Videos

• Carpio: Evidence vs. Duterte at ICC ‘Overwhelming,’ Stronger Proof Still to Come

  25 February 2026

  Tags Antonio T. Carpio, Bato dela Rosa, Bong Go, crimes against humanity Philippines, ICC confirmation hearing, Oplan Tokhang, Rodrigo Duterte ICC, war on drugs

  Retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio said the prosecution’s presentation at the International Criminal Court (ICC) confirmation of charges hearing against former president Rodrigo Duterte shows overwhelming evidence, with even stronger material expected at trial.

  Speaking on ANC’s Headstart, Carpio pointed to Duterte’s own recorded statements as particularly damaging.

  Extrajudicial Admissions Key

  Carpio noted that prosecutors already presented video clips of Duterte allegedly admitting to killings connected to the drug war.

  “These are what we call extrajudicial admissions,” he said, explaining that voluntary statements on record are admissible in court.

  He added that the prosecution appears to be reserving Duterte’s sworn testimonies before Senate and House hearings — which he described as even stronger evidence — for the full trial.

  ‘Widespread and Systematic’ Killings

  According to Carpio, the prosecution established the nationwide scope of the killings through mapping and official documentation.

  He highlighted the Philippine National Police’s Oplan Tokhang circular, which stated that drug suspects would be “neutralized.”

  “Neutralized means shall be killed,” Carpio said, describing the circular as written proof of a common plan.

  He stressed that the policy was documented and implemented nationwide, supporting the allegation that the killings were widespread and systematic.

  Davao Pattern and Insider Witnesses

  Carpio also cited Duterte’s own admissions regarding killings during his time as Davao City mayor.

  He noted that insider witnesses — including former members of alleged death squads — are expected to testify, further strengthening the prosecution’s case.

  “These people… committed the crime upon instruction,” he said.

  Why Local Courts Did Not Act

  Asked whether Philippine courts could have handled the case, Carpio said the absence of domestic charges is itself telling.

  “Up to now, there is no charge… no preliminary investigation,” he noted.

  He pointed to two major obstacles:

  • Police records were allegedly cleaned up
  • Witnesses could face intimidation if cases were filed locally

  Because police personnel were involved in the alleged operations, he said domestic prosecution would have been extremely difficult.

  Carpio distinguished the situation from past prosecutions of former presidents, noting that those involved corruption cases, not crimes against humanity involving mass killings.

  Due Process at the ICC

  Carpio said the ICC proceedings demonstrate strict adherence to due process, noting that suspects are given full opportunity to prepare their defense.

  He described the detention conditions as humane and said the court carefully follows procedural safeguards before allowing a case to proceed to trial.

  Liability of Key Figures

  Carpio said liability extends beyond the gunmen to those who issued instructions.

  He described former police chief Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa as potentially “next most liable” after Duterte, given his role in implementing the campaign.

  He also cited affidavits alleging that Senator Christopher “Bong” Go relayed instructions to operatives — a factor that could support conspiracy allegations if proven.

  A Historic Moment

  Carpio called the case historically significant, noting Duterte is the first Asian leader brought before the ICC.

  More broadly, he urged national reflection.

  “How did we allow this?” he asked, referring to the thousands of killings acknowledged in official police reports.

  Carpio stressed the need for the country to learn from the episode to prevent similar abuses in the future.

  “The worst thing that any leader can do is to kill his own people,” he said.

  ---

  Retired Justice Antonio T. Carpio says evidence against Rodrigo Duterte at the ICC is overwhelming, citing extrajudicial admissions, the Oplan Tokhang circular, and insider witnesses, and explains why domestic prosecution in the Philippines did not proceed.

• Carpio Proposes Clear Debate Question: “Is There a West Philippine Sea?”

  18 February 2026

  Tags Antonio T. Carpio, Exclusive Economic Zone, Kalayaan Island Group, Philippine Bar Association, Philippine maritime law, Rodante Marcoleta, territorial sea, UNCLOS, West Philippine Sea debate

  Retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio said he remains willing to proceed with a public debate with Senator Rodante Marcoleta, but emphasized that the discussion must be focused and structured.

  In a recent interview, Carpio confirmed that while the Philippine Bar Association has offered to host the debate, there is still no agreement on the topic.

