South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Brumby

Major
2. The other issue is China's sovereignty claims - which are deliberately left vague and ambiguous.

The sovereignty claim is the primary issue. The other associated issue of maritime rights are derived from sovereignty. The reason why China is being ambiguous in its claim is because it is simply rhetoric than substance. China knows that in international law it will not prevail against the other claimants should it go for arbitration. In modern international law, discovery carries the least weight and fishing as a historical traditional activity do not constitute sovereign administration as it is a civilian activity. All of these had come before the International courts and there are established cases concerning these issues. In particular, Scarborough was ceded to the US from Spain which in turn was returned to the Philippines.
 
The sovereignty claim is the primary issue. The other associated issue of maritime rights are derived from sovereignty. The reason why China is being ambiguous in its claim is because it is simply rhetoric than substance. China knows that in international law it will not prevail against the other claimants should it go for arbitration. In modern international law, discovery carries the least weight and fishing as a historical traditional activity do not constitute sovereign administration as it is a civilian activity. All of these had come before the International courts and there are established cases concerning these issues. In particular, Scarborough was ceded to the US from Spain which in turn was returned to the Philippines.

You are Wrong! Scarborough Shoal with coordinates
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
was never ceded to US.
Nothing ambiguous about this fact. You will never here this from the western narratives though. US cannot give to the Philippines something it does not have.

Treaty of Peace Between the United States and Spain; December 10, 1898 states the following
Article III.

Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within the following line:

A line running from west to east along or near the twentieth parallel of north latitude, and through the middle of the navigable channel of Bachi, from the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) to the one hundred and twenty-seventh (127th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, thence along the one hundred and twenty seventh (127th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to the parallel of four degrees and forty five minutes (4 [degree symbol] 45']) north latitude, thence along the parallel of four degrees and forty five minutes (4 [degree symbol] 45') north latitude to its intersection with the meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty five minutes (119 [degree symbol] 35') east of Greenwich, thence along the meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty five minutes (119 [degree symbol] 35') east of Greenwich to the parallel of latitude seven degrees and forty minutes (7 [degree symbol] 40') north, thence along the parallel of latitude of seven degrees and forty minutes (7 [degree symbol] 40') north to its intersection with the one hundred and sixteenth (116th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, thence by a direct line to the intersection of the tenth (10th) degree parallel of north latitude with the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, and thence along the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to the point of beginning.The United States will pay to Spain the sum of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) within three months after the exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty.

2744662497923106127.jpg


FYI+ Presidential Decree 1596 and Presidential Degree 1599 are unilateral declaration during Marcos Era expanding Philippine territories.
 
Last edited:

joshuatree

Captain
You are Wrong! Scarborough Shoal with coordinates
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
was never ceded to US.
Nothing ambiguous about this fact. You will never here this from the western narratives though. US cannot give to the Philippines something it does not have.

Treaty of Peace Between the United States and Spain; December 10, 1898 states the following
Article III.

...

I believe the counterpoint you will get is that the Treaty of Washington (1900) further states territory not within the 1898 coordinates supposedly administered by Spain in the region around the Philippines before losing to the US will also be implicitly transferred to the US for an additional X amount of money. But this treaty is very vague and arose from more of a dispute down in the southern parts of the Philippines.

However, the Philippines when becoming independent never itself spelled out Scarsborough as its territory and even maps certified by the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority of the Philippines as recently as 2011 showed Scarsborough outside of it's territorial boundary.

PD 1599 shows it all how ludicrous clamaints aside from China can be themselves. Critics of China would gain a lot more credibility if they slammed the Philippines on PD 1599 just as hard and often and give it as much coverage. At least the Chinese claims don't cut right into the main land of some other state.
 

Brumby

Major
I believe the counterpoint you will get is that the Treaty of Washington (1900) further states territory not within the 1898 coordinates supposedly administered by Spain in the region around the Philippines before losing to the US will also be implicitly transferred to the US for an additional X amount of money. But this treaty is very vague and arose from more of a dispute down in the southern parts of the Philippines.

However, the Philippines when becoming independent never itself spelled out Scarsborough as its territory and even maps certified by the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority of the Philippines as recently as 2011 showed Scarsborough outside of it's territorial boundary.

