Donate

KWEBA ni BAROK

Marcoleta’s Treason Fantasy: Why Charging Carpio for Peacetime “Betrayal” Is the Dumbest Thing You’ll Read This Week

Published by

Louis ‘Barok’ Biraogo

on

Marcoleta’s Treason Fantasy: Why Charging Carpio for Peacetime “Betrayal” Is the Dumbest Thing You’ll Read This Week
When Soundbite Patriotism Meets Actual Criminal Law: The Legal Roast Marcoleta Didn’t See Coming

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — February 17, 2026

MGA ka-kweba, grab your seats and some popcorn. We have a fresh episode in our national telenovela titled “West Philippine Sea: The Misadventures of Senator Rodante Marcoleta.” This round, the villain is threatening treason charges against retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio over the 2011 unanimous decision in Magallona v. Ermita.

Treason. In peacetime. Over a unanimous Supreme Court ruling backed by Congress and the Executive Branch.

If ignorance is bliss, Senator Marcoleta must be the happiest man in the Senate.

Let’s dissect this farce with surgical precision and the disdain it richly deserves.

“Marcoleta vs Carpio: The Treason Accusation That Failed Law School 101”

The Legal Absurdity: Treason in Peacetime? Even First-Year Law Students Would Roll Their Eyes

Start with the absolute basics—something still taught in Criminal Law 1: Treason cannot be committed during peacetime.

Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code states:

“Any Filipino citizen who levies war against the Philippines or adheres to her enemies, giving them aid or comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere…”

The keyword is enemies—meaning those against whom the Philippines is at war. Not diplomatic tensions, not gray-zone incursions, not ASEAN verbal sparring. War.

There is no declared war between the Philippines and China. No shooting war. No state of belligerency. Nothing. Zero. Zilch.

That is exactly why Justice Carpio stated: “Every first year law student knows that treason cannot be committed during peacetime.”

If Senator Marcoleta wants a 2011 judicial decision to constitute treason, he must first:

  1. Amend Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code to remove the wartime requirement (good luck getting that through Congress).
  2. Repeal the ex post facto prohibition in Article III, Section 22 of the 1987 Constitution.
  3. Convince the President and the Senate to withdraw the Philippines from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
  4. Finally, persuade the Supreme Court that the entire unanimous bench in 2011, the Congress that overwhelmingly passed Republic Act No. 9522, and the President who signed it all committed treason.

In summary: legally impossible. So impossible it’s like trying to become a billionaire by buying lottery tickets while praying to Saint Jude.

Marcoleta’s Maritime Misadventures: Baselines, EEZ, and the Treaty of Paris Fantasy

Marcoleta’s main complaint: because of Magallona v. Ermita and Republic Act No. 9522, Carpio supposedly “limited” the territorial sea to 12 nautical miles, thereby surrendering old claims under the Treaty of Paris lines. And because the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is larger, it’s supposedly fine to give away territory?

That is not how it works, Senator.

First: Republic Act No. 9522 did not diminish territory. It expanded Philippine maritime entitlements. By aligning with UNCLOS, it converted gray areas into EEZ (200 nautical miles), granting sovereign rights over resources, exploration, and conservation. The total maritime space covered actually increased by approximately 145,216 square nautical miles compared to the old RA 3046 and RA 5446.

Second: The territorial sea (12 nautical miles) carries full sovereignty. The EEZ carries sovereign rights over resources but not full sovereignty. Converting areas to EEZ is not “surrender.” In fact, failing to comply with UNCLOS would have stripped the Philippines of legal standing in the 2016 arbitral award—the very victory that invalidated China’s nine-dash line.

Third: The Magallona decision was unanimous. Not just Carpio—all justices. And the ponente himself emphasized that Republic Act No. 9522 strengthens, rather than weakens, Philippine maritime claims.

So if you want to pursue treason, Senator, you would have to charge the entire Supreme Court, the entire Congress, and former President Arroyo. Perhaps file it as a class suit.

My advice: before issuing another treason threat, enroll in Remedial International Law. Or at least read the full text of Magallona v. Ermita—not just selective Facebook quotes.

In Defense of Justice Carpio: The Bulwark of Judicial Independence

Carpio is not merely correct—he has been a steadfast defender of judicial independence, treaty compliance, and the rules-based international order that delivered the 2016 arbitral victory.

While some politicians chase visibility through sovereignty soundbites, Carpio has quietly educated the public on UNCLOS, baselines, and why the rule of law matters in the West Philippine Sea (WPS).

His legacy is not just one decision—it is upholding the constitutional framework that protects Philippine maritime rights through law, not military might.

And now, over a political stunt, he is branded a traitor? For a ruling supported by the entire government at the time?

That is not patriotism. That is an assault on the judiciary masquerading as nationalism.

The Motivations: Legacy vs. Visibility

Let’s be frank.

Carpio: institutional defender. He has long championed a rules-based approach to the WPS. His motivation is clear—defend jurisprudence, the 1987 Constitution, and the arbitral win that stands as the Philippines’ greatest legal triumph against China.

Marcoleta: political visibility. In the social media era, a treason accusation is pure clickbait. It is emotional, dramatic, and positions him as the “defender of sovereignty” against perceived elite legalism.

Behind the rhetoric, however, there is no substance. No probable cause. No viable legal pathway. Just posturing.

Where This Is Headed: Dismissal, Debate, and a Whole Lot of Nothing

If Marcoleta files a complaint, it will be thrown out at the preliminary investigation stage. No wartime element means no probable cause. A motion to quash would succeed immediately.

If the debate happens (which Carpio has already accepted), it will likely become a masterclass in legal education—with Carpio as professor and Marcoleta as the student who skipped the reading.

In the end? The status quo prevails. Magallona v. Ermita remains binding. Republic Act No. 9522 remains law. UNCLOS remains our shield.

The Bigger Danger: Chilling the Judiciary, Weakening Our WPS Position

The real threat here is not a case—because there is no case. The danger is normalizing the notion that unpopular judicial decisions can be criminalized.

If that happens, a chilling effect will grip the judiciary. Who will rule boldly if every controversial decision risks a treason charge?

Internationally? If China sees internal chaos over our own legal framework, they will grow bolder. Divide and rule, as the saying goes.

Final Verdict: Time to Go Back to School, Senator

Senator Marcoleta, with all due respect (and very little remains): withdraw the threat. Study the law. Or at minimum, stop embarrassing yourself—and the Senate—in public.

To the public: sovereignty is not a soundbite. It is a serious legal project built on treaties, jurisprudence, and fidelity to the Constitution.

To the legal community: defend the judiciary. Loudly. Unapologetically.

Otherwise, the next unpopular ruling might earn its author a treason threat too.

Until the next kwebanata, friends.

Ignorance of the law excuses no one—except apparently senators with microphones. See you in the next circus.

— Barok

Key Citations

A. Legal & Official Sources

B. News Reports

Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo

Leave a comment

Hello,

I’m Louis ‘Barok’ Biraogo

Let’s connect

Join the fun!

Stay updated with our latest tutorials and ideas by joining our newsletter.

Recent posts