INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
DFA officials interviewed: Secretary Teodoro L. Locsin, Jr.
Program: The Source (CNN Philippines)
Name of interviewer: Ms. Pinky Webb
Date: 28 August 2020
Link to interview clip (if available):
https://www.facebook.com/CNNPhilippines/videos/362723068066500
/
[INTEVIEW PROPER 2:10-57:20]
Pinky: Let’s start with this - the United States blacklisting Chinese individuals or companies
involved in the militarization in the South China Sea. My first question is does the Department
of Foreign Affairs have any reaction on this?
SFA: Well, right now what I know is that that belongs to those departments that have ongoing
projects with China. I don’t know and I’m not sure that any of those listed companies are
among those we are directly dealing with. But you’d have to ask Art Tugade, DTI and NEDA
which companies these are. But I think I have to study the nature of those sanctions. I know
that there are sanctions. Sometimes the sanctions against Russia but we still do business with
Russia especially if it is assistance. I do know there are sanctions against Iran. I myself look
favorably on Iran as a balancer in the Middle East. So, on that specific issue, I’d rather wait
for the two departments who are dealing with Chinese companies. And remember once these
companies are already on, what do you do? Do you suspend the project? Those are the things
that I want to ask them instead.
Pinky: So, let’s look into the reason for this. The United States is actually saying that since
2013 China has dredged 3,000 acres in the South China Sea. They de-stabilize the region,
trampling even on sovereign rights of countries and involved in environmental devastation.
This was a statement made by Secretary Mike Pompeo. So in essence, what it is really is
trampling on sovereign rights—rather an issue close to our hearts—and of course,
environmental devastation.
SFA: Well, the thing is that—when was this? 2013, right? In 2013 when this was going on,
what my diplomats tell me is that we were told that there was reclamation going on and when
we wanted verification, we had no help from our military ally that was under the democratic
administration of Obama. In fact, we were made to pay thousands of dollars for a few fuzzy
photographs—a thousand dollars each. So, by the time we got a clear picture of this, thank
God Trump was President. But the fact was already on the ground or rather, the fact was
already in the water. Now that is what I have to deal with and that’s what Pompeo also has to
deal with – facts created in the previous administration in both cases. In Noynoy’s case, thank
God he filed our arbitral award case in The Hague which we won. In the case of Pompeo, in
the sense that he works for the successor administration, the Republicans who have an
extraordinary genius for foreign relations.
Pinky: But be that as it may, Secretary, if it started in 2013 or even in 2014, the situation is it
continues to this day in 2020. Let me turn your attention to this: the U.P. Marine Science says
Page 1 of 14
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
DFA officials interviewed: Secretary Teodoro L. Locsin, Jr.
Program: The Source (CNN Philippines)
Name of interviewer: Ms. Pinky Webb
Date: 28 August 2020
Link to interview clip (if available):
https://www.facebook.com/CNNPhilippines/videos/362723068066500
/
there is about 33 billion pesos from damaged reefs and illegal fishing in the South China Sea
and if you were to add that 33 billion since 2014, that would amount to 231 billion pesos. Isn’t
this a point that the Philippines needs to reconsider?
SFA: Well, we keep that in mind. We’ll also have to study those figures. There’s a tendency
on those people to exaggerate. I don’t know how you quantify the damage or even how you
ascertain it, but I’m told it’s possible. We’re going to look into that but whether or not, we are
going to have to consult with our international lawyers what we can do about that. But I can
assure you there is no hesitation on my part if I have the law on my side. As I told my people
here in the Department of Foreign Affairs and all my posts, as a country without independent
military means of its own to protect its own interest, it is imperative that we always rely on one
thing – precision in facts, precision in law. And we will proceed by law because that is all we
have now. However, the situation could change because this is our territory and therefore, we
send our patrols there and for that, we are accused by China after I filed the protests of what
they regard as ‘illegal provocations’. Well, that’s their point of view. It’s based on what they
believe. Ours is different – it is ours, it is not illegal provocation, it is rightful protest. And it’s
based not on our point of view, it’s based on the law. And that’s how we’re going to proceed.
Pinky: The point I’m trying to make is this: you have the United States who is not a claimant
in the South China Sea imposing sanctions on Chinese companies and individuals. Where I
wanted to go is do you even think that there is a possibility that the Philippines may actually
do something of this nature as well considering that there has been lots of things—incursions,
intrusions, militarization in the South China Sea, environmental devastation and trampling on
what Secretary Mike Pompeo was saying—trampling on sovereign rights. Dadating ho kaya
tayo in this kind of nature or action that the U.S. is doing?