  Carpio proposed a straightforward question:

  “Is there a West Philippine Sea?”

  He explained that since Senator Marcoleta previously asserted that there is no such thing as the West Philippine Sea, the debate should directly address that issue.

  Carpio said he would take the affirmative position — that the West Philippine Sea has a legal basis — while Marcoleta could argue the negative.

  He also proposed a second topic, if needed:

  Whether the four islands in the Kalayaan Island Group that are outside the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ) remain part of Philippine territory.

  According to Carpio, these are the exact assertions made by Marcoleta and should therefore be the focus of the discussion.

  On Public Information and Education

  Carpio acknowledged that some have suggested launching a broader information campaign instead of holding a debate. He noted that he has already published detailed lectures explaining the legal foundations of the West Philippine Sea and maritime zones.

  However, he stressed that because Marcoleta’s statements were heard by many Filipinos, they must be directly addressed.

  “If it is not corrected, people might believe it,” Carpio said.

  He emphasized that the purpose of the debate is educational — to clarify legal definitions and prevent misinformation.

  On Chinese Activity and Intelligence Concerns

  Asked whether recent Chinese naval monitoring activities were connected to domestic political statements, Carpio said China has long shadowed Philippine and allied military exercises. He described such monitoring as standard operating procedure.

  On reports of alleged espionage activities, Carpio said intelligence gathering by China has been ongoing for years, including monitoring communications and military facilities. He noted that Philippine security agencies are countering such efforts within their capabilities.

  He also said that during the previous administration, there were proposals to install Chinese communication towers inside military camps, but these were not ultimately implemented after resistance from the military.

  On Unity and Responsibility

  Carpio said that while freedom of speech is part of a democratic society, public officials have a responsibility to understand the legal and factual basis of their pronouncements.

  He reiterated that under the 1898 Treaty of Paris and the 1900 Treaty of Washington, what was ceded were the islands of the Philippine archipelago — not all waters within the treaty lines. At the time, international law limited territorial sea to three nautical miles, later expanded to twelve nautical miles under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

  He stressed that the Philippine Constitution adopts general principles of international law as part of domestic law, meaning the internationally recognized limits on territorial sea automatically apply.

  Carpio said these principles are basic and widely recognized, and that discussions about them should remain grounded in law and international standards.

  ---

  Retired Justice Antonio T. Carpio proposes a clear debate topic — “Is There a West Philippine Sea?” — in response to Senator Marcoleta’s claims, and explains the legal basis of Philippine maritime zones under international law and UNCLOS.

• Carpio: Rule of Law — Not War — Must Govern South China Sea Disputes

  14 February 2026

  Tags 2016 arbitral ruling, Antonio T. Carpio, International Law, nine-dash line, rule of law, Scarborough Shoal, South China Sea dispute, United Nations Charter

  Retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio emphasized that disputes in the South China Sea must be resolved under the rule of law, in accordance with the foundational principles of the United Nations Charter.

  In an interview, Carpio explained that before 1945, territorial disputes were often settled through war. After World War II, however, the UN Charter established a new international legal order: disputes between states must be resolved by peaceful means — through negotiation, mediation, and ultimately arbitration — and the use or threat of force is prohibited.

  Carpio pointed to the Philippines’ response to China’s actions at Scarborough Shoal in 2012. Instead of sending troops, the Philippines brought the dispute to arbitration in The Hague to challenge China’s nine-dash line claim.

  “We sent our lawyers to The Hague,” Carpio said, noting that the Philippines achieved a significant legal victory in the 2016 arbitral award, securing recognition of maritime areas even larger than the country’s total land area.

  He remarked that in today’s world, major battles over maritime rights are no longer fought at sea, but in courtrooms.

  Carpio warned that two countries are attempting to overturn this post-World War II legal order. He cited Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as an example of using force to settle a territorial dispute, an action widely condemned by the United Nations General Assembly.

  He also pointed to China’s actions in the South China Sea, where, he said, China is attempting to enforce its nine-dash line through intimidation and the threat of force, covering nearly 85 percent of the sea, including areas within Philippine maritime zones.

  According to Carpio, the Philippines is at the forefront of defending the international legal order in the region — upholding the principle that disputes must be settled peacefully and that the use or threat of force is outlawed.

