Analyn L.

Taguiling

LEGAL RESEARCH

Historical Facts, Historical Lies, and Historical Rights in the West Philippine Sea, by Justice Carpio
From La Salle
Justice Carpio delivers lecture in DLSU, deconstructs Chinas territorial claims
Carpio began his lecture on the much-debated territorial disputes by stating that China posits that
historical claims are in accordance of universally recognized principles of international law including
the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS), despite the contrary. He also
added that China believes that territories passed down by previous generations should not be given
up.
Continuing the discussion on historical claims, Carpio said that ancient conquests cannot be invoked
under international law to claim territories. China claims that Guo Shoujing, an astronomer, went and
surveyed Scarborough Shoal in 1279.
Carpio cited the 1928 Palmas Island dispute, a case between the United States acting for the Philippines
and the Netherlands for Indonesia. The island is in between Mindanao and Indonesia. The Permanent
Court of Arbitration later found that, A state cannot maintain title to a territory based on discovery alone
where another state practices territorial sovereignty, according to Carpio.
Carpio continued to the lecture proper and explained the weakness of Chinas claim based on historical
maps. He showed around 70 historical maps showing both China and Philippines. In Chinas maps, it is
shown that Chinas southernmost territory is Hainan Island while the Philippines maps show that
Scarborough Shoal (or Bajo de Masinloc in other maps) has always been included as a part of the
Philippines.
The lecture proper was succeeded by an open forum moderated by Chito Sta. Romana, China-based
producer for ABC News in the United States.
When asked by Raissa Robles of the South China Morning Post on the reason why the Philippines went to
the UNCLOS, Carpio said that the Philippines could never win a naval, economic, or diplomatic battle
with China. He adds that a level-playing field is provided with UNCLOS as all countries are considered
equal in arbitration cases.
Former secretary of the Department of Tourism and Department of the Interior and Local Government
Raffy Alunan then posed the question of how China will respect the decision of the tribunal if it falls in
favor with the Philippines. Carpio answered that world opinion would be on the side of the Philippines.
He said that this will put pressure on China to accept the claims of the Philippines.
Representative Roilo Golez from Paraaque Citys Second District asked if the historical claims of the
Philippines were presented in the memorial, an arbitration document, which the government submitted
to the UNCLOS last March. Carpio responded that they were not included as the tribunal does not
recognize historical claims.
In his closing remarks, CLA Dean Julio Teehankee proclaimed, Filipinos should be courageous [and] be
able to stand [their] ground.

Analyn L. Taguiling

LEGAL RESEARCH

Historical Facts, Historical Lies, and Historical Rights in the West Philippine Sea, by Justice Carpio
China's ancient maps dating back to 960 AD show that its territory never included the Spratly Islands
and Scarborough Shoal in the West Philippine Sea portions of the South China Sea claimed by the
Philippines.
Both official and unofficial maps show that China's southernmost territory "has always been Hainan
Island.
There is not a single ancient Chinese map, whether made by Chinese or foreigners, showing that the
Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal were ever part of Chinese territory. To repeat, in all these ancient
Chinese maps, the southernmost Chinese territory has always been Hainan Island.
China has cited its so-called historical rights to uphold its 9-dash line, a demarcation mark it uses to claim
virtually the entire South China Sea.
Even if true, however, Carpio said these historical rights have no bearing on maritime disputes under
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
The Philippines invokes UNCLOS in its historic case against China over the South China Sea.
Carpio explained that the UNCLOS extinguished all historical rights of other states within the 200
nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the adjacent coastal state.
The EEZ is an area 200 nautical miles from a coastal state's baselines, or edges, within which the state has
the sovereign rights to explore and exploit, and conserve and manage natural resources, among others.
Historical rights have no place in the South China Sea, Carpio said.
He addded: Clearly, there is nothing 'historical' or 'right' about China's 9-dashed line claim. The 9-dashed
line claim is based not on historical facts but on historical lies.
On the other hand, he said, numerous ancient maps made by Westerners, and later by Philippine
authorities, consistently showed that Scarborough Shoal, a.k.a. Panacot and Bajo de Masinloc, has
always been part of Philippine territory.
China has no historical link whatsoever to Scarborough Shoal, the justice said. The rocks of
Scarborough Shoal were never bequeathed to the present generation of Chinese by their ancestors
because their ancestors never owned these rocks in the first place.
Chinas leaders may yet relive Hans Christian Andersens fairy tale about vanity, featuring an unclad
emperor who couldnt see his own nakedness, thanks to Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio
Carpio. In a diligently researched 62-page treatise titled Historical facts, Historical Lies, and Historical
Rights in the West Philippine Sea, Carpio called Chinas claim to the greater part of the South China Sea
a gigantic historical fraud, with no ground to stand on.
Briefly, Carpios impressive research yielded the following historical insights:
There are no Chinese documents in the form of maps, constitutions, treaties, and official
pronouncementsfrom ancient times to 1932that claim Chinas southern perimeter extends farther
than Hainan Island, some 19 miles from the mainlands Guandong province. The exhaustive research
included Chinese and foreign sources, with authoritative documents and 72 cartographic records,
including that of the epic voyages of the eunuch admiral Zheng He during the Ming dynasty.
In contrast, Philippine historical records clearly prove, in maps, international agreements, and official
statements, that Scarborough (or Panatag) Shoal, situated 123 miles west of Subic Bay (which is among
the islands, reefs, atolls and rocks claimed by China) is an integral part of our territory. China seized the
shoal in 2012 and has since prevented Filipino fishermen from operating in the area.
Most telling of all is the fact that US and Philippine armed forces used Scarborough Shoal for aerial and
naval gunnery from 1960 to 1980 without any hint of protest from Beijing. Hardly the behavior expected
of a proud nation zealously defending its sovereignty.