PD 1599 shows it all how ludicrous clamaints aside from China can be themselves. Critics of China would gain a lot more credibility if they slammed the Philippines on PD 1599 just as hard and often and give it as much coverage. At least the Chinese claims don't cut right into the main land of some other state.

Thanks for that.

You are Wrong! Scarborough Shoal with coordinates
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
was never ceded to US.
Nothing ambiguous about this fact. You will never here this from the western narratives though. US cannot give to the Philippines something it does not have.

Treaty of Peace Between the United States and Spain; December 10, 1898 states the following
Article III.

Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within the following line:

A line running from west to east along or near the twentieth parallel of north latitude, and through the middle of the navigable channel of Bachi, from the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) to the one hundred and twenty-seventh (127th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, thence along the one hundred and twenty seventh (127th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to the parallel of four degrees and forty five minutes (4 [degree symbol] 45']) north latitude, thence along the parallel of four degrees and forty five minutes (4 [degree symbol] 45') north latitude to its intersection with the meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty five minutes (119 [degree symbol] 35') east of Greenwich, thence along the meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty five minutes (119 [degree symbol] 35') east of Greenwich to the parallel of latitude seven degrees and forty minutes (7 [degree symbol] 40') north, thence along the parallel of latitude of seven degrees and forty minutes (7 [degree symbol] 40') north to its intersection with the one hundred and sixteenth (116th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, thence by a direct line to the intersection of the tenth (10th) degree parallel of north latitude with the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, and thence along the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to the point of beginning.The United States will pay to Spain the sum of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) within three months after the exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty.

I am reminded of a lawyers joke. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have none, bang the table. In the case of Scarborough the facts and the law comparatively favours the Philippines and China to-date has basically been banging the table because its case is weak in both law and facts.

The facts support that administration of Scarborough can at least be traced to Spain, then the US and to eventually Philippines. In international law, continuous administration trumps any other type of claim when brought before International arbitration. Relevant cases to-date include;

Netherlands vs. USA, 1928 (Discovery Is inchoate and insufficient. Requires administration)

The USA and the Netherlands disputed the territorial rights over the Island of Palmas. Through the Treaty of Paris in 1898, Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States, but the Netherlands also claimed sovereignty over one island, the Island of Palmas. The two countries took the case to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The arbitrator found that title by discovery is only an inchoate title - it requires further exercise of State authority to be confirmed.Second, he concluded that if another sovereign begins to exercise continuous and actual sovereignty, and the discoverer does not contest this claim, the claim by the sovereign that exercises authority is greater than a title based on mere discovery.

France vs. England, 1953 (Administration has a stronger claim vs historical)

The Minquiers and Ecrehos islands in the English Channel were officially given to France in 1360, but the UK had been exercising various administrative rights over the islands. Based on this, the ICJ awarded England the title despite France’s stronger historical claim.

Indonesia v. Malaysia, 2002 (Historical fishing does not equate to sovereign rights)

The most recent case is the Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia, heard by the ICJ in 2002. Indonesia claimed that the frequent use of the island’s waters by its fishermen generated a claim of sovereignty. The Court, however, ruled that only government action can generate a sovereign claim, so the fishermen themselves were insufficient.

Frankly, what has China offered to its claim besides the rhetoric that its sovereignty is indisputable? Discovery and historical rights carry very little weight and that is why China to-date has been ambiguous and can only bang the table.
 
Thanks for that.



I am reminded of a lawyers joke. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have none, bang the table. In the case of Scarborough the facts and the law comparatively favours the Philippines and China to-date has basically been banging the table because its case is weak in both law and facts.

The facts support that administration of Scarborough can at least be traced to Spain, then the US and to eventually Philippines. In international law, continuous administration trumps any other type of claim when brought before International arbitration. Relevant cases to-date include;

Netherlands vs. USA, 1928 (Discovery Is inchoate and insufficient. Requires administration)

The USA and the Netherlands disputed the territorial rights over the Island of Palmas. Through the Treaty of Paris in 1898, Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States, but the Netherlands also claimed sovereignty over one island, the Island of Palmas. The two countries took the case to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The arbitrator found that title by discovery is only an inchoate title - it requires further exercise of State authority to be confirmed.Second, he concluded that if another sovereign begins to exercise continuous and actual sovereignty, and the discoverer does not contest this claim, the claim by the sovereign that exercises authority is greater than a title based on mere discovery.