SFA: Well in that regard, I’m glad you brought that up and I’ve learned something here. Yes,
if I find that any of those companies are doing business with us, then I would strongly
recommend we terminate that relationship with that company. If they were in any way involved
in the reclamation, then it becomes consistent on our part to terminate any contract with them.
Of course, since the contract was already entered into, they could sue us back. But that’s a
good point because I am very careful about validating anything China does by inaction.
Pinky: There is a point, a number of recommendations actually made by former DFA
Secretary Albert del Rosario and I’m going to connect it to this. I don’t know if you will see it
as such. He says that—you know the President says that we can’t go to war. The President
has often said he’s not going to send his people, he’s not going to put the lives of his soldiers
or the Navy in danger. But there’s a suggestion from the former Secretary, among other things,
Page 2 of 14
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
DFA officials interviewed: Secretary Teodoro L. Locsin, Jr.
Program: The Source (CNN Philippines)
Name of interviewer: Ms. Pinky Webb
Date: 28 August 2020
Link to interview clip (if available):
https://www.facebook.com/CNNPhilippines/videos/362723068066500
/
is to actually unite and demand payment from China. Why? Number one, because of this UP
Marine Science study, as I mentioned a while ago, that we’re actually losing 33 billion pesos
annually from damages from reefs and actually illegal fishing. He goes on to say that we can
seize, he suggests, we can actually seize assets and properties of China here in the
Philippines. Do you agree that that could be a possibility?
SFA: There’s always a possibility. Yes, we could do that. But we’re talking about seizing
Chinese assets? I’m afraid del Rosario might need to take a little rest. Let’s not forget that he
also created a ruckus when he went to Hong Kong after having viciously attacked the
sovereign government of Hong Kong, which is Beijing. I got him out of that problem. This one
requires great thought – to actually seize Chinese assets in the Philippines and that would be
assets of those companies, I assume. Again, I have to consult real lawyers to do that because
as much as we can sue, we can also be sued in return. The difference is this: right now, I
understand China already has gotten a member elected into the International Court of Justice;
so far as I know, we don’t. So, that requires some thought—as businessmen, I’m a business
lawyer myself. Ok, we’ll take that into consideration. However, I will completely ignore his
suggestion that we bring this to the United Nations, the Arbitral Award, because when you win
something, you do not appeal your victory. This is what del Rosario wants me to do but I can’t.
Because once you throw it to the United Nations, I’m afraid China has the numbers there and
it’s about numbers. It’s not about law.
Pinky: Because if I were to go back, Secretary Locsin, Secretary Albert del Rosario saying
that we can bring this up to the UN General Assembly come September, he was actually
confident that we would get the numbers from the first world countries and then number two,
he says, even from the smaller countries. Why? Because the smaller countries wouldn’t want
the same thing actually happening to them—intrusions and incursions in their waters—so the
tendency would be, tayo ang kakampihan even of the smaller countries. What are your
thoughts on that?
SFA: Well, my thoughts on that is he has very little experience with international affairs. I was
in the United Nations. I can tell you from the major blocks of developing countries, let’s call
them that, small countries like the Non-Aligned Movement, they always vote against the
inclusion of our Arbitral Award in any resolution by those large voting bodies. We are always
rejected; they always go with China. And I guess that’s the difference between aspiration and
experience.
Pinky: Even, in spite rather of that ruling by the PCA, the Permanent Court of Arbitration; even
if we have that on our side.
Page 3 of 14
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
DFA officials interviewed: Secretary Teodoro L. Locsin, Jr.
Program: The Source (CNN Philippines)
Name of interviewer: Ms. Pinky Webb
Date: 28 August 2020
Link to interview clip (if available):
https://www.facebook.com/CNNPhilippines/videos/362723068066500
/
SFA: Yes, we do. I remember getting angry when I was there when we tried to put just a little
language in a Non-Aligned Movement—they’re huge. It’s such a huge voting bloc—to get it at
least mentioned, not endorse it, but just mentioned in their resolution and they voted it down.
My good friends in Africa—and I really like them—came to me and they said, ‘Sorry, we’re
voting with China against this.’ As I said, we all have many wishes. But some of us don’t deal
with wishes, we deal with experience and knowledge. I’m afraid the knowledge and the
experience is against Secretary del Rosario’s wishes. And I can’t afford to lose our Arbitral
award. I don’t want to go down in history as the guy who lost it.
Pinky: In summary, you’re saying that if this is brought up to the UN General Assembly, for
example, Sir, this coming September, we’re going to lose it.
