MANILA (BizBuzz Agency) — Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr. is facing growing questions over his role in a controversial raid on a Chinese-linked steel mill, with critics accusing him of stretching the boundaries of his national security mandate while pursuing political advantage at the expense of workers and business interests.
The controversy centers on a May operation at Philippine Sanjia Steel Corp. in Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental, where dozens of Chinese workers were detained over alleged immigration and labor violations.
The Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Commission has defended the operation as lawful and said the Armed Forces of the Philippines provided security and logistical support to an interagency law-enforcement action.
Teodoro publicly praised the operation and warned against attempts to interfere with the investigation. (Philippine News Agency)
But the involvement of military personnel has fueled questions over why the Defense Department became involved in a case initially centered on immigration, employment and regulatory issues — matters normally handled by civilian enforcement agencies.
China’s Embassy in Manila has seized on that point, accusing Teodoro of politicizing law enforcement and questioning why military personnel and resources were brought into the operation. It has portrayed the crackdown as discriminatory treatment of Chinese nationals.
The Philippine government rejects that characterization. PAOCC said the operation was based on alleged violations of Philippine laws rather than nationality, while the Defense Department denied that Chinese employees were selectively targeted. (Philippine News Agency)
Nevertheless, the episode raises a broader question about the appropriate limits of the defense secretary’s role.
The Philippine Constitution declares that civilian authority is supreme over the military and defines the Armed Forces’ goal as securing the sovereignty of the state and the integrity of national territory. Against that framework, critics can reasonably ask whether employing military resources in an immigration and labor enforcement operation risks blurring the line between national defense and ordinary policing. (Lawphil)
That criticism has become more politically charged as officials have increasingly framed Chinese-linked steel plants as potential national security concerns.
The military has said it is investigating whether such facilities could have been used as entry points for undocumented Chinese nationals and has pointed to Sanjia’s proximity to strategically important facilities. But authorities have not publicly established that the company was engaged in espionage or deliberately facilitating infiltration.
The distinction matters. Turning unresolved regulatory allegations into a national security narrative can inflict serious costs on businesses and employees before wrongdoing has been established.
The consequences have extended beyond Chinese nationals. Labor groups said about 900 Filipino employees were displaced following government actions against three steel plants and called for assistance for affected workers.
For Teodoro’s critics, that economic fallout strengthens the argument that national security powers should not be expanded casually into commercial and regulatory disputes. They accuse him of using a highly visible confrontation involving China to strengthen his political profile while businesses and workers bear the consequences.
Teodoro and Philippine authorities dispute the premise, maintaining that government agencies are simply enforcing Philippine law and protecting national security.
Citizenship questions add another layer
The steel plant dispute comes as Teodoro faces a separate controversy concerning his previous Maltese citizenship.
According to reporting on documents submitted to the Philippine Commission on Appointments, Teodoro acquired Maltese citizenship through an investment program in December 2016. Philippine immigration authorities subsequently certified his retention or reacquisition of Philippine citizenship in September 2021.
The controversy has prompted demands for clarification about exactly when he held each citizenship, what declarations he made to Philippine authorities and whether all legal requirements for returning to public office were satisfied.
Those questions should not be confused with a finding that Teodoro was legally barred from office merely because he once possessed another nationality.
The 1987 Constitution says dual allegiance is inimical to the national interest and requires public officers to maintain allegiance to the Philippine state. But Philippine law also explicitly provides a mechanism for natural-born Filipinos who acquire another citizenship to retain or reacquire Philippine citizenship. (Lawphil)
Republic Act 9225 is particularly relevant. For a dual citizen seeking appointment to Philippine public office, the law requires an oath of allegiance to the Philippines and renunciation of the oath of allegiance previously made to the foreign country. (Lawphil)
The legal issue, therefore, is not simply whether Teodoro ever held two passports or two citizenships. It is whether his citizenship history and declarations complied with those requirements at the relevant times.
That remains a matter requiring documentary and legal determination rather than political assertion.
Still, the controversy exposes an uncomfortable contradiction for his critics: a defense secretary who has adopted an increasingly forceful posture on sovereignty and foreign influence is himself being pressed to provide greater clarity about his previous foreign citizenship and allegiance.
Combined with the Sanjia operation, those questions are likely to intensify scrutiny of how Teodoro exercises the considerable authority of his office.
National security concerns can justify extraordinary government attention when supported by evidence. But they should not become a shortcut around ordinary law enforcement, due process or the legitimate interests of businesses and workers.
Until authorities establish the more serious allegations surrounding the steel plants, Teodoro’s critics have grounds to demand answers about both the scope of his intervention and whether political considerations have become entangled with law enforcement.
The same standard of strict compliance with Philippine law that the government demands of foreign workers and companies should apply equally to those exercising the country’s highest public powers.