France vs. England, 1953 (Administration has a stronger claim vs historical)

The Minquiers and Ecrehos islands in the English Channel were officially given to France in 1360, but the UK had been exercising various administrative rights over the islands. Based on this, the ICJ awarded England the title despite France’s stronger historical claim.

Indonesia v. Malaysia, 2002 (Historical fishing does not equate to sovereign rights)

The most recent case is the Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia, heard by the ICJ in 2002. Indonesia claimed that the frequent use of the island’s waters by its fishermen generated a claim of sovereignty. The Court, however, ruled that only government action can generate a sovereign claim, so the fishermen themselves were insufficient.

Frankly, what has China offered to its claim besides the rhetoric that its sovereignty is indisputable? Discovery and historical rights carry very little weight and that is why China to-date has been ambiguous and can only bang the table.

You want to argue facts and yet have been unable to provide factual proof. Just distractions. You argue that Spain ceded Scarborough to US and US to Philippines, Yet the fact states otherwise, That is the fact. You can deflect but yet the fact remains the same,

Spain did not even administer Southern Philippines then except for some isolated outpost in Jolo.
 
Last edited:
Something to ponder. After 500 years of colonial rule, Spain did not even administer some of the the territories they ceded.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


... But was Mindanao ever part of Philippine territory?
FOUR HUNDRED and ninety-four years ago today, a nation was born. It was on March 17, 1521, when Ferdinand Magellan and his crew landed on the shores of Samar, the first island in the group of islands that would eventually be called the Philippines. Antonio Pigafetta recorded the event in his journal as having taken place on March 16. That was because the International Date Line, which Magellan’s expedition had crossed, did not exist at the time.

The history textbooks we used during my high school days (my high school batch celebrated the 60th anniversary of its graduation last Saturday) refer to the event as the Discovery of the Philippines, as if the islands had not been visited by merchants from China and Japan and missionaries from Arabia long before Magellan set foot on Samar soil. As Renato Constantino wrote in his book The Philippines: A Past Revisited, historians view the past through the prism of their own prejudices.

Because Magellan’s discovery of the island of Samar encouraged more Spanish expeditions to the Southeastern rim of the Pacific, resulting in the establishments in Cebu, Bohol and Panay of permanent settlements under Spanish rule, it is recorded in history books written three generations ago as the beginning of the Filipino nation. In 1543 the explorer Ruy Lopez de Villalobos named the group of islands Filipinas, originally Felipinas, in honor of Crown Prince Felipe of Spain.

Emboldened by the success of their conquests, the Spanish adventurers sailed on to the northern islands, reaching the large rich kingdoms of Manila and Tondo on the Western side of Luzon. Instead of resisting the landing of the invaders, the two kings welcomed them. The name Filipinas was eventually applied to all the islands and communities that had come under Spanish rule. It is therefore more apt to refer to Magellan’s discovery as the birth of a nation, as the formerly independent island-sultanates in the Southeastern part of the Pacific were unified under one rule.

While very little resistance was offered by the natives in most of the central and northern islands of the archipelago, the Spanish adventurers met fierce opposition in Mindanao and Sulu. In retaliation for the Spanish assaults on their homeland, the natives of those islands, predominantly Muslim, who the Spaniards called Moros as Muslims in Spain were then called, pillaged Spanish communities in Luzon and the Visayas. The Spanish colonial government waged military campaigns against the Moros, but they failed to score decisive victories.

Military operations were launched in Jolo and Mindanao from time to time. These forays would succeed in placing Moro land under the Spaniards’ control, but the Moros would eventually drive out the invaders. There were attempts by the Spaniards to invade Cotabato and Lanao, but the natives defended their land valiantly. Technically, Mindanao and Sulu never became part of Filipinas and calling their inhabitants Filipinos would be inappropriate.

