Do we still believe in a rules

Do we still believe in a rules-based order?
By Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino
Oct 26, 2026 12:07 am

Even before the Second World War, nations realized that the only way to go was a rules-based order, that, in a way, we all had to think “within the box” — that box being international law, in the understanding that international law was not static but as evolving as the configurations of international relations evolved.

Yes, unnecessary provocation should be avoided, but why should restraint lie on our side? Were we making a unilateral claim recognized by none but the Philippines, I could very well understand the calls for tempering our claims. But that is not the case.

We are making claims that have been affirmed

We are making claims that have been affirmed by a competent tribunal as justified and legally defensible.

What alternative do we have to international law? There is talk of “pragmatism.” But what, exactly, does that require? Pragmatism without rules is subservience to the powerful and to the strong — the very antithesis of the concept of a rules-based order. Is pragmatism subservience to countries that hold economic and military clout, simply because power is in their hands? Were that so, what would stand in the way of transmuted forms of colonialism?

International law was instrumental to the process of decolonization and to the recognition that nations, though emergent, small and dependent in so many ways, were in no way any less sovereign than those with the loudest voices at negotiating tables. And while there have been egregious instances of violations of international law, it has been the language of international relations and the world order, particularly in the period following the great wars.

No, I am not in favor of compromising

So, no, I am not in favor of compromising with what the law lays down. That the PROC did not accept the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction or judgment is no argument against it. Any other position would stymie the capacity of international institutions to be instruments of the discursive resolution of disputes. Let us keep to the law because, frankly, we have no decent, acceptable alternative to it — and it is precisely the nature of international law that where states discern an alternative to the established order and conduct themselves according to new rules, in that measure does international law evolve.

As for those who would have our gallant officers defending our waters gagged, should we not be inquiring into why their allegiances lie elsewhere? And should we not consider it a threat to the security of our nation if some are on the payroll of the People’s Republic of China or are receiving, or have perhaps received, undue favors from it?

I naively believed in the past that one way was through the collective resolve of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean). Alas, in respect to the troubled waters, Asean is a fractured institution — with Malaysia’s Anwar Ibrahim openly in support of the People’s Republic of China. But the Philippines is definitely not alone. Japan has proven a willing partner in the pushback against Chinese aggression and perhaps the time has come to accord Taiwan more than the begrudging ties we have had with it.

The Chinese, it appears, have set their sights

The Chinese, it appears, have set their sights on the BRP Sierra Madre — the deliberately grounded Philippine naval vessel on Ayungin Shoal that serves as the outpost of Philippine presence within our exclusive economic zone. We should be clear about how America intends to honor its commitment under the Mutual Defense Treaty — what we can expect and count on, especially under Donald Trump, whose so-called “pragmatism” — actually a scramble to save his party from ignominious defeat in the mid-term elections — makes him cut deals with Putin at the expense of Ukraine. I heard the top brass of the US Army testify before the US Congress, and they have a clearer, more categorical stand on friend and foe than their president.

It is perilous to make light of China’s expansionist attempts. What it did to Tibet and the conflicts it has with India over Himachal Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh should be sufficient warning that it acts on its ambitions and pursues them with imperialistic resolve. That it sent an ambassador to the Philippines who is willing to insult us to our faces in the most undiplomatic manner signals China’s attitude toward the Philippines — belittling and patronizing.

We respond ambivalently at our own peril. What we need is a strong position that firmly asserts our rights and yields no inch to China. It should help to raise the issue with the General Assembly of the United Nations and to seriously study the possibility of a Uniting for Peace Resolution in this regard.

Fr. Rannie Aquino is dean of the Graduate School of Law at San Beda College-Mendiola.