SFA: Yes. That’s right. And we’ll lose it. Believe me, the smaller the country, the more insular
its character—in that sense, similar to us—the more likely they will not vote with us because
they need all the help they can get. China’s very aggressive and not in a bad way. It’s very
aggressive in pushing developmental projects.
Pinky: Please correct me if I’m wrong, wouldn’t the United Nations General Assembly
highlight the rule of law? Wouldn’t they side on the rule of law?
SFA: No. Of course, that is the creed of the United Nations. If you’re talking about the mottos
on the wall, yes, it’s the rule of law. But when you go into the discussions on the floor of the
General Assembly and in the voting, I’m afraid it’s self-interest that governs. And in their case,
if nobody else is offering them help, I don’t blame them for going that way. But what I know is
this: thank you, del Rosario, Tony Carpio, Noynoy Aquino for winning the Arbitral Award and
I swear I will not lose that by a rather fanciful desire to throw this Award into contestation again
in an uncertain assembly. That’s about as polite as I can put it.
[BREAK 17:34-18:44]
Pinky: Before we go to the diplomatic protest, just one last thing, China firing aircraft missiles
in the South China Sea as a warning to the United States. Secretary Locsin, is this a cause
for concern for the Philippines and how does the DFA view this latest action of China?
SFA: Well, I think I have already handled a situation similar to that. It was announced that
China was conducting naval exercises, and then I went on the air and I said, ‘As a responsible
Foreign Affairs Secretary, when I am told that they have conducted naval military exercises in
the South China Sea, I immediately consulted the map for coordinates and I discovered it’s
Page 4 of 14
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
DFA officials interviewed: Secretary Teodoro L. Locsin, Jr.
Program: The Source (CNN Philippines)
Name of interviewer: Ms. Pinky Webb
Date: 28 August 2020
Link to interview clip (if available):
https://www.facebook.com/CNNPhilippines/videos/362723068066500
/
pretty clear that the naval exercises were not taking place within the coordinates of our territory
and therefore, it was interesting to watch.’ That’s it. However, I warned—and this kind of
irritated Beijing—should those naval exercises spill over into my territory, then they must
expect the worst. And of course, you leave that undefined because that's the nature of
diplomacy and also more than that, it is the nature of my expertise – Cold War deterrence
theory.
Pinky: But somehow, when you hear reports of such, it makes me think that this could possibly
even be a show of force between the two countries. Would at any point the Philippines be in
the middle of this provocation between the two countries, and will we at some point need to
take sides?
SFA: Well, two things. One, it’s hard enough to understand the present, it’s pretty hard to
anticipate the future. What I can tell you is this: they fired a missile and it was at large, not
pointed at any particular naval force. Well ok, if that’s what they want to do. What I can tell you
is this—as an expert, I guess, in deterrence theory—I can tell you this: that I do not rule out
any option, either diplomacy or as they say, the conduct of diplomacy by other means. For
that, I will not spell it out. I ask you to read Clausewitz. No, I am not afraid of any eventuality.
All I know is that I have my country, I have its specific territory outlined, and that I will not brook
any violation of my territory. It’s as simple as that. Now what happens after that, it’s for the
powers to decide.
Now, where will we fall in the event of a conflict? We have a Mutual Defense Treaty. This is
one of the things about international practice – that is when you enter a treaty, you are bound
by it, not because they can force you, but because if you don’t obey it, if you don’t fulfill your
end of the bargain, you lose what is known by Morgenthau as prestige as a nation. Therefore,
if the United States is attacked, which is either the metropolitan territory of the United States
or US military assets, then under the Mutual Defense Treaty, we are as bound to come to the
defense of the United States as the United States is bound to come to our defense. During
the Cold War—I’m that old—it was said to me repeatedly, ‘Oh come on, the Americans will
not because we’re just a brown race, they will not perform their end of the bargain.’ But I can
tell you from repeated consultations in Washington and professors who taught me at the Naval
War college, it was simply this; the United States does not look at the color of any country
when it comes to treaty obligations. Its credibility in the world as a major power, in fact the
leading power, depends on the reliability of its bond, and when it says, ‘We will come to the
defense of the Philippines’, offer that matter of Germany at that time, we will throw all our
weaponry at the enemy. That’s just the way it is.
Page 5 of 14
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
DFA officials interviewed: Secretary Teodoro L. Locsin, Jr.