What history books call the Moro Wars ended toward the end of the 19th century. The Spanish government acquired steamships, ending the superiority of the Moro vinta in Philippine seas. At about the same time, the Filipinos in various parts of Luzon rebelled against the abuses of the Spanish government and the Spanish clergy, drawing the Spanish armed forces away from Mindanao and Jolo.

The war between Spain and the United States in 1898 ultimately ended Spanish rule in Filipinas. In the Treaty of Peace between the two nations, Spain ceded to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within defined lines. Mindanao and Sulu were considered within the defined lines.

But Spain never took permanent possession of Mindanao and Sulu for it to cede them to any sovereign state. The Philippine Constitution of 1934 defined the Philippine territory as all the territory ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris concluded by the two sovereign states. That is understandable as that constitution was drafted, promulgated, and ratified when the Philippines was a colony of the United States. The 1987 Constitution says that the national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. But unlike the Treaty of Peace between Spain and the United States, the Philippine Constitution did not define the lines within which the Philippine archipelago lies.

Should we assume that the Philippine archipelago referred to in the Philippine Constitution is the one defined in the Treaty of Peace between Spain and the United States? The Philippines gained its independence again in 1946. It should not be bound by the declarations of the United States, especially those made more than 100 years ago and with which the Filipino people had no involvement.

A number of retired justices of the Supreme Court, senators, and eminent constitutional lawyers and experts assert that the Bangsamoro Basic Law is unconstitutional because it virtually proclaims the Bangsamoro a sub-state. But did the framers of the 1987 Constitution have the right to include the Bangsamoro territory as part of the national territory of the Republic of the Philippines when history books do not indicate that Spain took permanent possession of Moro land? Did they think and act in the name of the United States? Are the members of Congress who are invoking the Constitution’s article on the Philippine territory acting as emissaries of the US government?

As Al Haj Murad, chairman of the MILF, said during the signing of the Framework of Agreement on the Bangsamoro in Malacañang in 2012, almost five centuries of foreign invasions and dominatios have seen the loss of the Moro sultanates, their captivity eradicating their Bangsamoro identity and reducing their ancestral homeland into small parcels of territories called provinces, leading to the marginalization of their people within a larger Philippine society that barely took cognizance of their forebears and struggles for freedom before the Philippine nation declared its independence in 1898 and again in 1946.

Today, the Moro people are giving up their call for independence and have agreed to be part of the Philippines and be known as Filipinos in exchange for autonomy and development support. That is a large concession being given by people who have suffered injustice from Imperial Manila for centuries.

Oscar P. Lagman is member of Manindigan!, a cause-oriented group that takes stands on national issues.
 

Brumby

Major
You want to argue facts and yet have been unable to provide factual proof. Just distractions. You argue that Spain ceded Scarborough to US and US to Philippines, Yet the fact states otherwise, That is the fact. You can deflect but yet the fact remains the same,

As I said it is about comparative facts. The Philippines case rest on the facts of actual administration. Comparatively China cannot offer any facts to support its case beyond the rhetoric of discovery and indisputability.

The Philippines case per their version.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Philippine Sovereignty over Bajo de Masinloc
Perusal of the public record reveals that Philippine sovereignty over Bajo de Masinloc is clearly established beyond a shadow of doubt. It is the inevitable outcome of a process of consolidation of jurisdiction through acts a titre de sourverain, exercised over a specific location beginning during the Spanish colonial period and continuously exercised up until the present time. Such acts pre-date China’s uncertain claim, which can only be presumed to have been made only in 1947 at the earliest, when the Republic of China drew the original 11 dashed lines map and thereby enclosed Bajo de Masinloc. And even then it was merely a claim on paper, not preceded or accompanied by actual exercises of State power.

As demonstrated by Justice Carpio’s exhibit, ancient Chinese maps tended to ignore lands that lay beyond China’s coast: ancient Chinese cartographers did not show a whole lot of detail beyond the few names that pertained only to the largest islands in the Philippines like May-i. The absence of any mark indicating Huangyan Island, indeed of the name Huangyan Island itself, in any of these ancient maps is eloquent proof in itself. Such shortcomings in detail contrast with those of European maps of the Philippines and Southeast Asia, as geographic knowledge of the region spread in the 17th century. Bajo de Masinloc began appearing as an unnamed reef clearly associated with the island of Luzon, often almost like a smudge under the notation “Punto de Mandato” (Point of Mandate). What is important to note here is that from its initial appearance, Bajo de Masinloc is closely associated with the Philippine archipelago.

