lawfare /ˈlɔː.feər/ noun
The use of legal arguments to cause problems for an opponent.
“Mula Batanes hanggang Jolo.”
For generations of Filipinos, this familiar line from one of the country’s iconic noontime show jingles has served as a simple reminder of national geography. From Batanes in the north to Jolo in the south, these islands form part of the Philippines.
It is a statement of fact, but facts can be challenged and reshaped through narratives. In territorial disputes, the battle is fought not only on maps and in courtrooms but also in history, academia, media, and public perception.
That is why narratives matter.
Batanes, home to the Ivatan people, has long been beloved by Filipinos for its breathtaking landscapes and distinct culture.
Yet recent developments have once again placed the province in the spotlight, bringing attention to an issue Filipinos know all too well: foreign claims over Philippine territory.
To justify its claims over the West Philippine Sea, China has invoked the nine-dash line, later expanded into a 10-dash line, a U-shaped boundary that it drew and which overlaps with areas within the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelf.
This claim was already debunked in 2016, when an arbitral tribunal under the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled in favor of the Philippines, rejecting China’s claim as having no legal basis under international maritime law and affirming the Philippines’ sovereign rights within its EEZ.
But territorial disputes are not sustained through legal arguments alone. They are also sustained through repetition.
Now, China appears to be extending its narrative beyond the waters of the West Philippine Sea, with Batanes becoming the subject of another argument: not through a maritime map, but through historical interpretation.
During a June 30 symposium, Chinese scholars argued that Batanes belongs to China, claiming that the province is a “natural geographical extension” of Taiwan.
They cited historical records from the Ming and Qing dynasties, cultural connections between the Ivatan people and Taiwan’s Tao community, and their interpretation of historical treaties to support their position.
SeaLight, a Stanford-based maritime transparency initiative, said the symposium may be part of a broader lawfare strategy, using legal arguments and academic discourse to strengthen territorial claims without a formal government declaration.
It further warned that “muddying the waters over Batanes’ legal ownership is sufficient to help justify its sovereignty patrols” as China continues its activities near the Bashi Channel.
In this light, treating these narratives as mere opinions can be consequential.
Repeated narratives can shape public perception and normalize contested claims. A study on strategic narratives found that in international disputes, legitimacy is built not only through legal documents but also through how audiences interpret political narratives.
The Philippines has already seen how narratives can reinforce territorial disputes. Despite the 2016 arbitral ruling rejecting China’s claims, Beijing has continued to assert them through confrontations and harassment of Filipino fishermen and Philippine vessels.
Since the news broke, the Philippine government has rejected the Batanes claims, with Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr. describing the assertions of Chinese academics as “a joke” and “ludicrous,” while warning that these narratives could reflect broader strategic interests regarding Philippine territory.
Department of Foreign Affairs Secretary Ma. Theresa Lazaro, meanwhile, emphasized that the Philippines responds to official positions of foreign governments rather than statements made by individual scholars.
But dismissing these claims is not the same as neutralizing them.
What the Philippine government needs is a firm and unequivocal response rejecting these claims and reaffirming that Batanes is indisputably Philippine territory, alongside sustained support for the Ivatans and a visible government presence in the islands.
Still, the responsibility does not belong to the government alone.
If Chinese scholars are advancing historical narratives to support territorial claims, Filipino scholars must answer with rigorous research, documentation, and evidence — not hostility.
Beyond scholars, every Filipino also has a role to play.
An OCTA survey in the first quarter of 2026 found that 76% of adult Filipinos are willing to support the government in defending the country’s territory and sovereign rights.
That support, however, should extend beyond times of crisis and long after the outrage fades. Defending the country’s sovereignty also means rejecting false narratives, seeking credible information, and refusing to let misinformation take root.
Many Filipinos are rightfully upset, but social media outrage alone will not protect our territory. Protecting Philippine sovereignty also requires diplomacy, the rule of law, credible scholarship, and citizens who are willing to question false claims with facts.
After all, the Philippines’ experience in defending its territories has shown that the battle for territory is also a battle for truth.
From north to south and west to east, defending that truth begins with knowing our own history and our own people.
Ahyenne Neleah Estacio is the senior editor of The Angelite for Publication Year 2026–2027 and previously served as editor-in-chief for Publication Year 2025–2026, and writes opinions under the column “Ace the Unraveling.”
The views and opinion of the editor does not necessarily reflect those of the publication.