Analyn L. Taguiling

LEGAL RESEARCH

Historical Facts, Historical Lies, and Historical Rights in the West Philippine Sea, by Justice Carpio
Why the big geopolitical scam? First, a short background to Carpios thesis: Geologists are certain untold
riches in oil, natural gas, and strategic metals lie beneath the contested waters. Whoever controls the
vital area also holds sway over one of the most important maritime region on Earth, accounting for almost
half of the worlds total trade. Supertankers loaded with commercial goods and Middle East oil must pass
through the Straits of Malacca and the seas China claims, on their way to countries like Japan which is
heavily dependent on Arab oil. The return trip is just as lucrative, when the vessels carry the export
products of the regions booming economies.
Relying on its rising and dominant economic power that will soon surpass that of the United States, Chinas
leaders calculated that it was the right time for bullying and outright lies. In the blunt lecturing words of
a ranking Chinese official, We happen to be big while you are small. Translation: Sorry, but life is unfair
because size does matter.
So in 2009, the Chinese arbitrarily drew a crude 9-dash-line perimeter to mark Chinas maritime boundary
to its south, never mind if the mojones brazenly encroach on the 200-mile EEZ (exclusive economic zone)
of countries like the Philippines. Consequently, in nine tiny strokes of a pen, China symbolically gobbled
up 80 percent of the Philippines EEZ and virtually the entire continental shelf along her western flank.
Prior to Carpios scholarly work, no onewhether historian, sinologist, or punditcould offer convincing
evidence to refute Chinas so-called historical claims. Sure, the Philippines and its neighbors, like Vietnam,
contested Chinas intrusions into their territorial waters, but none could show hard, irrefutable evidence
that China was lying through its teeth. The gist of our governments position is that anything within our EEZ
is within our sovereign rights under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos), to
which China and the Philippines are signatories. Not much more than that. We are not aware of a
companion effort by the Department of Foreign Affairs to effectively discredit Chinas own historical
claims of ownership and sovereignty based on existing Chinese official records and maps. In this context,
Carpios paper will serve our country well.
In the wake of Carpios expos on Chinas historical lies, the latter is now under great pressure to
respond to and repudiate the Filipinos masterful historical research. And we dont mean merely issuing
more arrogant ex cathedra rejoinders that will insult our intelligence. Silence and indifference will not
serve Beijings interest. If it takes this path, people will say: Absence of evidence is itself evidence of
wrongdoing. A response of benign contempt will thus erode Chinas prestige and whatever remains of
its moral high ground. It will just be perceived by its small neighbors and the international community as
another big bully, unworthy of its rising economic status.
Great power must be tempered with great responsibility. In 1974, at the UN General Assembly in New
York, Deng Xiaoping, then Chinas paramount leader and widely acknowledged as the architect of his
countrys economic renaissance, warned against the poison of imperialism: If one day China should
change her color and turn into a superpower, a tyrant and everywhere subject others to her bullying,
aggression, and exploitation, then the people of the world should identify her as a social imperialist and
work together with the Chinese people to overthrow her. Prophetic words. Deng must be turning in his
grave.