In the 18th century, maps of Southeast Asia and the Philippines indicated three distinct reefs west of Luzon, which soon acquired names in the famous Murillo Velarde map of the Philippine archipelago published in 1734. These reefs were all located on approaches to Manila, all triangular in shape but oriented differently, and from North to South, distinctly named in Tagalog as “Galit”, “Panacot”, and “Lumbay”. Subsequent maps reflected the same information, though with varied distances relative to the coast. They also acquired other names, such as Bajo de Bolinao, Bajo de Masinloc, and Bajo de Miravela, respectively. Bajo de Masinloc was also called Maroona or South Maroona in other maps. The multiple locations and different names may be understood as the result of inaccuracy of map-making at the time; indeed, until the invention of the ship-board chronometer, it was very difficult for ships to ascertain their position at sea through nothing more than the stars to guide them.

The imprecise position of the three reefs would soon be resolved, however, beginning with the grounding of a British sailing ship, the HMS Scarborough, which was chartered by the East India Company to transport tea between China and the British East Indies. On September 12, 1748, the ship ran aground on Bajo de Masinloc. The captain’s log describes the near-tragedy that befell the HMS Scarborough:

“At daylight, the rocks appeared frightful, though it pleased God the ship was on the sea side of the shoal, which is at least 2 leagues over and 8 long. On the east side of the shoal, the rocks are almost as high as those of Sicily, and a terrible sea breaks over them; on the west side, they are no bigger than a boat. They seemed to lie about North-Northwest and South-Southeast. I think the Scarborough was near their north end, seeing the water blue to the northward of them, and rocks were seen Southeast by South 3 leagues from the ship.”

The grounding of the HMS Scarborough was a very significant cartographic event, as maps published after the period were soon annotated with the mishap. The reef on which it grounded appeared to be in a different location from that of either Panacot, Galit, or Lumbay, and there was some uncertainty as to whether it was actually on Panacot or South Maroona reef, and some maps portrayed it as an entirely different reef designated as “Scarborough Shoal.” There was some initial debate as to which reef the HMS Scarborough struck, but eventually it was surmised that it could only have been Panacot or Bajo de Masinloc (or South Maroona / Marsingola, as some British maps called it).

It would take a few more decades before the debate would be settled, and the coordinates of Scarborough Shoal could be fixed. In May 1792, the Malaspina Expedition, a major scientific undertaking of the time, travelled through the South China Sea and was able to ascertain the exact position of Scarborough Shoal. The expedition also verified that the other two reefs indicated in previous maps did not actually exist, and all such markings could only have referred to Scarborough Shoal. A translated extract, dated from May 4-6, 1792, from the expedition’s journal states:

“… under this supposition it will be necessary to exclude from the map of Mr. Dalrymple the shoal with that name which is located at the distance of 57 leagues from land, and to establish as the only and true Scarborough another one located in the same latitude, but nearer to it. …The exact position of this reef is very important because many vessels, national and foreign, have perished in it.”

With the position of Bajo de Masinloc ascertained, and the absence of the other two reefs confirmed, the Spanish naval squadron based in Cavite, under the command of General Alava, eventually sent the frigate Santa Lucia led by Capitan Francisco Riquelme to carry out the first detailed Spanish survey of the shoal in the year 1800. The Santa Lucia was among the first steam-powered vessels that Spain introduced into the Philippine Islands to embark on its campaign against the Sultan of Sulu and to suppress the Moro slave-raiding pirate bands that roamed Philippine waters. (Figure 6)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Figure . The Spanish frigate Santa Lucia, under the command of Capitan Francisco Riquelme, based in Cavite, conducted the first Spanish survey of Bajo de Masinloc in 1800. (Source: almirantecervera.com)

The summary of Capitan Riquelme’s findings soon became a fixture in the Dorroteo del Archipielago Filipino, the Spanish pilot’s guide for mariners. An 1879 edition of the Dorroteo, translated, states:

“This low-lying reef, per Riquelme, extends more than 8 2/3 miles from North to South, and 9 1/2 miles from East to West from one end to the middle part, but from there narrowing until it ends in a tip. It is surrounded by horrible dangers that may appear without warning or other markings to serve notice of their proximity. Some rocks can be seen slightly above water only by close observation on a clear day, and only by having careful look-outs can one see the reef at a distance of 7 miles.”