Program: The Source (CNN Philippines)
Name of interviewer: Ms. Pinky Webb
Date: 28 August 2020
Link to interview clip (if available):
https://www.facebook.com/CNNPhilippines/videos/362723068066500
/
Pinky: You talked about the Mutual Defense Treaty, what is the latest on this? Because from
the last that I read, I researched again on this, and it was still at a low-level review? Or has it
actually moved from there, Secretary Locsin?
SFA: There’s no need to move from there because it is a completed act. That is a Mutual
Defense Treaty, our mutual obligations are clearly defined – an attack on the United States is
an attack on the Philippines, an attack on the Philippines is an attack on the United States.
There might’ve been some muddling in the past, there was a rather stupid CINCPAC
commander in Hawaii who, out of the blue—and this was at the time of Clinton, I think—said,
‘Should there be a trouble between the Philippines and China over territorial claims, the United
States will not respond to that because those are territorial claims.’ I believe that idiot was fired
or retired because one, nobody asked, you should’ve not brought it up. So, the Mutual Defense
Treaty stands, and interest in it may wax and wane depending on the American or Philippine
administration, but it’s there. It’s perdurable and it stays as, frankly, our greatest assurance of
national defense.
Pinky: Then tell me this, you had a conversation I believe last August 08 with Secretary Mike
Pompeo – what was talked about? What can you tell about that particular conversation? Any
commitments or pledges coming from the United States? Or even anything on the South China
Sea?
SFA: Well, we did discuss all of those things. But as the essence of diplomacy is also
sometimes reticence, and on my part, I’d rather be reticent on what Mike Pompeo and I talked
about. But I can tell you this: if you ask sources in the US Embassy, he and I get along
famously and see eye to eye on many, many things.
Pinky: Any commitments though, or any pledges?
SFA: Oh, the commitment is there. It’s a Mutual Defense Treaty, they are our treaty allies—
their only treaty ally. In fact, I’m not even sure if there’s any other military treaty ally in Asia. I
know there’s some special relations with Bangkok, and of course with Japan, but ours is the
preeminent one. It really commits them as I said—sometimes it gets people angry and on the
other side—as I said, it commits them to World War III if you want to put it that way. There is
no qualification about it – an attack on the Philippines, an attack on the United States, we’ll
give them all our might, everything we have. You may laugh at our ability, but we will. Because
remember, we’re here. We’re already in Asia. Any attack on us, I believe the United States
will, for the sake of its prestige.
Page 6 of 14
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
DFA officials interviewed: Secretary Teodoro L. Locsin, Jr.
Program: The Source (CNN Philippines)
Name of interviewer: Ms. Pinky Webb
Date: 28 August 2020
Link to interview clip (if available):
https://www.facebook.com/CNNPhilippines/videos/362723068066500
/
[BREAK 26:55-28:39]
Pinky: Let’s talk about the diplomatic protests. There are a number of them, Secretary, let us
try to break this down with the one that was filed latest. Last week, you filed a diplomatic
protest over China’s confiscation of the fishermen’s devices in Scarborough Shoal, and the
second one on this is supposed to be the persistent radio challenges of China to Philippine
aircrafts conducting maritime patrols in the West Philippine Sea. Do you have any update on
this, before we go to the response of China?
SFA: We filed those protests. I wasn’t particularly happy at the delay. As you know, I don’t file
protests based on media reports. This was one of the first acts I did when I was appointed. I
was in Brussels and ABS-CBN showed me footage, and I said, ‘Where did you get this
footage?’ ‘Well, it’s there and it looks like they are in our territories.’ I said nothing looks like
anything unless it’s official. So, I said, from now on, unless the National Task Force on the
West Philippine Sea tells me there has been an incursion, there isn’t one. This one was very
clear that there was an incursion, there was the confiscation of the fishermen’s gear, payaos.
At any rate, I have always said and I carried it out, I fire diplomatic protests. That’s right, I filed
diplomatic protests and China, in response, called it an ‘illegal provocation’. People ask what
are you going to say about that? What I’m going to say about that is it’s a free world, you can
say what you want. I don’t expect China to say, ‘No, the Philippines is correct.’ I don’t expect
China to say that. We know we are correct and so does the International Tribunal. I think that’s
what counts. Now what they want to say, they are free to say that. Everybody's free to say
what they want. It’s what we do that counts based on what we believe and what we know to
be the law and the facts. And there is a childish tendency to react to words. I’m not childish.
The previous ones may have been childish but I’m not.
Pinky: What happens after a diplomatic protest is filed? Just help us understand the situation.
Do you fire diplomatic protests and do you actually expect the response? Or does this really
fall on deaf ears?
