The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) on Sunday firmly rejected claims questioning its 14-day visa-free entry policy and its communications with the People's Republic of China, asserting that both are lawful and necessary.

In a statement, the department described remarks made by Ombudsman Jesus Crispin C. Remulla on DZRH's Executive Session program on Saturday as "erroneous" and based on "unfounded insinuations."

Mr. Remulla again argued that authority over visa matters rests with immigration officers under the Department of Justice (DoJ), which oversees the Bureau of Immigration. He also claimed that the DFA issues "fake" passports and intentionally makes the passport application process difficult.

"The prevention of passport fraud is precisely why documentary safeguards and identity verification requirements are necessary," the DFA said, referring to Republic Act No. 11983, the New Passport Law, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.

The exchange underscores how Philippine travel-document and entry policy straddles two mandates: the DFA administers passports and consular services under the New Passport Law, while the Bureau of Immigration, attached to the DoJ, controls the admission of foreign nationals at ports of entry.

Speaking directly on the 14-day visa-free program for Chinese nationals, the DFA said its modalities were determined together with other concerned government agencies — an arrangement that places the program's design across multiple parts of government rather than a single office.

In a separate statement, the department publicly rebuked various unnamed government officials who questioned the transparency of its account of the Nov. 3 telephone call by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi to Foreign Affairs Secretary Ma. Theresa P. Lazaro. Contacts between the two countries' top diplomats unfold against the backdrop long-running maritime disputes in the South China Sea, where Manila and Beijing have maintained direct channels despite recurring friction.

Diplomacy in defense of national sovereignty is not appeasement, the DFA said, stressing that public disclosure serves different strategic purposes. Portraying diplomatic dialogue as secondary to public exposure creates a false choice between diplomacy and transparency, it added.

"Public statements that undermine the government's diplomatic approach do more than complicate the work of our diplomat," the DFA said. "They risk eroding the country's credibility in international affairs and project an image of internal division that external parties can exploit."

Whether the Ombudsman's office replies to the DFA's statements, or the agencies that co-determined the visa-free modalities weigh in publicly, will indicate whether the disagreement stays a war of words or moves toward formal clarification.

— Francessca S. Abalos, BusinessWorld