality and strategic balance.
Consider the economic dividends reaped by states that refuse to be pulled into binary power struggles. Nations that anchor their policies in neutrality and pragmatism rather than ideological allegiance or military alliance are better positioned to engage with both sides of a fractured global economy. They secure trade, attract investment and retain policy autonomy.
The Philippines, by contrast, appears to be moving in the opposite direction. Marcos’s government is hedging itself so tightly with one strategic partner that it risks alienating others and narrowing its maneuvering room. This is not strategic clarity; it is strategic myopia.
Let facts speak, not fear
In retrospect, what is truly harmful to the Philippine national interest is not dissenting views but their silencing through irresponsible and politically motivated accusations.
I urge Tarriela and others in government to read my articles, watch my interviews and reflect on the arguments I’ve consistently made on the critical and very complex issue surrounding the disputed waters of the SCS. All of it is in the public domain. What they will find is not disinformation but principled critique, one that is firmly rooted in the hope that this country can pursue a foreign policy that is wise, independent, autonomous, neutral and truly in the service of the Filipino people. Because at the end of the day, what strengthens the nation is not blind allegiance but fearless, informed discourse, something this administration would do well to embrace rather than suppress.
My call remains the same: let us elevate the discourse. Let us debate ideas, strategies and principles rather than smear those who dare to disagree. Let facts and objectivity, not fear, inform our national conversation, especially on critical issues like the SCS dispute. Ultimately, what strengthens a nation is not blind conformity but a public sphere vibrant with critical thinking and competing perspectives, ideas and visions of what is possible. That is the true test of democracy, and a test that, right now, this administration is failing.
Source: The Manila Times
https://www.manilatimes.net/2025/04/12/opinion/columns/weaponizing-dissent-tarrielas-baseless-accusations-and-marcos-misguided-foreign-policy/2091015
