Teodoro Confronts China Over South China Sea Ruling

On September 8th, 2026, Philippine Secretary of National Defense Gilberto Teodoro Jr. was addressing the Seoul Defense Dialogue in South Korea on maritime security when a handwritten message linked to the Chinese embassy was delivered to him. The unexpected delivery occurred while Teodoro was discussing international law and the pressures Manila faces in the South China Sea, suddenly shifting the focus of the regional security discussion. This marked a significant public escalation of the long-running dispute between the two nations.

This unusual action transformed an ordinary defense discussion into a public display of the growing diplomatic divide between Manila and Beijing. Forum organizers later revealed the note was delivered by a Chinese embassy attaché to an event staff member, who then passed it to the Philippine Defense Secretary, believing it to be official communication. The document itself was handwritten on hotel stationery.

The note, consisting of two paragraphs on hotel stationary, reiterated China's established position on the South China Sea arbitration initiated by the Philippines over a decade ago. While its legal arguments offered little new information, the extraordinary context of its delivery to Teodoro during an international forum was highly significant. The Philippine Defense Chief had been emphasizing the importance of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and how smaller states can protect their rights. Under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Manila has increasingly focused on international law, transparency, and partnerships in its approach to the dispute.

As Teodoro began reading the note, its first paragraph asserted that China's position on the arbitration remained 'clear, consistent, and firm,' claiming the proceedings violated fundamental principles. To this, Teodoro interjected, "So say you." The note then argued that the ruling had no binding force, prompting Teodoro to respond, "Cuz you don't want to be subjected to Clauso. We oo." Marcos remains the country's sitting president, with Teodoro serving as his defense secretary, maintaining the Philippines' consistent stance on the issue.

The message from China stated it neither accepted nor recognized the 2016 award and would not accept any claims or actions stemming from it. Teodoro’s succinct, widely reported response was, "Of course, because you lost." This sharp exchange underscores the much larger legal battle at play. The Philippines initiated arbitration proceedings against China under Annex 7 of UNCLOS, which China rejected and did not formally participate in. Despite China's absence, the tribunal proceeded and issued its final award on July 12th, 2016.

The 2016 ruling is frequently oversimplified, necessitating a clear distinction regarding its scope. The tribunal did not determine sovereignty over every disputed island, reef, or shoal, nor did it establish a maritime boundary between China and the Philippines. Instead, its findings addressed the legal bases for maritime entitlements, the status of specific maritime features, and whether certain Chinese actions were compatible with UNCLOS. This clarification is crucial for understanding the precise legal implications of the award.

The arbitration, administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, concluded with a final award on July 12th, 2016, a decision China has consistently rejected. Beijing argues the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the dispute and deems the award invalid, advocating instead for resolution through negotiation. This position remains unchanged, as China's foreign ministry reiterated in July 2026, around the 10th anniversary of the ruling, describing the award as "illegal, null, and void," and stating Beijing neither accepts nor recognizes it.

This fundamental disagreement explains Teodoro's immediate response to the handwritten note in Seoul, as its argument was not merely about diplomatic wording but directly challenged the central legal dispute that has fueled Philippine-Chinese maritime tensions for over a decade. Beyond the legal substance, Teodoro also objected to the undiplomatic manner in which the message was delivered.

Teodoro publicly questioned how governments could maintain normal relations if disagreements were presented in such an undiplomatic manner at an international forum, stating, "Perhaps basic dissents and behavior are what China needs." This remark garnered applause from the audience. He further escalated his criticism by connecting the incident to a broader accusation from Manila, asserting, "This is not a gray zone anymore. This is actual coercion, bullying and aggression." This phrasing represented a deliberate strengthening of Manila's position.

The term 'gray zone' has been common in South China Sea discussions, referring to coercive actions short of conventional war that exert sustained pressure. The Philippines has previously used this concept for confrontations with Chinese coast guard ships and maritime forces in contested areas. However, Teodoro's deliberate use of stronger language in Seoul—describing the issue not as strategic competition but as "coercive behavior"—signaled an escalation in Manila's characterization of China's actions. This confrontation coincided with the Philippines broadening its defense partnerships.

Under President Marcos, the Philippines has deepened its long-standing alliance with the United States and expanded security cooperation with countries including Japan, Australia, Canada, France, New Zealand, Britain, and South Korea. South Korea itself has become a crucial defense partner and supplier, providing aircraft, naval platforms, and fostering military-industrial cooperation. Beijing, however, views this expanding network negatively, repeatedly accusing Manila of involving external powers in disputes that China believes should be resolved directly between the parties. China maintains its commitment to regional peace and stability, asserting its South China Sea activities are legitimate exercises of Chinese sovereignty and maritime rights.

The Philippines asserts that its defense partnerships are not the root cause of the dispute. Manila contends that the fundamental problem lies in Chinese activities within waters where the Philippines possesses maritime entitlements under UNCLOS. This core disagreement has led to repeated confrontations around features such as Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal, known in the Philippines as Bajo de Masinloc and Ayungin Shoal. The political relationship between the two nations remains strained.

These measures included entry prohibitions to mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau, as well as preventing Chinese organizations and individuals from engaging in certain transactions or cooperation with the targeted individuals. Teodoro, however, stated that the sanctions would not affect his performance of duties. Three months later, the handwritten message at the Seoul Defense Dialogue provided another stark illustration of the severely strained relationship between Manila and Beijing, which has since elicited a public response from China.

Mao asserted that the Philippines had misused UNCLOS dispute settlement procedures, accusing Manila—rather than Beijing—of undermining the convention. She urged the Philippine side to cease what China termed "provocations and theatrics" to avoid damaging bilateral relations and stability in the South China Sea. This response makes clear China's continued rejection of the arbitration award, while the Philippines insists maritime rights must be determined under UNCLOS, and the 2016 decision cannot be ignored.

The Seoul incident gained particular significance due to the public collision of these competing positions. The South China Sea dispute is no longer confined to naval maneuvers around reefs and shoals; it is increasingly being contested through diplomacy, legal arguments, military partnerships, public information campaigns, and international forums. For Manila, presenting these arguments before an international audience is crucial. As a country facing a larger military and economic power, the Philippines heavily relies on international law and external diplomatic support, with publicizing confrontations also serving as a deterrent.

This action exposed a message that might otherwise have remained private to diplomats, military officials, and security experts from various countries. It is important to accurately characterize the incident; available reports do not suggest the handwritten message contained a personal threat against Teodoro, but was primarily a reiteration of China's legal position. The extraordinary aspect was its method of delivery and Teodoro's public rebuttal, a distinction that matters as tensions in the South China Sea are already severe.

Without exaggeration, the symbolism of the incident was powerful. A complex dispute encompassing international law, territorial claims, coast guard confrontations, military alliances, and competing regional visions was encapsulated in a single handwritten sheet of paper. China reiterated its long-held legal position, which the Philippine Defense Secretary immediately rejected before an international audience in Seoul. This made one of Asia's most significant maritime disputes unusually personal and visible. For the Philippines, the message from Teodoro is clear: Manila intends to continue defending its interpretation of UNCLOS and the 2016 arbitration award.

Whether the challenge comes from Chinese vessels at sea or a handwritten message at a conference, the Philippines remains steadfast in its defense of the 2016 arbitration award. China's position is equally firm; Beijing continues to reject the arbitration and insists that disputes should be resolved through direct dialogue and consultation. This leaves the two countries at an impasse, with every new maritime confrontation, diplomatic exchange, and even a passed note becoming another front in their escalating struggle over the South China Sea.