SFA: Well, we don’t know if it falls on deaf ears. Again, they are free to shut their ears. Now,
the thing is, what happens is, every time you do that is that you do not, by your silence, give
consent or “Qui tacet consentire videtur”. Latin adage, right? So, we don’t. Every chance, and
you can say, ‘Aren’t you tired of doing that?’ No, I’m not tired of doing that. Because China will
never be able to say, ‘Hey, on this case, they did not say anything so I guess they agree.’ And
that goes for anything else. That they will also explain why I am against—why I got angry, why
the report to me about these incursions came a bit late given the excellent record of the
National Task Force and I’m going to look to see why there was a delay.
Page 7 of 14
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
DFA officials interviewed: Secretary Teodoro L. Locsin, Jr.
Program: The Source (CNN Philippines)
Name of interviewer: Ms. Pinky Webb
Date: 28 August 2020
Link to interview clip (if available):
https://www.facebook.com/CNNPhilippines/videos/362723068066500
/
Pinky: I think this happened sometime in March, but I want a zero in on this, you already
mentioned the response of China, they were basically saying that it’s infringing on China’s
sovereignty and security. There are two things. Number one, sending those military aircraft
adjacent to Spratly islands and the second one, they call this a lawful practice, the one with
regards to Scarborough Shoal, they are conducting law enforcement. Let me just go to this,
the Scarborough Shoal issue. I guess my question, Secretary Locsin, is, how can China say
this is actually lawful practice when this is within the country’s exclusive economic zone?
SFA: Absolutely. Where they’re coming from? They’re coming from their belief that the nine-
dash line supersedes everything and we’re coming from the ruling, not the belief, from the
ruling of the Arbitral Court saying that, ‘No, the nine-dash line does not mean a damn thing. It
has no historical basis, and the Philippine economic zone belongs to the Philippines – no
exceptions.’ Well, there was one on artisanal fishing. Never mind that, let’s not go into that
because what’s artisanal, what’s industrial fishing, it’s a bit complex.
So, China can say what it wants. I think it’s childish for some people, perhaps old age, to get
angry about what the other side says. I never get angry; I just insist on what belongs to us.
What they want to say, it’s a free world. I think, don’t you think?
Pinky: It’s a free world, they can say what they say. In fact, it was Secretary Delfin Lorenzana
who said that when China insists on the nine-dash line, he calls it, “It’s just in their imagination.”
Do you agree that it’s just in the imagination of China that the nine-dash line actually exists?
SFA: Well, it’s an old imaginative—it comes from the time of Chiang Kai-Shek. In fact, the first
time this issue came up was raised by Tony Carpio in a seminar in Shangri-La and I said, ‘You
mean the nine-dash line?’ But I said the nine-dash line was set by Chiang Kai-Shek, on the
eve of the collapse of his government by the Chinese Communist Party. And now, the enemy
of the Chinese Communist Party is invoking a legacy of Chiang Kai-Shek, their mortal enemy,
and saying it is history. Well, if it’s history, it’s recent history. It had no basis in law. It was just
something that he wanted to show that possibly, he really was a Chinese patriot but we are
not bound by that. So, it’s imaginative in that sense and it was in the mind of Chiang Kai-Shek,
who’s dead by the way.
Pinky: So, Scarborough Shoal – that’s one issue, that’s within our EEZ, we are obviously
stating this is to be a fact, we won this in the PCA. And let’s go to the Spratlys. Because the
Spratlys, China was saying that this was a provocation when we sent a military aircraft near
the Spratlys. Because they say that, should the Philippines then stop patrolling, having military
Page 8 of 14
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
DFA officials interviewed: Secretary Teodoro L. Locsin, Jr.
Program: The Source (CNN Philippines)
Name of interviewer: Ms. Pinky Webb
Date: 28 August 2020
Link to interview clip (if available):
https://www.facebook.com/CNNPhilippines/videos/362723068066500
/
aircraft adjacent to the Spratlys, Sir? Should we stop this because they are saying we are
provoking them?
SFA: As long as we fly within our exclusive economic zone, yes, we should continue doing
that. Because I’ll tell you what’s the other trigger of the Mutual Defense Treaty – and that is
the strike at the Philippine military asset. You can laugh at our few boats of our Navy but they
are getting better and better under President Duterte. They were getting worse and worse
under previous administrations but under Duterte, we now have military capability. So, we
should just go do it. But the problem is this for China, that under the Mutual Defense Treaty,
an attack on the metropolitan Philippines is an attack on the United States. A sinking or a
downing of a Philippine military asset is the same. It triggers the Mutual Defense Treaty. It’s
up to them. Again, it’s a free world.
