THE latest bombshell to come out of the Senate halls was the filing by Sen. Erwin Tulfo of Senate Resolution 739, particularly reacting to a statement by Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines Jing Quan: “If we want to use force, we may easily win. But no, we will not use force. And we love peace.”
The remarks were made by the Chinese envoy in a speech before the “Second Diliman Dialogues, Southeast Asian Voices On the Asean-China Relations” on Oct. 15, 2026. A check of the text of Jing’s speech revealed that the controversial statement was not part of it. Rather, it was reportedly given to reporters in a succeeding media forum.
Be that as it may, opportunities like that are never to be missed by elements ever seeking media grandstanding mileage.
Indications are that Senator Tulfo has had his day, given that Sen. Risa Hontiveros has joined the fray, contributing her own mouthful. Ditto with no less than President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. suggesting that it was a simple case of wrong choice of words.
What substitute for “war” could Ambassador Jing have used instead?
Actual war was the context of the ambassador’s statement. No other usage would seem fit.
In his speech proper, Jing had not been mincing words in this respect.
Senator Tulfo condemned the statement as a thinly veiled threat of military action that directly undermines Philippine sovereignty and national dignity. In his resolution, he expressed “serious concern” over the suggestion of a potential use of force.
In such respect, Jing stressed in his speech:
“My overriding impression is that China-Philippines relations have reached an extremely sensitive and critical juncture, one that calls for prudence and careful handling. One of the most important considerations, in my view, is the need to adopt a differentiated approach — addressing issues at different levels and across different areas, and handling each matter on its own merits.”
These are radical ideas of solving disputes, ones nobody would recommend without risking the outbreak of hostilities between the contending parties, who would not depart from old traditional modes.
The ambassador did sound consistent in his belligerent stand on the issues he raised in his speech.
“I believe that China-Philippines relations cannot be reduced to a simplistic judgment of being ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ One may observe that while maritime disputes have cast a shadow over the general atmosphere of bilateral relations, trade and people-to-people exchanges remain strong. Similarly, law enforcement cooperation between the two countries may be proceeding well in certain areas, while the selective enforcement of laws against Chinese nationals raises serious concerns in others. The anti-China forces act in despicable ways, yet the Philippine people at large are kind and honest.”
Note that while Jing seems to advocate non-belligerence toward the Filipino people, he nonetheless asserts that there are the “anti-China forces” who act in “despicable ways” and must be dealt with accordingly — what else but war, indeed?
“China-Philippines relations,” he elaborates, are in essence “a complex and multifaceted relationship. They cannot be approached through sweeping generalizations or one-size-fits-all decisions. Instead, we need to adopt a more nuanced and calibrated approach, assessing each issue in its own context and formulating responses accordingly. Otherwise, we risk falling into a vicious cycle of reciprocal countermeasures and retaliation. Such a downward spiral would only play into the hands of the forces seeking to undermine China-Philippines relations.”
So again, Jing’s words segue to a combative stance, as he unavoidably cites for the umpteenth time the “hands of the forces that seek to undermine China-Philippines relations.”
This is the aspect of the statement of Ambassador Jing which Senator Tulfo ascribes with belligerent motives. None like it in the entirety of the questioned speech.
“In managing China-Philippines relations, it is therefore essential to pursue differentiated strategies for different issues.
“Take the maritime issue for example. It is widely regarded internationally as one of the most intractable disputes, one that could remain unresolved for decades, or even a century or more. China has maritime disputes not only with the Philippines, but also with Vietnam, Malaysia and other countries. Yet these disputes have, by and large, been effectively managed through dialogue and consultation. Our approach is what we call ‘shelving disputes and pursuing joint development.’”
If readers would recall, the Philippines was in a similar setup with the joint oil exploration project with China on Recto Bank. China’s deal was that it would shoulder all expenses, with proceeds shared 50-50. For reasons only he knew, then-Foreign Affairs secretary Teddy Boy Locsin insisted on a 60-40 sharing in favor of the Philippines. His logic was that it was required by the Philippines’ Constitution on deals made by the Philippine government with foreign ones. And yet that was the precise point of conflict: Neither the Philippines nor China could yet lay legal claim to Recto Bank. So “set aside disputes and pursue joint development.”
Evidently, with Locsin being parroted as an “Amboy,” he stood the ground of “the hands that seek to undermine China-Philippines relations.”
And China wouldn’t take that.
Unless there occurs a radical change of Philippine decision-making power, the Philippines will stay at the cellar of Asean members benefiting from China’s generosity.
“The Philippines, too, has maritime disputes with Vietnam and Malaysia, yet these have not become as prominent or contentious as those with China.
“When it comes to managing maritime disputes, the most important thing is for both sides to maintain a safe distance and avoid accidental incidents. In particular, deliberate provocations should be avoided, neither should manufacture incidents, sensationalize or hype up confrontations, or take actions that could escalate tensions.”
So, war threat was never in the agenda of Jing’s Second Diliman Dialogues speech. Quite the contrary, the speech teemed with citations of many efforts meant for resuming the golden era of China-Philippines relations, the first Marcos reign.
“On dialogue and engagement, China and the Philippines have resumed political dialogue and held five rounds of talks. In July, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi attended the China-Asean Foreign Ministers’ Meetings in the Philippines, after which he held in-depth discussions with his Philippine counterpart Ma. Theresa Lazaro. Visits by delegations from China’s National Health Commission, Ministry of Public Security and Ministry of National Defense are scheduled.
“On the Philippine side, the secretaries of agriculture and trade and industry, along with a number of local officials, have visited China. In November, the Philippines will host the Asean Summit and related summits, while China will host the APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting in Shenzhen. We should build on this positive momentum, continue to move toward each other, and sustain dialogue and exchanges. The more we engage with each other, the better we understand each other. Without engagement, relations will only grow colder and deteriorate further.
“On trade and investment, China has been the Philippines’ largest trading partner and biggest source of imports for 10 consecutive years. In the first half of this year, bilateral trade reached $44.52 billion, up about 20 percent year on year. Yet it accounted for less than 7 percent of China-Asean trade, leaving plenty of room for growth.
“Recently, the Philippines sent a 313-member national delegation to the China-Asean Expo as the guest country of honor. Preliminary sales reached $60 million, a record high for the Philippines at the Expo.”
