In a viral statement made on February 14, 2026, Senator Rodante Marcoleta claimed that retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio had committed “treason” by writing the decision in Magallona v. Ermita. Marcoleta alleged that the ruling “gave away” 242,000 square nautical miles of Philippine waters and “shrank” the country’s territorial sea.
RATING: FALSE
THE DETAILS
1. On “Giving Away” 242,000 Square Nautical Miles
The Claim: Marcoleta asserts that Carpio’s decision surrendered nearly a quarter-million square miles of internal waters.
The Fact: The Supreme Court (SC) ruling in Magallona v. Ermita (2011) actually expanded the Philippines’ maritime domain. By bringing the country into compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the law (RA 9522) allowed the Philippines to formally claim an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
The Result: Far from losing space, the Philippines gained sovereign rights over an additional 145,216 square nautical miles of sea space that were not officially recognized under the old colonial “Treaty of Paris” lines.
2. On “Shrinking” the Territorial Sea
The Claim: Marcoleta argues that the ruling “shrank” the territorial sea to accommodate government arguments.
The Fact: The SC clarified that RA 9522 is a “statutory tool” to demarcate maritime zones, not a law to define territory. The transition from “internal waters” to “archipelagic waters” was a technical requirement of UNCLOS.
The Impact: This move was critical in the Philippines’ 2016 victory at The Hague against China. Without being UNCLOS-compliant (via the Magallona ruling), the Philippines would have had no legal standing to challenge China’s nine-dash line.
3. On the Charge of “Treason”
The Claim: Marcoleta stated, “I [will] charge him with treason for this.”
The Fact: Under Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code , Treason can only be committed by a person who “levies war against [the Government]” or “adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort” during a state of war .
The Legal Reality: The Philippines is not at war. Disagreeing with a legal interpretation or a judicial ponencia does not constitute treason. Furthermore, the Magallona decision was unanimous —meaning the entire Supreme Court, not just Justice Carpio, upheld the law.
WHY IT MATTERS
Misleading claims about maritime laws undermine the country’s legal position in the West Philippine Sea. Justice Carpio’s ponencia is widely regarded by international law experts as the foundation that allowed the Philippines to protect its resources from foreign encroachment.
Verdict: Marcoleta’s claims are a misinterpretation of international law and Philippine jurisprudence. The Magallona ruling strengthened, rather than weakened, Philippine maritime claims.
About The Author
