Fortified Neutrality or Strategic Subservience? A Legal and Constitutional Challenge to Marcos Jr.’s “Independent Foreign Policy”

 By Atty. Arnedo S. Valera

Between the Flag and the Crosshairs

President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.’s recent visit to Washington, D.C., and private meeting with U.S. President Donald J. Trump was hailed by his administration as a display of diplomatic strength and a continuation of his so-called “independent foreign policy.” But the facts suggest otherwise: under Marcos Jr., the Philippines is increasingly tethered to U.S. strategic and military objectives—without a clear articulation of our national interest and in direct tension with our constitutional values.

What is missing—dangerously missing—is any declaration of Philippine neutrality in the face of great power rivalries, especially between the United States and China. While Marcos Jr. does not claim neutrality, we now demand that he do so, in full compliance with the 1987 Philippine Constitution, relevant United Nations principles, and the imperatives of a people who seek peace, sovereignty, and security—not proxy war.

The Constitutional Framework: Sovereignty and the Pursuit of Peace

The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines is not ambiguous about the nation's core foreign policy principles:

Article II, Section 7 provides: “The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination.”

Article II, Section 8 mandates: “The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.”

Article XVIII, Section 25 asserts: “...foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate…”

These provisions were enshrined to prevent a return to colonial-style dependency, to protect Philippine soil from being used in foreign wars, and to assert our sovereignty in all matters—especially defense and diplomacy.

Yet none of these principles have been upheld in the current administration’s foreign relations. Marcos Jr. has not articulated what the national interest is, nor has he submitted major military arrangements—like EDCA expansions—to Senate scrutiny.

EDCA and the Retreat from Sovereignty

The expansion of U.S. military access through EDCA—from five to nine sites—is being implemented unilaterally by the Executive, without Senate concurrence or public disclosure of strategic impact. Some of these sites are alarmingly close to Taiwan and key flashpoints in the South China Sea, making the Philippines a potential target should hostilities break out in the Indo-Pacific.

This reckless entanglement contradicts:

The constitutional mandate for independence and neutrality;

The prohibition of nuclear weapons, as the U.S. refuses to disclose whether its war assets are nuclear-armed;

The UN Charter, particularly Article 2(4) which prohibits the threat or use of force and upholds sovereign equality;

UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV), which enshrines the duty of States to refrain from participation in military alliances that compromise neutrality.

The Marcos-Trump Meeting: Optics over Strategy

President Marcos Jr.’s recent meeting with President Trump was high on symbolism but devoid of strategic clarity. There was no public discussion of demilitarizing EDCA sites, no assurances of non-nuclear deployment, and no steps taken toward a peaceful regional posture.

Instead, the visit served as a solicitation of political legitimacy wrapped in patriotic ribbon—offering the image of strength while surrendering long-term security. There was no assertion of a Philippine-led diplomatic vision for the region. There was only acquiescence to a broader U.S. military strategy in the Asia-Pacific.

We Demand: A Doctrine of Fortified Neutrality

Given this alarming drift toward strategic subservience, we call on President Marcos Jr. to publicly declare and pursue a doctrine of Fortified Neutrality—a principled stance that:

1. Rejects military alignment with any superpower;

2. Prohibits the hosting of foreign troops and bases, except under a Senate-ratified treaty that complies with constitutional limits;

3. Commits to a nuclear-free Philippines, in accordance with Article II, Section 8;

4. Prioritizes diplomatic initiatives, multilateralism, and confidence-building measures in dealing with China, the U.S., and other powers;

5. Promotes trade, technology, and cultural exchange with all nations, not just strategic allies.

Such a doctrine would be consistent with international law, including:

The UN Charter;

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons;

The principles of permanent neutrality as practiced by nations such as Austria and Switzerland—recognized under customary international law and multilateral agreements.

The Time to Choose Is Now

The Philippines stands at a crossroads. We can either allow ourselves to be dragged into a new Cold War theater, or we can reclaim our constitutional destiny as a sovereign, peaceful, and non-aligned nation. President Marcos Jr. has not yet declared neutrality—but he must, for the safety of our people, the integrity of our Constitution, and the future of the Republic.

To remain silent is to accept vassalage. To speak now, and act with principle, is to restore dignity to our foreign policy and true independence to our nation.#

Atty. Arnedo S. Valera is the executive director of the Global Migrant Heritage Foundation and managing attorney at Valera & Associates, a US immigration and anti-discrimination law firm for over 32 years. He holds a master’s degree in International Affairs and International Law and Human Rights from Columbia University and was trained at the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. He obtained his Bachelor of Laws from Ateneo de Manila University.  He is an AB-Philosophy Major at the University  of Santo Tomas ( UST). He is a professor at San Beda Graduate School of Law (LLM Program), teaching International Security and Alliances.