By Liu Chang
At the 2026 Shangri-La Dialogue held in Singapore on May 31, Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro responded to a question from a Chinese scholar regarding the Philippines' repeated actions that run counter to the spirit of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC). Instead of addressing the question, he shifted the discussion to the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea (COC) and, in an emotional outburst, went so far as to claim that ASEAN does not need the COC. After more than six minutes of rambling remarks, the moderator had to interrupt his speech.
Teodoro's performance can be described as a desperate attempt to justify the unjustifiable. His series of arguments, made after apparently losing his composure, contained at least four major flaws.
First, on "respect for the rule of law," lofty rhetoric masks self-interest. Teodoro claimed that the Philippines "respects" the rule of law and favors resolving disputes through peaceful means. Yet Manila's actions tell a very different story.
In recent years, Philippine government vessels and aircraft have repeatedly intruded into waters adjacent to China's islands and reefs, including Huangyan Dao, Houteng Jiao, Tiexian Jiao and Xianbin Jiao in the South China Sea. Meanwhile, the Philippine military vessel BRP Sierra Madre has remained illegally "grounded" at Ren'ai Jiao for years.
The Philippines has continued to provoke incidents in the South China Sea, deliberately creating confrontations with Chinese vessels and personnel conducting legitimate law-enforcement and rights-protection operations.
Such actions seriously violate the provisions of the DOC and undermine peace and stability in the South China Sea. Waving the banner of the rule of law while engaging in unlawful acts is the very definition of hypocrisy. No amount of sophistry can conceal such double standards.
Second, on the claim that the COC is unnecessary, it is not the COC they oppose, but the constraints it would impose. Teodoro falsely argued that there is no need for the COC given the existence of such fundamental legal instruments as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the United Nations Charter.
This argument runs counter to basic principles of international law. The COC does not conflict with existing international legal frameworks. Rather, it is intended to address specific issues in the South China Sea in accordance with the principles and spirit of UNCLOS and the UN Charter. At the same time, UNCLOS and the UN Charter themselves are complemented and reinforced by other international legal instruments and arrangements.
Teodoro's remarks expose either a lack of understanding of international law or a deliberate distortion of it. More plainly, it is not that the Philippines does not need the COC; rather, it fears that once the COC is concluded and implemented, there will be far less room for Manila to maneuver through its provocations and unilateral actions in the South China Sea.
Third, on the claim that ASEAN does not need the COC, the Philippines neither represents ASEAN nor has any mandate to speak for it. Teodoro asserted that ASEAN members trust one another and therefore do not need the COC. Such a claim is a clear case of speaking on behalf of others without authority.
The formulation of the COC is an important consensus reached by China and ASEAN countries. In recent years, leaders of multiple ASEAN member states have repeatedly expressed support for accelerating consultations and concluding the COC at an early date.
What makes Teodoro's remarks even more ironic is that Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. stated after attending the ASEAN Summit in early May that all parties were hopeful of finalizing the COC within the year.
If Teodoro's remarks were made with Marcos's authorization, then Manila's actual position on the COC appears to shift at will and is clearly inconsistent with its public commitments, raising serious questions about its political credibility.
If, on the other hand, Teodoro spoke without authorization, then the Philippines owes the international community an explanation: on issues concerning the South China Sea, who truly speaks for Philippine foreign policy, the president or the defense secretary?
Fourth, on the so-called "South China Sea arbitration," it is a null and void ruling that belongs in the dustbin of history. Teodoro falsely claimed that tensions at sea stem from China's failure to comply with the so-called "South China Sea arbitration award." By once again resurrecting the unlawful ruling, Teodoro sought to cover up the Philippines' infringements and continue smearing China on the international stage.
In reality, the arbitration lacks both factual and legal basis. From the very beginning, it has been null and void and has done nothing to help maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea. China's position of not accepting and not participating in the arbitration has been consistent, clear and unequivocal.
As time has passed, the negative impact of the illegal arbitration on the South China Sea and the broader region has become increasingly evident. The Philippines' intention to use the arbitration as a pretext for provocation has become ever more apparent, while more and more people have come to recognize the damage such an illegal ruling has done to the international rule of law.
Notably, when Teodoro was repeating his accusations regarding the arbitration issue, the moderator of the Dialogue interrupted him. Such a public silencing at an international forum may well have been the clearest response to his claims.
More interestingly, a video released by Philippine media showed that on May 30, Teodoro led the Philippine delegation out of the Shangri-La Hotel through a route passing the kitchen at the Shangri-La Hotel, apparently to avoid routine questions from Chinese journalists.
A country's defense secretary who lacks the confidence to face reporters' questions, yet feels free to make groundless accusations against China at the Shangri-La Dialogue, has revealed much through such behavior.
This contrast between tough rhetoric in public and evasiveness in practice speaks for itself. After all, genuine confidence and meaningful dialogue never require a detour through the back door.
(The author is deputy director and associate research fellow of the Department for Asia-Pacific Studies, China Institute of International Studies)
Editor's note: Originally published on china.com.cn, this article is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.