Pinky: Right, but as I was mentioning a while ago, Secretary, there are so many diplomatic
protests you’ve filed. The other one, aside from last week, was one on April 20, it was about
the creation of China of two districts in the South China Sea. The diplomatic protest was filed
on two points: number one, here it is, the pointing of a gun at the Philippine Navy in Philippine
waters and number two, declaring parts of Philippine territory as Hainan Province. You said
that both are actually violations of international law and Philippine sovereignty. So, where can
we actually take this? You’re saying it’s a violation of international law. So, apart from a
diplomatic protest, what else can be done?
SFA: Well then, I have to think. Do I bring it back to the Arbitral Court? What if it reopens our
arbitral victory? They’re dying—you know there are members of ASEAN who are dying to have
us reopen that and then we’d be all alone. And then we lose what Noynoy won for us. I have
to think very carefully whether to gamble a clear legal victory on what may be a vain gesture.
But meanwhile, we will continue doing what we are doing, which is to use military assets
everywhere that is our territory under international law. That includes the 400-mile economic
zone.
Pinky: I’m just wondering, how can we actually lose a ruling that we won? What is the threat
of actually bringing it up again and losing?
SFA: No, what if it reopens? The question is, was it a violation of Philippine sovereignty? Our
ruling already defined what’s ours. But if that is the question I’m going to bring up again to
another court, they may reopen it. What if they change their minds? I’m even afraid that some
of our neighbors may want to bring it up just precisely to lose it. I trust no one in this world.
Page 9 of 14
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
DFA officials interviewed: Secretary Teodoro L. Locsin, Jr.
Program: The Source (CNN Philippines)
Name of interviewer: Ms. Pinky Webb
Date: 28 August 2020
Link to interview clip (if available):
https://www.facebook.com/CNNPhilippines/videos/362723068066500
/
PINKY: Because you believe that some court may actually believe in the nine-dash line.
SFA: No, it’s not so much of that, but they can weaken whatever we got. Remember, that
decision was a German invention, it was brilliant. They removed all claims to sovereignty and
they reduced it simply to maritime features and what they can generate or not generate under
international law. So, they put it all down to the most basic elements and said, “This is the
Philippines.” And any other claims are pretentions. It was a parlous victory but a victory
nonetheless. I’m not going to risk that simply because some people have nothing to do in their
retirement.
[BREAK 39:55-41:39]
PINKY: Secretary, when we talked about this arbitral ruling, you have mentioned the possible
risks of bringing this up again that we may actually lose it. If you say that, can you tell me
which ASEAN countries will actually vote against the arbitral ruling that we won?
SFA: Well, I can only go by the past. When we filed that ruling, no one was on our side. And
it was a stroke of genius on the part of my people here in the DFA, when one of my
predecessors wanted to engage another ASEAN country to partner with us in that case and
they said ‘No, don’t do that.’ And our German lawyer, a very brilliant man, said, ‘Don’t do that.
Because if they step out of this case and yield it, if they throw in the towel, we’re dead.” So,
no, when we went in there, we were alone. We paid top dollar for the best lawyers and we
owe no one anything for that victory, let alone—
[VIDEO/AUDIO ERROR]
SFA: How can you say for the record? There has been no vote, ok?
PINKY: For the record, on your perception because you keep saying—ok, let me rephrase
that.
SFA: I’m saying that I trust no one because when we started it, we were alone. And I’m going
by that. I’m not going to go by assertions especially since right now, we are the lead in
protesting China’s actions in our territory in the South China Sea. No other country comes
close to us, and I can tell you this and they will not dispute it, even Vietnam follows us under
my watch. Now, I can’t say they followed us under my predecessor’s watch. That’s the
difference, I guess. Personality could be part of it.
Page 10 of 14
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
DFA officials interviewed: Secretary Teodoro L. Locsin, Jr.
Program: The Source (CNN Philippines)
Name of interviewer: Ms. Pinky Webb
Date: 28 August 2020
Link to interview clip (if available):
https://www.facebook.com/CNNPhilippines/videos/362723068066500
/
PINKY: Alright, Secretary Locsin, I need to change topics. We need to talk about Sabah very
briefly. The House Committee on Foreign Affairs approved a substitute bill that will require the
printing of the country’s map including its 200-mile exclusive economic zone and Sabah on
Philippine passports. Is this a move that you support?
