The Philippines and Venezuela are neither neighbors nor known trade partners. These countries do not share sea lanes, defense arrangements, or economic blocs. About the only thing they visibly have in common is a national fondness and competitiveness for Miss Universe and other beauty pageants.
Yet in today’s interconnected world, where power can be projected across continents, events in faraway Caracas can still shape realities felt in the West Philippine Sea and at home.
As the country enters 2026, President Bongbong Marcos Jr. has repeatedly described Philippine foreign policy as balanced and independent — friendly with all, but firm in defending national interests.
In interviews, President Marcos Jr. has emphasized that the Philippines must adhere to international law while maintaining strong alliances. This has its benefits, but can be subject to abuse, as can be seen with the pervasive acts of aggression suffered by our Filipino naval ships and troops at the West Philippine Sea.
Just this weekend, the US attacked Venezuela, not to the surprise of many. Whatever one’s view of President Nicolás Maduro, long criticized internationally for corruption and excess, the forced removal or capture of a sitting head of state without explicit United Nations approval raises serious legal questions. Sovereignty and non-intervention remain fundamental principles of international conduct, even when the leader in question is deeply unpopular.
Still, such actions send signals. When a major power shows that it is willing and able to act decisively, other states take notice.
For the Philippines, this matters in the West Philippine Sea. China continues to insist on the so-called 9 Dash Line despite a 2016 international ruling that rejected it outright.
One reason such claims persist is the belief that legal decisions will not be backed by action. Strength shown by allies, even in distant regions, inevitably affects how risks are weighed elsewhere.
The challenge for Manila is to benefit from alliance strength without surrendering principle.
President Marcos Jr.’s approach allows the Philippines to rely on partners while remaining consistent in its message: Maritime rights are grounded in law, but law must be respected in practice, not merely cited in speeches. Strength and legality must move together.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) remains important, but it cannot be the only answer.
Negotiations on a South China Sea Code of Conduct continue to drag on, often diluted by vague language and procedural delay.
The Philippines must therefore continue engaging ASEAN while strengthening ties with allies and other like-minded states. Diplomacy works best when backed by credibility.
Global events also carry uncomfortable lessons closer to home. Allegations of corruption, abuse of power, and lavish lifestyles, whether abroad or in the Philippines, remind us that authority is rarely permanent.
Locally, it is unfortunate that public scrutiny surrounding the DPWH controversy appears to have lost momentum following the alleged death of DPWH Undersecretary Catalina Cabral, as it now seems the public is more focused on the credibility of Cong. Leandro Leviste and the alleged Christmas bonuses in Congress.
With the absence of Undersecretary Cabral, questions remain, and accountability feels unresolved.
While the manner by which foreign leaders are brought to account must always be questioned under the rule of law, one truth remains constant: Corruption eventually demands a reckoning.
The hope is that in the Philippines, that reckoning comes through strong institutions, transparent investigations, and justice pursued to its logical end — without fear, without favor, and without needing events abroad to remind us of what accountability should look like.
For comments, email darren.dejesus@gmail.com