MANILA, Philippines - Chinas own ancient maps would debunk its supposed historical claims over
disputed areas in the West Philippine Sea, according to a senior magistrate of the Supreme Court (SC).
In his recent lecture at the De La Salle University-College of Law, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio
said an examination of such maps would show that the historical facts being claimed by China do not
exist.
3

Analyn L. Taguiling

LEGAL RESEARCH

Historical Facts, Historical Lies, and Historical Rights in the West Philippine Sea, by Justice Carpio
All these ancient maps show that since the first Chinese maps appeared, the southernmost territory of
China has always been Hainan island, with its ancient names being Zhuya, then Qiongya, and thereafter
Qiongzhou, he stressed.
The magistrate said this shows that Hainan island, which was for centuries a part of Guangdong until 1988
when it became a separate province, is the boundary of the Chinese territory in the Southeast Asian
region.
Carpio said even the maps of the Philippines and other countries also did not show the contested islands
as part of China.
He recalled that China only claimed its alleged historical facts as basis for its maritime claims in the
South China Sea after the Philippines filed in January 2013 an arbitration case against it before an
international tribunal, invoking UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea).
Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1
The SC justice also pointed out that the use of South China Sea as basis for Chinas historical claims
holds no water.
The South China Sea was not even named by the Chinese but by European navigators and
cartographers. The Song and Ming Dynasties called the South China Sea the Giao Chi Sea, and the
Qing Dynasty, the Republic of China as well as the Peoples Republic of China call it the South Sea
without the word China, he pointed out.
Citing foundations of international law by Hugo Grotius in the early 17th century, he said that the oceans
and seas of our planet belonged to all mankind, and no nation could claim ownership to the oceans
and seas.
India cannot claim the Indian Ocean, and Mexico cannot claim the Gulf of Mexico, in the same way
that the Philippines cannot claim the Philippine Sea, just because historically these bodies of water have
been named after these countries, he further stressed.
Lastly, Carpio explained that historical facts dating back to the age of discovery in the early 15th century
until the 17th century or even earlier have no bearing whatsoever in the resolution of maritime disputes
under UNCLOS.
The magistrate reiterated that Chinas claim of a historical right to the waters enclosed within the 9dash lines in the South China Sea is utterly without basis under international law.
He explained that UNCLOS had extinguished all historical rights of other states within the 200-nautical
mile exclusive economic zone of the adjacent coastal state.
This, he said, is the reason why the zone is called exclusive, as no state other than the adjacent coastal
state can exploit economically its resources.
China claims that Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal, which it branded Huangyan Island, is the Nanhai island
that 13th century Chinese astronomer-engineer-mathematician Guo Shoujing allegedly visited in 1279
on orders from Kublai Khan the first emperor of the Yuan Dynasty to conduct a survey of the Four Seas
to update the Sung Dynasty calendar system.
This supposed visit of Gou Shoujing to Panatag Shoal in 1279 is the only historical association of China
with the shoal.

Analyn L. Taguiling

LEGAL RESEARCH

Historical Facts, Historical Lies, and Historical Rights in the West Philippine Sea, by Justice Carpio
But in his speech during the 19th National Convention and Seminar of the Philippine Women Judges
Association last March, Carpio stressed that China already used the same claim in its dispute with
Vietnam over the Paracels.

He also cited a Jan. 30, 1980 document entitled Chinas Sovereignty Over Xisha and Zhongsa Islands Is
Indisputable published in Beijing Review, in which the countrys foreign ministry officially declared that
the Nanhai island that Guo Shoujing visited in 1279 was in Xisha or what is internationally called the
Paracels, a group of islands more than 380 nautical miles from Panatag Shoal.
Carpio said Guo could not have gone ashore to visit the shoal because it was just a rock, with no
vegetation, and did not even have enough space to accommodate an expedition party.
The SC justice also argued that a state may only claim historical rights over waters that are part of its
internal waters or territorial sea.
He also said China failed to satisfy any of the conditions to claim historical rights under the general
principles and rules of international law, such as formal announcement to the international community,
continuous exercise of sovereignty over the waters it claims as its own internal waters or territorial sea,
and recognition from other states.
He added that Chinas 9-dash line claim was never effectively enforced.
Since last year, Carpio had been bringing up the West Philippine Sea issue in a number of public
speeches.
In a speech before members of the Philippine Bar Association in August last year, Carpio expressed fear
that territorial claims over disputed areas of the West Philippine Sea could end up being dictated by
naval strength and not by the rule of law, citing the tendency of China to ignore arbitration proceedings.
In a speech three months earlier before law students of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, Carpio
noted that under the United Nations Charter, the International Court of Justice can ask the UN Security
Council to enforce its decision. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or ITLOS is also a UN body.
Carpio wrote the Supreme Court decision that unanimously affirmed the constitutionality of the Philippine
Archipelagic Baselines law of 2009, beating an UNCLOS deadline.