Which Side Are You? Batongbakal Or Marcoleta?

After finishing the enlightening episode of the Ted Failon and DJ Chacha morning show featuring Atty. Jay Batongbacal’s detailed explanation of the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) dispute, one cannot help but marvel at the stark contrast between his measured expertise and Senator Rodante Marcoleta’s rather colorful commentary. 

Batongbacal, a maritime law professor with decades of experience, approaches this complex issue like a seasoned chess player—carefully considering each move, its consequences, and the legal frameworks that govern sovereignty and exclusive economic zones. 

His arguments are grounded in international law, precision, and an unwavering commitment to protecting Philippine territory.

Meanwhile, Senator Marcoleta seems to have taken a radically different approach—more akin to someone playing political dodgeball blindfolded. 

During a Commission on Appointments hearing in February 2026, he famously suggested surrendering the KIG outright simply to avoid confrontation with China. 

If this were a script for a political satire show, it would be hard to believe that such blunt nihilism could emerge from an elected official tasked with safeguarding national interests.

 “Why die for something not even within our EEZ?” he asked rhetorically, as if national pride were merely optional add-ons rather than fundamental pillars of statehood.

The sheer audacity of Marcoleta’s proposition is matched only by his remarkable consistency in echoing Beijing’s talking points over time. 

From dismissing the West Philippine Sea as “a creation by us” — which even President Marcos found too far-fetched — to warning against transparency initiatives that document Chinese incursions because they might cause “panic,” his positions read less like policy proposals and more like promotional material for foreign interests disguised as legislative discourse.

What makes Marcoleta’s rhetoric particularly entertaining—in an exasperating way—is his go-to argument: “Do you want war with China?” 

This rhetorical hammer is wielded so lazily that it almost feels like political shorthand for “shut up.” 

Curiously absent from this argument is any acknowledgment that nobody advocating for Philippine sovereignty is actually calling for armed conflict; rather, they emphasize adherence to international law and peaceful enforcement of rulings such as the 2016 Arbitral Tribunal decision that categorically invalidated China’s Nine-Dash Line claim.

In contrast to Marcoleta's theatrical calls for surrender or silence under threat of war lies Batongbacal's sober warning about dangerous precedents. 

He warns that caving into pressure today sets a slippery slope where intimidation becomes an effective tool for territorial grab tomorrow—from Palawan to Zambales or Batanes—turning sovereignty into a game of geopolitical hot potato no Filipino should be forced to play.

Ultimately, watching these two figures debate feels like witnessing democracy in its most dramatic form: one expert armed with facts patiently explaining why giving up isn’t an option; one senator seemingly auditioning for reality TV by throwing caution—and country—to the wind. 

The night-and-day difference between them highlights how critical informed discourse remains in navigating issues where national survival hangs in delicate balance.