  He stressed that the country’s position is rooted in preserving what was gained under the UN Charter: a global system where the rule of law prevails over military might.

  ---

  Retired Justice Antonio T. Carpio underscores that the South China Sea dispute must be resolved under the United Nations Charter through peaceful means such as negotiation and arbitration, emphasizing the Philippines’ role in defending the rule of law against the use or threat of force.

• Carpio Ready to Defend Legal Basis of West Philippine Sea in Public Debate

  11 February 2026

  Tags Antonio T. Carpio, EEZ Philippines, Kalayaan Island Group, Maritime Dispute, Philippine baselines law, Philippine maritime law, Territorial Sovereignty, UNCLOS, West Philippine Sea

  Retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio has expressed readiness to participate in a public “friendly debate” regarding the legality of the West Philippine Sea and the Philippines’ maritime entitlements.

  In an interview on Isyu Spotted (10 February 2026), Carpio said he is willing to engage in a live discussion to address statements questioning both the legal existence of the West Philippine Sea and the country’s claim over the Kalayaan Island Group.

  Clarifying the Legal Issues

  Carpio explained that the proposed debate should focus on two central questions:

  1. Is there a legal basis for the West Philippine Sea under Philippine law?
  2. Are Philippine islands and maritime features beyond 200 nautical miles still part of national territory and maritime jurisdiction?

  He emphasized that these issues are straightforward and can be clarified by referring to existing Philippine laws, maritime baselines, and established principles of international law.

  “We cannot allow misinformation to go unanswered,” Carpio said, noting that public discussion is necessary to educate Filipinos on the legal foundations of the country’s maritime claims.

  Debate as Public Education

  While some observers have questioned the value of holding a debate, Carpio maintained that an open forum would serve an educational purpose. He stressed that arbitration, legal interpretation, and territorial claims should be discussed based on statutes, historical records, and international jurisprudence—not on rhetoric.

  Asked whether his offer has an expiration date, Carpio replied that he remains open to the discussion at any time, pending confirmation from the other side.

  The former magistrate reiterated that the legal questions surrounding the West Philippine Sea can be addressed clearly and concisely under Philippine law and international maritime principles.

  ---

  🎥 Watch the full interview here:

  Retired Justice Antonio T. Carpio expresses readiness to join a public debate on the legality of the West Philippine Sea and the Philippines’ maritime claims, emphasizing the need to clarify legal principles and educate the public on national sovereignty rights.

• Carpio Urges New Arbitration Case on West Philippine Sea Sovereignty

  11 February 2026

  Tags Antonio T. Carpio, International Court of Justice, Kalayaan Island Group, Pedro Murillo Velarde Map, Philippine sovereignty, Spratly Islands, territorial dispute, UNCLOS, West Philippine Sea

  Retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio is calling for a new international arbitration case to address sovereignty issues in the West Philippine Sea — particularly over the Kalayaan Island Group.

  In a recent interview, Carpio pointed to centuries-old Philippine maps — including the 1734 Murillo Velarde map — as historical proof of the country’s longstanding claim. He emphasized that arbitration is not hostility, but a legitimate diplomatic tool grounded in international law.

  The Philippines won in 2016.
  Can it prevail again?

  Retired Justice Antonio T. Carpio urges the Philippine government to file a new arbitration case before the International Court of Justice over the West Philippine Sea dispute, citing centuries-old maps and strong legal grounds supporting the country’s claim to the Kalayaan Island Group.

• Justice Carpio: Appeasement Narratives, Legal Misstatements, and the Cost of Silence on the West Philippine Sea

  31 January 2026

  Tags China Philippines dispute, Chinese embassy rhetoric, cyber influence operations, diplomatic protocol, International Law, Justice Antonio Carpio, Maritime Law, National Security, Philippine sovereignty, Regional security, Scarborough Shoal, South China Sea, UNCLOS, Vienna Convention, West Philippine Sea

  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.

  Justice Antonio T. Carpio warns that China’s recent embassy rhetoric and diplomatic posturing may signal renewed assertive moves on Scarborough Shoal, underscoring threats to Philippine sovereignty, international law, and regional stability.