A more detailed survey was conducted on March 13-18, 1866 by Master & Commander Edward Wilds on the steam-powered sloop HMS Swallow. The summary of his findings also appear in the Dorroteo:

“Recently in March 1866, it was explored by Lieutenant Wilds of the hydrographic ship Swallow, who describes Scarborough Shoal and says it is a dangerous reef, surrounded by large rocks, and at the South-East tip one can find a precarious anchorage only in a dead calm sea, in front of a lagoon…”

It then continues to describe the reef and its features in detail, so as to ensure the safety of navigation. The chart drawn by Lt. Wilds can be found in Justice Carpio’s exhibit as well.
truncated due to word count limitation.
 

Brumby

Major
continuation ....
Thus, by the 19th century, Galit and Lumbay no longer appeared in published maps, while Panacot or Bajo de Masinloc acquired the name by which it became well-known internationally: Scarborough Shoal. Its geographic position was already ascertained by coordinates of longitude and latitude, and its association with the landmass of Luzon fixed. Spain began exercising search and rescue jurisdiction over the shoal, assisting vessels in distress by sending ships from Manila.

That Spain began exercising jurisdiction at this time is very important. The end of the century saw the transfer of the Philippines to the United States through two treaties of cession. While the Treaty of Paris of 1898 described the Philippine Islands as being comprised of all the islands within an irregular polygon, Spain also had sovereignty and jurisdiction over islands and places outside of the lines of that polygon. These islands and places were clarified to have also been transferred to the United States under the terms of the Treaty of Washington of 1900.

Thus, the American colonial government continued periodically to exercise jurisdiction over the shoal, particularly through rescue and salvaging of ships in distress. One very well-documented event took place in 1913, when the S.S. Nippon, a Swedish steamer carrying a valuable cargo of copra, was wrecked on the shoal by a typhoon as the ship proceeded from Manila to Hong Kong. The shipwreck demonstrated the exercise of a whole gamut of maritime jurisdictions: the ship’s crew were rescued, the incident was officially investigated by Philippine maritime authorities, the ship subjected to salvage law in the Philippines, and an official scientific study was conducted on the effects of the sea on the ship’s cargo.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Figure . The SS Nippon, a cargo ship owned by the Swedish East Asiatic Co., which was shipwrecked on Scarborough Shoal in 1913, and became the subject of a civil case that was litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court of the Philippines. (Source: 7seasvessels.com)

The event is recorded in the case of Erlanger & Galinger v. The Swedish East Asiatic Co., GR No. L-10051, a case which went all the way up to the Supreme Court of the Philippines in 1916. Several ships, both government and private, participated in the exercise; and the dispute involved the ship-owners, cargo owners, salvors, and insurance companies. The ship and cargo had to be abandoned on the shoal after the entire crew were rescued, and thus subject to the rules of salvage. A dispute arose between the owners and salvors as to the entitlement to compensation for salvage of the ship and remaining cargo.

In resolving the case, the Supreme Court discussed every important detail of the event, thus recording the evidence of exercise by the Philippines of various jurisdictions. This is one case where the actions of a domestic court can have significant international implications. The facts narrated, as well as the case itself, demonstrates the free and absolute exercise of governmental powers by the Philippines, as well as the application of Philippine law to activities taking place on the shoal.

The rescue of the crew is also reported in the records of the US Coast and Geodetic Survey, which dispatched 3 cutters, a scow, and the cableship Rizal to engage in salvage operations of the S.S. Nippon over the course of several months. The report was transmitted to the US Government as part of the report of the Governor-General of the Philippines.
 

Brumby

Major
continuation .....
Government administration is also demonstrated by the exercise of investigative powers over the incident, as recorded in the reports of the Bureau of Navigation of the colonial government. The Bureau of Science even conducted scientific research on the wreck, to observe the effects of the sea on the cargo of copra while the ship was still on the shoal. The results were published in the official scientific journal of the Government of the Philippine Islands.