SFA: Yes, of course. I’ll tell you how we started on that. What started was when Chinese
tourists would come here, their passports had the nine-dash line and so what we did was, we
would get a piece of paper, instead of stamping their passport—because if we stamped the
nine-dash line with the Philippine visa, it is an acknowledgement on our part that the nine-
dash line is valid. So, what we did is we gave them a piece of paper and says this is now your
semi-passport and we stamp the paper and we give it to the Chinese tourist. I said no, let’s
stop using those papers because number one, the paper gets lost. Second, I said no, what
we do now is we stamp the passports with a visa stamp that is instead of this small, this big.
And we stamp the nine-dash line with the exclusive economic zone and all historical claims of
the Philippines. That’s where it came from.
Pinky: Thank you for that, Sir. I want to go to a topic very close to your heart–obviously, the
plight of OFWs and coming home to Manila, I understand that there have been 144,000 who’ve
actually returned, Secretary. How many more are awaiting to return from abroad back to the
Philippines?
SFA: 177,000 we estimate are coming back and we’re doing it.
Pinky: So, I don’t know if you saw this, I know if some people send you videos but we also
have a story on this, Sir. There are 11 seafarers in a cargo ship docked in the seas of China.
Ayaw po silang ipa-disembark and the problem is they’ve been there for 6 months. They are
desperate and they are starting to feel depressed. I don’t know if you saw this, Sir. We aired
this on CNN Philippines, our reporter had this story. So, nakikiusap po sila dahil they’re
apparently from my understanding they are not allowed to disembark in China but they have
been there for 6 months and they sleep in a cramped laundry area in this particular cargo ship.
Is there anything you can do about this, Sir?
SFA: Ok. Well, one is the minute this COVID broke out, we brought back people from Wuhan
but right now, China has a clampdown. They are afraid of infections coming from even
countries as unlikely as the Philippines, which I think we’re doing such a good job here of
containing the COVID. But no, there is no entry. Meanwhile, we have brought home 100+
seafarers already from China and the minute there is a slightest opening, we’re taking them
home. That’s just next door, that’s not a problem. But meanwhile, I’d like to—actually, some
Page 11 of 14
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
DFA officials interviewed: Secretary Teodoro L. Locsin, Jr.
Program: The Source (CNN Philippines)
Name of interviewer: Ms. Pinky Webb
Date: 28 August 2020
Link to interview clip (if available):
https://www.facebook.com/CNNPhilippines/videos/362723068066500
/
of my staff are here and I’m telling them to find out which is the consulate that’s nearest to
them and I want that consulate holding their hands. There is no excuse.
Pinky: Alright. Very good, Sir. Also, we need to talk about this: your tweets on the Philippine
Coast Guard’s request on two–an attaché in Beijing and an attaché also in Washington–both
you flatly said no to, you denied.
SFA: That’s right. I see no reason for it. We have a Defense attaché for National Defense
Issues, a separate Coast Guard—I’m reading my own tweet—attaché means we
concede…Washington request...I also rejected this. No need for them to be there. Remember
I can imagine that there would be a Canadian Coast Guard attaché because the US and
Canada have had border disputes and other issues that involve the use of the coast guards
of either country or both and I can see a point for that. But I don’t even know if Canada has a
Coast Guard attaché but I say, no, especially I do not want it in Beijing for this reason. What
does that mean? That means that the Coast Guard which basically interdicts Chinese
incursions now it will take upon itself to be in Beijing and whenever the Chinese want to make
a naval movement and anywhere within our territory, they can discuss it with the Coast Guard?
Excuse me, no, you only discuss it with me. And I discuss it only with Lorenzana and Jun
Esperon. The Coast Guard is an instrumentality of the policy we make; they do not make
policies.
Pinky: Secretary Locsin, this is also very close to your heart, they have been tweeting you;
they have been tweeting me as well–the nurses, Sir, the plight of the nurses wanting to go
abroad. I know that it’s been lifted partially those who have had finished their contract since
March 08. But what they are asking is a total lifting of this ban. I remember a tweet of yours,
you actually said doing this, banning them from going abroad is unconstitutional. My question,
Sir, is have you spoken to anyone recently about this? Because even you said there’s a
400,000 supply of nurses who are unemployed or underemployed. So, meron na po ba kayong
kinausap recently that may actually help the plight of the nurses?
SFA: There is a difference of opinion within the IATF. Some people really fear that they need
a reserve force. I said in that case, pay for it. And I don't mean pay peanuts for it, like 400
bucks. I mean pay big money for it if you want to keep them in reserve. Second, I believe it is
a constitutional right to travel and go where you can earn a living decently. That’s my opinion
and I am not changing my mind because I studied it. The first reaction of DFA when I said,
‘Hey, I think there should be no ban,’ was to say, ‘What happens if there is a real outbreak of
the pandemic?’ I said, ‘Well, I guess we die.’ But we cannot hold a section of our population
hostage for that eventuality. What if people want to escape the pandemic here? And second,
Page 12 of 14
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
DFA officials interviewed: Secretary Teodoro L. Locsin, Jr.
