In a recent interview, Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio offered a pointed critique of narratives emerging within the Philippine Senate that, whether intentionally or not, echo China’s strategic messaging on the West Philippine Sea. While acknowledging that some public officials deny being “pro-China,” Justice Carpio warned that the substance of their statements—rather than their disclaimers—must be examined closely, especially when national sovereignty and sovereign rights are at stake.
On Senator Rodante Marcoleta: Appeasement Framed as Realism
Justice Carpio expressed deep concern over remarks attributed to Senator Rodante Marcoleta portraying China as a “big” and “rich” country with which the Philippines supposedly cannot compete. Framed as realism, Justice Carpio argued, this line of thinking effectively reduces Philippine foreign policy to a plea for mercy rather than an assertion of rights.
“To ask for mercy,” Justice Carpio stressed, “is not how a sovereign state conducts itself.” The issue at hand is not relative wealth or power, but sovereignty and sovereign rights guaranteed by international law. Suggesting that the Philippines temper its position because China is stronger implicitly legitimizes coercion and undermines the rule-based order the country has relied upon—and successfully invoked—in the 2016 Arbitral Award.
Justice Carpio was particularly emphatic in correcting claims that the Philippines lacks clear coordinates for its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). He noted that Senator Marcoleta was already a lawmaker when Republic Act No. 9522 (Archipelagic Baselines Law) was enacted. That law precisely defines the country’s baselines with coordinates. From those baselines, the EEZ is determined mechanically by measuring 200 nautical miles, as provided under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Contrary to repeated insinuations, UNCLOS does not require coastal states to issue special proclamations or publish EEZ coordinates to enjoy maritime entitlements. These rights are inherent, not discretionary. Justice Carpio underscored the irony: while Philippine maritime zones are firmly grounded in domestic law and UNCLOS, China’s nine-dash (or ten-dash) line has no coordinates at all—and no legal basis.
Settled Law, Not “Fighting Over Rocks”
Justice Carpio also rejected the suggestion that focusing on the West Philippine Sea merely means “fighting over rocks.” He clarified that there are two distinct disputes.
The first—maritime entitlements—has already been finally and conclusively resolved in favor of the Philippines by the 2016 arbitral ruling. That award is binding and widely supported by the international community. No state recognizes China’s sweeping dash-line claim. The dispute today is not about legality, but about enforcement.
The second dispute concerns sovereignty over specific land features, such as Scarborough Shoal and Pag-asa Island. These are territorial disputes governed by general international law, not UNCLOS. Here, Justice Carpio reiterated a consistent position: the Philippines should challenge China to submit the matter to arbitration or adjudication. China’s refusal to do so would further expose its reliance on threats and coercion, in violation of the UN Charter’s obligation to settle disputes peacefully.
On Senator Robinhood Padilla: Freedom of Expression Is Not Negotiable
Justice Carpio also addressed comments by Senator Robinhood Padilla criticizing a caricature of Chinese President Xi Jinping that appeared in a presentation by Philippine Coast Guard spokesperson Commodore Jay Tarriela. Justice Carpio was unequivocal: freedom of expression is a constitutional right in the Philippines and cannot be curtailed to appease a foreign power.
China may criminalize satire and criticism of its leaders at home, Justice Carpio noted, but it has no authority to export those restrictions abroad. In democratic societies—including the Philippines, the United States, and Europe—political caricature is a long-standing and protected form of expression. Context matters: when Philippine vessels are rammed, water-cannoned, and harassed at sea, public criticism and even sharp satire are natural and lawful responses.
The Larger Warning
Justice Carpio’s central warning was clear: normalizing intimidation—whether at sea or in public discourse—comes at a steep cost. If bullying is met with silence, legal distortion, or self-censorship, it becomes precedent. The Philippines, he argued, must respond not with bravado, but with law, alliances, transparency, and an unwavering defense of democratic values.
Sovereignty is not preserved by asking for mercy. It is preserved by insisting—calmly, firmly, and consistently—on rights already won under international law.