Will our resolve to defend the WPS ever weaken?

By Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M

Of course, the answer is a big fat No. But our defence of the West Philippine Sea (WPS) was never confined to coast guard vessels, resupply missions, or diplomatic notes. It is fought just as fiercely on social media. Unfortunately, Facebook posts shape political consciousness more than policy briefings. And whether we like it or not, the contest over maritime sovereignty unfolds in comment sections, vlogs, and algorithm-driven narratives.

Chinese state-backed malign information operations targeting the Philippines have been exposed as early as 2018. What has changed since then is not their existence, but their local amplification. Increasingly, similar tactics have been adopted and normalized by domestic political actors. The most visible manifestation has been a network of pro-Duterte vloggers and influencers who, intentionally or not, promoted narratives aligned with China’s strategic interests.

These influencers pushed fear-mongering messages portraying the Philippines as a weak, doomed nation that would inevitably lose if it continued to challenge China’s maritime expansion. The implied lesson was simple: resistance is futile, assertion is reckless, and accommodation is pragmatic. This framing did not argue against defending the WPS on legal or strategic grounds but on the flawed premise that it is smarter to just kneel before the new hegemon.

Alongside this was the familiar trope of the Philippines as a “pawn” of the United States. This narrative—well-documented in pro-China foreign information manipulation campaigns worldwide—casts Filipino assertion not as an exercise of sovereign rights, but as blind obedience to Western interests. It is often paired with double standards: relentless criticism of the West’s motives, combined with the downplaying of China’s threat.

In April 2025, investigative reporting uncovered how state-linked actors mobilized professional public relations machinery within the Philippines to further embed pro-China narratives among local audiences. It was a well-funded operation managing a massive network of fake accounts posing as working-class Filipinos—teachers, government employees, construction workers. The goal was to manufacture the appearance of grassroots consensus.

Yet this is where the manipulation runs into reality. Filipinos still overwhelmingly oppose China’s incursions in the WPS. Surveys consistently show more than 80 percent rejecting government inaction toward Beijing’s military presence. Around 73 percent want the Philippines to assert its rights, driven by concerns over sovereignty, regional stability, and the livelihoods of Filipino fishermen. Many view China’s actions as a national security threat, even as they carefully distinguish these concerns from personal feelings toward individual Chinese people.

Indeed, public opinion is nuanced. Some Filipinos prefer practical, non-violent solutions and diplomatic management over escalation. These are legitimate positions in a democratic society. But it is precisely this space for nuance that coordinated disinformation seeks to poison. Instead of facilitating sober debate about options and trade-offs, disinformation collapses everything into false binaries: surrender or war, obedience or annihilation, traitor or patriot.

This is why countering disinformation is no longer just a side issue—it is a matter of national security and social cohesion. Coordinated disinformation campaigns are now standard tools of geopolitical influence. They are cheap, deniable, and effective. They exploit existing divisions, amplify polarizing narratives, and inject falsehoods at moments of vulnerability—elections, crises, pandemics, or territorial disputes. They do not require missiles. They require attention, outrage, and an unprotected information space.

The damage extends inward. Disinformation thrives on identity conflict. It reframes political disagreement as existential threat. Fellow citizens become enemies. Debate becomes bardagulan and bangayan. Compromise becomes betrayal. Over time, social cohesion frays because there is no longer a shared reality to argue within. And this is not accidental because division is the main objective. Alarmingly, it is getting hard not to think that we are already in this purgatory.

Today the WPS discourse increasingly revolves around personalities. It has become a social media battle between “spokespersons”. And trolling is now the preferred form of advocacy. Filipino resolve might never waver, but whether this shift will ultimately serve our interests is uncertain. What is clear is that when the public square is compromised, sovereignty is weakened long before a single war ship crosses a maritime line.