Program: The Source (CNN Philippines)
Name of interviewer: Ms. Pinky Webb
Date: 28 August 2020
Link to interview clip (if available):
https://www.facebook.com/CNNPhilippines/videos/362723068066500
/
you really cannot deny them the right to earn a living. They are earned peanuts in our lousy
medical system and they are well-treated and respected abroad which is what every person
needs. And I am not changing my mind on that.
Pinky: That is good, Secretary, but how can you help further? Meron po ba kayo pwedeng
kausapin to look into their plight again because if we were to believe the numbers of 400,000
unemployed or underemployed, Sir, I understand that the Philippines needs them but definitely
400,000 is an oversupply.
SFA: Well, it’s for the IATF and we constantly make that argument and we constantly lose it.
But that’s a fact. The last argument made in the IATF was, ‘Well, the ones who want to go are
the best.’ I found that insulting to our nurses. No, the ones who want to go are those who are
able to get jobs abroad. And by one estimate I think no more than 30,000. To be sure, we
have 235,000 or 285,000 nurses abroad. Hey, that’s not a bad thing. The more, the merrier.
Because at the end of the road, it’s what people earn, they have to take care of their families.
If they can’t see that, well, I’ll keep trying to make them see it. I know there are competing
claims on nurses but for God’s sake, 400,000 is an army.
Pinky: So, I guess it’s still up to the IATF. Did you speak to Secretary Delfin Lorenzana about
this, Sir?
SFA: Of course, he knows about this. He knows how strongly I feel about it and they watched
me on TV campaigning for it. Unfortunately, you know, I am only one of common peers. They
are all equal. There is no primus inter pares there.
Pinky: But you are also presenting possible facts or numbers that are coming also from the
database.
SFA: I’d like to give credit to Jun Esperon for bringing up those numbers. We were kind of
debating it, me as a lawyer, theoretically on Constitutional rights, and then he just simply said,
‘By the way, does everybody know that there are 400,000 unemployed or misemployed
nursing graduates in the Philippines?’ Well, that certainly changed the argument. I thank Jun
Esperon for that.
Pinky: Secretary Locsin, I also need to ask you about this because of the twin bombings in
Jolo recently. Because of these attacks, has there been any coordination between you
possibly and other countries whose nationals are supposed to be working with Philippine
Page 13 of 14
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
DFA officials interviewed: Secretary Teodoro L. Locsin, Jr.
Program: The Source (CNN Philippines)
Name of interviewer: Ms. Pinky Webb
Date: 28 August 2020
Link to interview clip (if available):
https://www.facebook.com/CNNPhilippines/videos/362723068066500
/
terrorist groups? Where are you taking this or holding dialogue or any type of coordination in
terms of terrorist activities?
SFA: Well, it’s really more than dialogue. With Australia, we have active counter-terrorism
training. With the United States, their facilities are still in Mindanao because my view is that
the VFA is completely unrelated to counter-terrorism. The VFA has to do with the jurisdiction
over criminal offenses committed by US naval personnel. So, I said no, this is a separate
matter and counter-terrorism is not at all related to the VFA. So, we have the US, we have
Australia, we have New Zealand, and of course, our connections in the United Nations, the
counter-terrorism body there with Voronkov, and the others. We are working very hard on it.
That’s right.
Pinky: But I’m talking about specific coordination with countries who have nationals working
with Philippine terrorist groups.
SFA: Ok, I am very glad you brought that up because there was one particular case. There
were eight, I believe eight Filipinos charged—or four, I don’t know how many they were—
charged with terrorism in a Middle Eastern country and they were acquitted. However, our
military attaché was convinced there were guilty, well at least 4 of them were. However, having
been acquitted they were then let go. And having been let go, as far as we know, nobody
bothered to track them. You know what I mean? Nobody bothered to track them. And if that
military attaché—that is why I do not need the Coast Guard—that military attaché is certain
that they are terrorists, I’d take his word for it and I’d track them down. I don’t know now if they
are operating in our country. So, there are failures of intelligence here. That worries me.
Pinky: DFA Secretary Teddy Boy Locsin, Jr. Sir, maraming salamat po sa inyo.
[END]
Page 14 of 14
