In a powerful Zoom interview conducted on May 5, 2025, veteran journalist Karen Davila engages retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio in a deep dive into the ongoing West Philippine Sea crisis. This one-on-one dialogue, now fully diarized and downloadable, cuts through propaganda to unpack the legal, historical, and geopolitical stakes behind China’s continued incursions into Philippine waters.
Justice Carpio, widely regarded as a leading voice on maritime law and sovereignty, explains the 2016 arbitral ruling, the significance of UNCLOS, and what Filipinos can do in the face of foreign disinformation and aggression. This interview is essential viewing—and reading—for anyone serious about Philippine national interest and regional peace.
📄 Download the Full Transcript and Subtitles: To ensure wide access and deeper understanding, we’ve provided the full .srt subtitle file and .txt transcript for download. Perfect for classrooms, briefings, and policy reviews—get them now to follow the conversation with precision and context.
Interview Keypoints
Participants:
- Karen Davila (KD) – Anchor/Interviewer
- Justice Antonio Carpio (AC) – Former Supreme Court Associate Justice
0:00 – Introduction
KD: Introduces Justice Antonio Carpio. Sets the context for the discussion around Sandy Cay, Pag-asa, and competing claims by China, the Philippines, and Vietnam.
1:00 – Legal Status of Sandy Cay
KD: Asks about the arbitral tribunal’s decision regarding Sandy Cay.
AC:
- Sandy Cay is within 2 nautical miles of Pag-asa, well within its 12 nautical mile territorial sea.
- As such, it is part of Pag-asa’s territory, which is under Philippine occupation since the 1970s.
- The 2016 Arbitral Award affirmed this but didn’t resolve sovereignty over land features, only maritime entitlements.
3:30 – Vietnam’s Claim and ASEAN Dynamics
KD: Notes Vietnam’s protest over Sandy Cay and questions why, despite the Arbitral Award, Vietnam is still claiming it.
AC:
- The arbitral ruling didn’t settle land feature sovereignty, only maritime rights.
- Vietnam claims the entire Spratlys (as does China), hence the overlap.
- ASEAN has an informal agreement not to encroach on features occupied by other ASEAN members, which Vietnam abides by.
KD: Highlights ASEAN’s muted stance on China, contrasting with the Philippines’ vocal position.
AC:
- Agrees. Other ASEAN states (e.g., Vietnam, Malaysia) maintain low profiles due to deep economic ties with China.
- The Philippines has taken the lead in asserting maritime rights publicly.
7:30 – Recommendations for President Marcos Jr.
KD: Asks what President Marcos Jr. can do in the remainder of his term to leave a firm legacy on the West Philippine Sea issue.
AC (Recommendation 1):
- File a second arbitration case regarding the extended continental shelf beyond the Spratlys.
- The Philippines has already submitted its claim; China has opposed it.
- Vietnam and Malaysia, although supportive, are reluctant to take the lead due to economic concerns.
- The Philippines is best positioned to act—time is critical before China’s power grows further.
- The case is winnable as China is geographically too far (350+ nautical miles) to claim the area under UNCLOS.
11:30 – Political Advantage of Legal Action
KD: Confirms if this would be a political win for President Marcos Jr.
AC:
- Absolutely. It would be welcomed by Vietnam and Malaysia.
- China would oppose, but they are isolated and weak in legal standing.
- A favorable ruling would solidify the Philippines’ maritime entitlements and establish Marcos Jr.’s legacy.
13:00 – Recommendation 2: Territorial Dispute Arbitration
AC:
- Recommends a second move: challenge China, Vietnam, and Malaysia to submit territorial disputes to arbitration.
- This would fall under general international law, not UNCLOS.
- The Philippines has the strongest historical and legal claim (e.g., 1734 Murillo Velarde map, Treaty of Washington 1900).
- Even if China refuses arbitration, the act of challenging exposes their weak position.
- The Philippines must not be shy in asserting and publicizing its superior legal title.
17:00 – Value of Legal Strategy Despite China’s Defiance
KD: Asks what good another award would do, considering China still ignores the 2016 ruling.
AC:
- The 2016 award changed global perception—now the world knows the Philippines is legally correct.
- Global support followed (U.S., EU, Japan, India, etc.), isolating China diplomatically.
- A similar approach to the territorial dispute would produce the same results: global awareness and support.
20:00 – Final Remarks
AC:
- The first arbitral award was a major victory for the Philippines.
- Now is the time to secure the second half: assert sovereignty over territory using legal tools and evidence.
- Delay only favors China.