Teodoro shows how low he can stoop as a marionette

Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr has baselessly accused China of "extortion and blackmail" over immigration enforcement, denounced Chinese officials for "disinformation", and branded Chinese steelworkers "criminals". But the more he talks about "law", "sovereignty" and "national security", the more an awkward question arises: Is he acting increasingly as a proxy for external forces seeking to push Manila to the front line of confrontation with China?

In May, Teodoro instructed the Armed Forces of the Philippines to join an operation at Sanjia Steel Corp and arrest unarmed Chinese workers. Is a defense secretary also a police chief? If the plant was violating environmental or other laws, why not arrest those responsible for running it? Why were Chinese workers detained while Filipino workers were released on the spot? And why were the Chinese "detainees" transported to Manila aboard a military aircraft?

Then came the curious personal protective equipment or PPE episode. According to the Chinese workers, they normally wore regular clothing. Yet on the day of the raid, law enforcement personnel reportedly made three Chinese workers put on PPE and pose for photographs, which were subsequently publicized as evidence that only Chinese workers wore such equipment. Was this law enforcement — or a fishing expedition designed to create "incriminating" images?

The 70 detained Chinese workers were reportedly crammed into cells measuring about 5 square meters. They said the Philippine side failed to make the required consular notification or arrange consular visits in accordance with the bilateral consular agreement.

The workers remained in detention for as long as 32 days even after the Chinese embassy provided Philippine authorities with copies of the workers' passports and valid work visas or permits. Teodoro says the workers not carrying the documents themselves was a "telltale sign of human trafficking". So, are foreign workers required to carry their passports while working in Philippine factories? And does the absence of documentation at the time of arrest constitute "human trafficking" under Philippine law?

More fundamentally, who determines whether Philippine law has been violated — the defense secretary or the judicial authorities?

These are precisely the questions that a spokesperson for China's embassy in the Philippines raised on Sunday in response to Teodoro's ugly theatrics.

On May 28, Philippine prosecutors ordered the release of the Chinese workers unless they were being held on other legal grounds. Yet Teodoro continued to accuse them of "illegal activity".

The episode raises a larger question about Teodoro's role in the Ferdinand Marcos Jr government. He increasingly appears intent on shaping Manila's foreign policy around confrontation with China while aligning the Philippines ever more tightly with Washington and its strategic partners.

His groundless accusation that Chinese embassy officials "intervened" in Philippine law enforcement is equally revealing. Protecting the legitimate rights and interests of nationals abroad is a fundamental job of any embassy; it certainly does not constitute "meddling".

Teodoro's actions appear less focused on resolving disputes than on keeping tensions alive. Look at the South China Sea. Washington has repeatedly backed Manila's claims and invoked the unlawful 2016 "arbitral award" against China. Australia has joined the Philippines in wrongly criticizing Chinese actions at Ren'ai Reef, which is actually China's territory. Neither the US nor Australia is a claimant in the dispute, yet both are trying to be embedded in it.

For Washington, the Philippines is a crucial node in its "Indo-Pacific" strategy, astride important sea lanes and close to China's Taiwan island. But for the Philippines, becoming the forward position in someone else's strategic competition carries risks far beyond the ambitions of any defense secretary.

Teodoro wrongly invokes Philippine "sovereignty" while encouraging policies that make Manila dependent on an external security architecture. He invokes the "rule of law" while appearing unwilling to accept a prosecutorial decision that cleared the detained Chinese workers.

China has never invaded or colonized the Philippines. Yet Manila is being misled to see China not as a neighbor with whom it has disputes that must be managed, but as a rival. That may serve Washington's calculations. It may serve Teodoro's personal political ambitions. But it does not necessarily serve Filipino interests.

The question is whether Teodoro is still acting for Manila — or increasingly performing a role written somewhere else.