• Justice Carpio Warns: China’s Embassy Posturing May Signal Move on Scarborough Shoal

  29 January 2026

  Tags 2016 Arbitral Award, Arbitration Case, ASEAN, China bullying, China Philippines relations, Chinese embassy rhetoric, foreign policy, geopolitical tensions, International Law, Justice Carpio, Maritime Security, National Security, Philippine sovereignty, Regional security, Scarborough Shoal, South China Sea, UNCLOS, West Philippine Sea, West Philippine Sea dispute

  Former Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio has warned that China’s increasingly aggressive diplomatic posture in Manila may be part of a broader strategic preparation to assert control over Scarborough Shoal — a move that could fundamentally alter the balance of power in the West Philippine Sea. In a recent interview, Justice Carpio observed that the arrival of a new Chinese ambassador appears to mark a shift toward a more confrontational tone, coinciding with Beijing’s announced plan to establish a so-called “nature reserve” in Scarborough Shoal. Based on China’s past conduct in Fiery Cross Reef and Mischief Reef, Justice Carpio cautioned that environmental or scientific pretexts often serve as the first step toward militarization, ultimately transforming occupied features into full-scale air and naval bases.

  Justice Carpio explained that control of the South China Sea requires only three strategic air-naval hubs — in the Paracels, the Spratlys, and Scarborough — and China has already secured two of them. Scarborough Shoal remains the final strategic gap. He suggested that China’s abrasive rhetoric and provocative embassy behavior may be part of a deliberate effort to bait the Philippines into a confrontation that could later serve as justification for escalation. To counter this, Justice Carpio urged the Philippine government to shift from reactive diplomacy to proactive legal and strategic action by internationalizing the Scarborough Shoal issue, filing new arbitration cases under UNCLOS, enforcing existing arbitral rulings, and drawing global attention to China’s looming violation of the 2002 Declaration of Conduct. He stressed that placing Scarborough Shoal in the international spotlight — while strengthening security partnerships and alliances — remains the most effective way to deter unilateral Chinese action and defend Philippine sovereignty.

  Justice Carpio, Scarborough Shoal, West Philippine Sea, South China Sea, China Philippines relations, UNCLOS, 2016 Arbitral Award, Philippine sovereignty, maritime security, Chinese embassy rhetoric, geopolitical tensions, international law, national security, foreign policy, West Philippine Sea dispute, China bullying, arbitration case, ASEAN, regional security, IMOA

  Justice Antonio T. Carpio warns that China’s escalating diplomatic aggression may signal preparations to occupy Scarborough Shoal, urging legal action, international pressure, and stronger alliances to defend Philippine sovereignty in the West Philippine Sea.

• Justice Carpio: Upholding Philippine Sovereignty Against China’s Bullying at Sea and in Manila

  28 January 2026

  Tags bullying, China, diplomatic protocol, International Law, Justice Carpio, Maritime Law, Philippine sovereignty, Philippines-China Relations, Vienna Convention, West PH Sea, West Philippine Sea

  Former Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio has called for firm action to defend Philippine sovereignty in light of China’s escalating diplomatic and maritime pressure. In a recent interview, Justice Carpio warned that the Philippines is being “bullied at sea” and “bullied in Manila,” highlighting that China’s coercive actions are no longer confined to the West Philippine Sea but now extend into diplomatic and political spaces within the country.

  Justice Carpio emphasized that China must comply strictly with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which governs how foreign missions engage host governments. He criticized Chinese officials for bypassing the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) by directly communicating with Philippine line agencies, calling the practice “totally wrong” and a violation of diplomatic norms. Allowing this behavior risks undermining the Philippines’ institutional authority and emboldening further interference.

  To counter these actions, Justice Carpio urged the Philippine government to summon the Chinese Ambassador and hold Chinese officials accountable. He underscored the principle of reciprocity: if China summons Philippine diplomats, the Philippines should respond in kind. Above all, he stressed that these measures should be framed publicly as responses to China’s bullying—both at sea and in the nation’s capital.

  Justice Carpio’s message underscores that defending national sovereignty requires firmness, legal clarity, and adherence to international law. By enforcing diplomatic protocol and standing up to coercive rhetoric, the Philippines can protect its rights and reinforce a rules-based order that safeguards smaller states from great-power pressure.

  Justice Carpio warns that China is bullying the Philippines at sea and in Manila, urging strict adherence to diplomatic protocol and assertive action to protect national sovereignty.