Lazaro summons China ambassador Jing, says it’s not his place to taunt PH officials

Lazaro’s summons was a formal diplomatic response to remarks that Manila viewed as threatening and inappropriate. She told Jing that his language aggravated an already sensitive relationship and undermined efforts to build mutual understanding and cooperation. The meeting also reaffirmed that difficult issues should be handled through established diplomatic channels.

Jing’s comments followed Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr.’s claim that Beijing, not Manila, was the region’s troublemaker. Jing said China could easily win if it used force, but added that China loved peace and would not do so. The DFA also objected to foreign officials publicly criticizing Philippine officials and legislators.

The meeting showed Manila trying to defend its position while keeping communication open. Lazaro was joined by senior DFA leaders, and the department warned that further diplomatic action remained possible. Philippine politicians meanwhile called for Jing’s expulsion, although only the President can expel a diplomat.

In diplomatic practice, summoning a foreign ambassador means formally requiring that envoy to meet government officials. The host country uses the meeting to communicate concern, reject a statement, request clarification, or deliver a protest. It is stronger than an ordinary conversation but usually less drastic than recalling an ambassador or ending relations.

In this case, Lazaro summoned Jing after he said the Philippines should feel fortunate that China did not use force. She told him the statement was provocative and unacceptable. She also stressed that public taunts by a foreign mission against Philippine officials do not support mutual understanding or cooperation.

A summons creates an official record and signals that the issue matters at the government level. It can also preserve a channel for dialogue. The DFA said it would keep communicating with China and pursue constructive engagement, while reserving the possibility of further diplomatic action if necessary.

The dispute involves territory, maritime rights, and safety at sea. China claims almost all of the South China Sea, while the Philippines calls part of that area the West Philippine Sea. Those competing positions affect where each country believes it can operate and pursue resources. They also shape daily encounters between maritime personnel.

The article says Filipino maritime frontliners have faced harassment and even harm while operating at sea. Against that background, Jing’s statement that China could easily win if it used force sounded more serious than ordinary political criticism. It came during an argument over which country was creating trouble in the region.

The dispute also carries legal and diplomatic weight. Beijing does not recognize the 2016 Arbitral Award, which validated the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone and rejected China’s supposed historical claim. Manila therefore has to defend its maritime rights while using diplomacy to prevent tensions from worsening.

An exclusive economic zone, or EEZ, is a maritime area extending up to 200 nautical miles from a coastal state’s baselines under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is not the same as territorial waters. The coastal state has specific economic rights there, while other countries retain important navigation freedoms.

For the Philippines, those rights cover exploring, using, conserving, and managing resources such as fish, oil, gas, and minerals in the waters, seabed, and subsoil. The country also has authority over certain installations and marine scientific research. These rights are central to the maritime dispute described in the article.

The article says the 2016 Arbitral Award validated the Philippines’ EEZ, while Beijing rejected the decision and its supposed historical claim. That disagreement helps explain why encounters at sea remain tense and why Manila combines legal positions, diplomatic protests, and continued dialogue.

Foreign envoys are expected to communicate through diplomatic channels, not publicly intimidate or taunt officials in the host country. When they do, the host government may see the conduct as an affront to its sovereignty and democratic institutions. The result can be a sharper political and diplomatic response.

The DFA said Jing’s language aggravated an already sensitive bilateral atmosphere and undermined efforts to build mutual understanding. It also said a foreign mission should not publicly criticize or taunt Philippine officials and legislators acting within their mandates. Politicians responded by calling for Jing’s expulsion or declaration as persona non grata.

Such incidents can narrow the space for cooperation, especially when maritime disputes are already producing harassment and harm at sea. Still, the Philippines said it would keep communication open, pursue constructive engagement, and stabilize relations in non-sensitive areas. The DFA also reserved the right to take further diplomatic action.

Expelling a diplomat is an executive foreign-policy decision, not a power held by individual legislators. Philippine lawmakers can debate the issue, condemn an envoy’s conduct, and call on the government to act. Their statements can create political pressure, but they do not themselves remove the diplomat.

The article states that only the President can expel a diplomat assigned to the Philippines. That is why calls from politicians for Jing’s expulsion or declaration as persona non grata could not directly produce either result. The embassy even challenged legislators to proceed with their calls, despite that legal and political limitation.

The authority rests with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who had earlier said Jing’s remarks deserved a discussion between the ambassador and himself. Instead, Lazaro summoned Jing. The DFA said it might take further diplomatic action, but it did not specify what that action would be.

The 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Award addressed competing maritime claims under international law. As described in the article, it validated the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone and deemed Beijing’s supposed historical claim invalid. That gave Manila a legal foundation for its position in the disputed waters.

The award matters because an EEZ provides a country with economic rights over nearby waters and seabed resources. By validating the Philippines’ zone, the decision supported Manila’s claims to those rights. It also challenged the basis of China’s broader asserted entitlement in the South China Sea.

The ruling did not end the dispute. Beijing does not recognize the award, and China continues to claim almost all of the South China Sea, including waters Manila calls the West Philippine Sea. That rejection contributes to ongoing maritime tensions, encounters, and diplomatic efforts between the two countries.