Further evidence shows the consolidation of jurisdiction and sovereignty over the shoal. Scarborough Shoal is listed in the official inventory of the Philippine Islands, assembled by the American colonial government, which appears in the Census of the Philippine Islands published in 1918.

A few decades later, the very question of sovereignty over the shoal was tackled directly by the Commonwealth Government. On December 6, 1937, Mr. Wayne Coy of the Office of the US High Commissioner for the Philippines specifically asked Captain Thomas Maher, head of the US Coast and Geodetic Survey, whether Scarborough Shoal had been claimed by any country. Capt. Maher replied on December 10, 1937 that there was no information as to whether any nation, including the British, had laid claim of sovereignty over the shoal. His office had no power to decide on the issue of sovereignty, but noted that there was information available from previous Spanish and other records, particularly the survey of the Santa Lucia in 1800. Captain Maher also said,

“If this survey would confer title on Spain or be a recognition of sovereignty, or claim for same without protest, the reef would apparently be considered as part of Spanish territory the transfer of which would be governed by the treaty of November 7, 1900.”

Captain Maher further suggested a new survey of the shoal, and the installation of a navigational light.

Interest in formally claiming the shoal remained in succeeding months, with Jorge B. Vargas then writing Mr. Couy to inquire as to the status of Scarborough Shoal. Mr. Vargas further expressly stated that:

“The Commonwealth Government may desire to claim title thereto should there be no objection on the part of the United States Government to such action.”

Mr. Coy forwarded the letters to the Department of War, which in turn forwarded them to the Department of State, in the United States. The resulting correspondence between the different offices is very revealing. In a letter dated July 27, 1938, Secretary of State Cordell Hull informed Secretary of War Harry Woodring, that:

“This Department has no information in regard to the ownership of the shoal other than that which appears in the file attached to the letter under reference. While the shoal appears outside the limits of the Philippine archipelago as described in Article III of the American-Spanish Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898, it would seem that, in the absence of a valid claim by any other government, the shoal should be regarded as included among the islands ceded to the United States by the American-Spanish treaty of November 7, 1900.”

He continued:

“Accordingly, in the absence of evidence of a superior claim to Scarborough Shoal by any other government, the Department of State would interpose no objection to the proposal of the Commonwealth Government to study the possibility of the shoal as an aid to air and ocean navigation, provided that the Navy Department and the Department of Commerce, which are interested in air and ocean navigation in the Far East, are informed and have expressed no objection to the course of action contemplated by the Commonwealth Government.”

Subsequently, Acting Secretary of the Navy W.R. Furlong wrote Acting Secretary of War Louis Johnson:

“It is noted that the Commonwealth Government of the Philippine Islands desires to study the possibilities of this reef, particularly as to its value as an aid to air navigation and with the possibility of later claiming title thereto should there be no objection on the part of the United States Government to the such [sic] action.

“The papers accompanying your letter which are returned herewith, have been carefully considered and this Department has no objection to the course of action contemplated by the Commonwealth Government.”

Then, on October 19, 1938, Secretary of Commerce Paul Frizzell wrote the Secretary of War:

“It is noted that the Commonwealth Government of the Philippines desires to study the value of Scarborough Shoal as an aid to air navigation with the possibility of later claiming title thereto. It is further noted that the Secretary of State will interpose no objection to the proposal of the Commonwealth Government, provided the Navy and Commerce departments express no objection.

“Please be advised that the Civil Aeronautics Authority sees no objection to the proposed action.”

The foregoing series of correspondence confirms the jurisdiction of the Philippines under the Commonwealth Government, and lays the ground for the actual exercise of sovereignty in later year. It is clear the United States considered itself to have acquired the shoal from Spain under the Treaty of Washington of 1900, and thus had no objection to transferring the same to the Commonwealth. All throughout the Commonwealth Period, the Philippine Government had always considered Scarborough Shoal under its exclusive sphere of influence, marking it prominently in maps of the Commonwealth and continuously exercising particularly maritime jurisdiction over the shoal. This is seen in the Coast Pilot Guides issued by the US Coast and Geodetic Survey, and in search and rescue operations on the shoal.
 
Top