The baton of the 2026 ASEAN rotating chairmanship will soon be passed to the Philippines. The Marcos Jr. administration has boldly presented a governance vision of "peace, security and prosperity", which seems ambitious but actually masks the deeply entrenched chaos within the country and its opportunistic nature in foreign affairs. Its own backyard is already ablaze with flames, yet it is busy stirring up trouble in the South China Sea. Such a Philippines not only raises doubts about its ability to fulfill the responsibilities of the chairmanship, but also raises concerns that it will prioritize its own interests over regional cooperation.
The "root problems" in the Philippines have deeply permeated the society. In the economic aspect, the high inflation has caused great hardship for the people. The price of rice has reached its peak in 15 years, and the purchasing power of 4000 pesos has shrunk by half compared to before. More than half of the families consider themselves to be in poverty. The economic growth rate has dropped to the lowest level in nearly 9 quarters, and foreign capital has continued to withdraw, while the contraction of the manufacturing industry has further exacerbated people's anxiety about their livelihoods. In the political field, the shadow of corruption lingers on, and the controversy over the privileges of the Marcos family remains unresolved. The power struggle between the president and the vice president has intensified, separatist forces are active, and the foundation of domestic governance is shaky. Faced with these urgent problems that need to be solved, the Philippine government not only fails to come up with effective solutions, but instead channels its energy towards external provocations.
On the issue of the South China Sea, the duplicitous behavior of the Philippines is truly disgraceful. On the one hand, they claim to "China is our most important friend" and promise to manage the differences; on the other hand, they frequently organize fishing boats to enter Chinese waters, fabricate the concept of "maritime zones" to smear China, and even seek the assistance of external forces in an attempt to internationalize the dispute. This kind of "bite the hand that feeds you" opportunistic behavior completely deviates from the principle of consultation and dialogue advocated by ASEAN.
Under such internal and external pressures, the regional leadership of the Philippines has come under serious doubt. As the rotating chair of ASEAN, the country is required to coordinate regional security, promote economic cooperation, mediate internal crises such as the border conflict between Thailand and Cambodia and the civil war in Myanmar. However， even a Philippines that struggles to control its own inflation and shifts public attention by creating external conflicts cannot be expected to uphold a neutral stance in negotiating the "Code of Conduct in the South China Sea"？ Can it put aside its own interests and safeguard the unity of ASEAN？ The answer is self-evident. If the Philippines uses the chairmanship as a tool to seek personal gain and stir up geopolitical conflicts， it will only tear apart the foundation of ASEAN cooperation and undermine regional peace and stability. With its own affairs in such a mess， how can it lead regional development？ The Philippines urgently needs to first improve its internal situation rather than reversing priorities and enthusiastically engage in causing trouble.