BEFORE the headline topic, some comments on the word war between Chinese and Philippine officials, including our senators and security brass, since mid-January over alleged “smearing” of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s “dignity” by Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) Commo. Jay Tarriela, PCG spokesman for the West Philippine Sea.
Citing Tarriela’s statements and his use of apparently altered Xi images in a recent dialogue with college students, the Chinese Embassy said the outspoken PCG officer “crossed the line” in “slandering” Xi.
Beijing then summoned Philippine Ambassador Jaime FlorCruz to lodge a diplomatic protest. The embassy also pointedly asked if Tarriela’s remarks were official Philippine government positions, while stressing “no one wants to silence him [and] no one should be silenced.”
Backing Tarriela, senators joined the fray, with Risa Hontiveros calling for Chinese Ambassador Jing Quan to be declared “persona non grata” and Senate President Vicente Sotto III wanting the same done to deputy embassy spokesman Guo Wei. Fifteen of the 24 senators signed a resolution against Chinese Embassy statements.
On Jan. 26, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) finally spoke, “affirming support for our local officials to perform their lawful duties in defense of Philippine sovereignty. Their views as well as those of disagreeing voices are an inescapable part of the robust plurality of ideas that animate our democratic society.” In sum, let all sides speak.
The DFA also highlighted “the need for sober, professional and respectful exchanges in the public sphere... circumspection in language and action are necessary so that the exchanges between the two sides, especially in the public domain, do not and will not unnecessarily derail the diplomatic space needed to manage the tensions in the maritime domain.” In short, let’s cool it.
That may hopefully begin easing the controversy. Yet what may prove crucial yet go utterly unnoticed is the silence of the United States in the whole brouhaha — so different from Washington’s instant retorts to Beijing during past frictions with US allies under the previous Biden administration.
No statements this time from the US Embassy, where Biden-era ambassador MaryKay Carlson ended her three-year stint just when the current controversy over Tarriela ignited. The embassy is awaiting the arrival of Ambassador-designate Lee Lipton, yet to be confirmed by the US Congress.
Similarly, Washington has not publicly endorsed Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s pledge to defend Taiwan if China invades — which then-US president Joe Biden also promised three times, though quickly walked back by the White House. Now, under President Donald Trump, American officials instead called for peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, prompting critics in Japan to say Washington was too quiet.
Actually, in keeping silent amid China’s latest tiffs with Japan and the Philippines, Trump’s America is speaking loud and clear: It does not want conflict in Asia. Indeed, the new National Security Strategy released by the White House last November said the US would focus on securing the Americas rather than challenging mega powers like Russia and China in their regions.
With that new US regional security stance, Philippine officials used to or supportive of Biden’s anti-China policies may wish to review their approach and take their cue from the DFA, as they should have always done so. And this prudence is even more necessary in view of the changing geopolitical and military balance between the West and the Eurasian powers of Russia and China, as we shall discuss next week.
CBCP: ‘Were open to dialogue’ with Marcos
Turning to the headline topic, Lipa Archbishop Gilbert Garcera, president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), was asked by this writer at the Jan. 26 press conference of the 131st CBCP Plenary Assembly if the prelates were willing to talk with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. (As Arroyo-era Cabinet secretary, I had arranged her meetings with bishops and conducted dialogue with the CBCP).
“We are open to dialogue, not monologue,” replied Archbishop Garcera, who took over as CBCP president at the start of the current liturgical year on Nov. 30. “Communication and conversation are important because having no communication is very difficult.”
Garcera said due to his hectic schedule since assuming the CBCP presidency, he had not met with government officials, though there were requests. Asked what issues may be discussed with Malacañang, the archbishop replied: “We are open to anything, especially if it will be for the good of the Filipino people.”
This may be a different tack from that of the previous CBCP president, Kalookan Bishop Pablo Virgilio Cardinal David. He took strong public positions against drug-war killings under then-president Rodrigo Duterte, who openly spoke against him, and the current flood control scam under Marcos, the country’s worst corruption eruption ever.
Whether there are meetings between the president and the prelates, one CBCP initiative may indeed build bridges of dialogue and governance interaction between Church and State. At the press conference, Bishop Gerardo Alminaza of San Carlos in Negros Occidental, the new head of the Episcopal Commission on Peace, Justice and Social Action, which has been involved in anti-corruption advocacy, spoke of the Church helping monitor public works projects in collaboration with civil society.
In fact, several agencies have enhanced governance by letting citizens’ groups or councils comment on their operations, including corruption issues. Our Jan. 22 column, “Lessons from decades of public-private dialogue” (https://www.manilatimes.net/2026/01/22/opinion/columns/lessons-from-decades-of-public-private-dialogue/2262901), recounted mechanisms in the graft-ridden Bureau of Customs to empower port users in improving and automating processes and curbing graft.
Straddling the Arroyo and Aquino III administrations, several national agencies, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the Philippine National Police, the Civil Service Commission and several Cabinet departments created and regularly consulted multisectoral advisory councils. That helped enhance public trust and approval, especially for the AFP.
If and when the CBCP meets with the Palace, instituting this monitoring and dialogue between agencies and the citizenry and the Church would be good to top the agenda.
Church and State dialoguing and working together for the Filipino nation with God’s grace and guidance cannot but be good for both heaven and Earth.
