Senator Rodante Marcoleta has publicly threatened to file a treason suit against retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, citing a decision Carpio authored in 2011 related to Philippine maritime baselines.
In a recent broadcast report, Marcoleta claimed that in the case Magallona vs. Ermita — a 2011 decision involving Republic Act No. 9522 on the Philippine maritime baselines — Carpio agreed with the government’s argument to limit the territorial sea in favor of expanding the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). According to the senator’s characterization, this allegedly resulted in “giving away” 242,000 square nautical miles of Philippine territory, for which he said he would charge Carpio with treason.
Marcoleta further questioned the distances of certain features in the West Philippine Sea, citing government-submitted measurements showing island features beyond 200 nautical miles from the baseline. He reiterated his claim that these figures and the legal stance taken in the case were grounds for his threatened legal action.
Carpio responded to the treason allegation by pointing out a key legal point: treason can only be committed in wartime. Under Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of treason applies only when the Philippines is at war — a condition that does not exist between the Philippines and China.
Regarding the Magallona vs. Ermita decision, Carpio explained that the camp in that case sought to include all waters and features enclosed by the Treaty of Paris lines — far beyond the 12-nautical-mile territorial sea limit recognized under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and customary international law. He stressed that including areas beyond 12 nautical miles as “territory” would have violated international law and risked immediate dismissal of the Philippines’ arbitration case against China in The Hague due to lack of legal foundation.
Carpio reaffirmed that the baselines law and the arbitral strategy were intended to protect the Philippines’ maritime rights under international law — an approach that ultimately led to the 2016 arbitral ruling in the Philippines’ favor.