The 1875 Carta General del Archipielago Filipino

This is it!

“This map of the Philippine Archipelago was first published in 1875 by the Direccion Hidografia and reissued in 1888 with minor corrections. This map shows ‘B. Masinloc,’ and almost all of the Spratlys, including Thitu (Pagasa) island. All the islands of the Kalayaan group are in this map. This is the last of the official maps of the Philippines published during the Spanish regime. This is the definitive map depicting all the islands of the Philippine Archipelago.”

Those were the opening words of former Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio at the National Library of the Philippines on March 19, where he donated a full-size copy of the official map that defined the Philippine territory ceded by Spain to the United States in the settlement of the Spanish-American War which started on April 25, 1898 and ended on-Dec. 10, 1898 with the Treaty of Paris. Specifics of the cession of the Philippines were later clarified on Nov. 7, 1900, when Spain and the United States signed the Treaty of Washington.

That’s what started the confusion and misunderstanding about the islands included in the Philippine archipelago, Mr. Carpio said.

“The map attached to the Treaty of Paris did not correspond to the geographical coordinates fixed by US negotiators and listed in the Treaty. The geographical coordinates did not include Cagayan de Sulu and Sibutu as Philippine territory. They did not include many islands of the Spratlys as Philippine territory.

“US officials realized this when they arrived in the Philippines. The Spanish garrisons in the Cagayan de Sulu and Sibuto refused to vacate their areas since these areas were outside the Treaty of Paris lines. This forced the US to negotiate with Spain for a clarification of the treaty lines.”

Mr. Carpio cited official correspondence between the US Secretary of State and the Spanish Ambassador in Washington, in the negotiations leading to the 1900 Treaty of Washington that clarified the Philippine territory to be ceded by Spain to the US. “The United States at first offered $50,000 as consideration for the signing of the clarification that the cession included all islands belonging to the Philippine archipelago lying outside the lines of the 1898 Treaty of Paris. Spain turned down the offer as inadequate. Then the US upped the offer to $100,000, to which Spain agreed. Thus, the Treaty of Washington was signed,” Mr. Carpio said.

“There is this misconception that what was ceded by Spain to the US were only the islands within the (Paris) treaty lines. Everybody forgot about the Treaty of Washington … And it even misled the Chinese because they kept echoing what our public intellectuals had been saying — that the Scarborough and Spratlys were not ceded in a treaty by Spain,” Mr. Carpio said regretfully.

The 1900 Treaty of Washington had never been taught even in law school, he noted, hence the need to “re-educate” Filipinos about its importance in accurately defining Philippine territory. “I think we were remiss in researching this but we had to answer China and we had to find an answer also to the claim of [legal luminaries] that Philippine territory is limited to islands within treaty lines,” he said (Philippine Daily Inquirer, March 21).

He was referring to the statements made by the late former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza, the late former Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, and the late Ateneo Law School Dean Joaquin Bernas, SJ. (Ibid.).

The 1875 Carta General del Archipielago Filipino, the official Spanish government map, was the underlying document for the Washington Treaty, and retroactively, for the Treaty of Paris (as clarified), for the definition of the ceded Philippine territory. The US War Department reissued this 1875 map four times between 1899 and 1902. The 1935 Philippine Constitution reiterated the territory of the Philippines as per the 1898 Treaty of Paris, the 1900 Treaty of Washington, and the 1930 US-UK Treaty to include Scarborough Shoal and the Spratly Islands.

So now, the 1875 Carta General del Archipielago Filipino is found in the National Library of the Philippines, together with the 1808 Carta General del Archipielago de Filipinas, the 1734 Murillo Velarde Map, and the Carta Hydrografia y Chorographica de las Yslas Filipinas — proof beyond doubt that Scarborough Shoal, Panacot or Bajo de Masinloc (all one and the same shoal), and the Kalayaan Island Group are in the Philippine archipelago. Thitu, Loaita, and Itu Aba are in the 1875 Carta General del Archipielago Filipino. All these islands/shoals/reefs are in the present-day map of the National Mapping and Resource Information Agency (NAMRIA).

But although the earliest of these three maps, the 1734 map by Spanish Jesuit Fr. Pedro Murillo Velarde, detailed the archipelago’s features (including Panacot Island/Scarborough shoal/Bajo de Masinloc and the Spratlys), the Chinese have always considered the South China Sea (a big portion is now called the West Philippine Sea) their territory. In 1947, China published a revised China Handbook. This claimed the Spratlys while specifically recognizing that the islands are contested among China, the Philippines, and French Indochina. Mr. Carpio noted that the Philippines claimed the Spratlys in 1734, 213 years earlier.

The 1734 Murillo Velarde map was one of the 270 ancient maps referenced in the hearing of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at the Hague in the Netherlands when the Philippines contested China’s claim to the West Philippine Sea. In 2016 the PCA court declared China’s claims unfounded and invalid (murillovelardemap.com).

Earlier last week (before the donation of the 1875 map to the National Library by Mr. Carpio), the Chinese Embassy in Manila revealed a Feb. 5, 1990 letter allegedly written by then Philippine Ambassador to Germany Benvenido Tan, Jr., declaring that Scarborough “does not fall within territorial sovereignty of the Philippines” (Inquirer.net, March 16). In the correspondence with German radio operator Dieter Löffler, Tan reportedly said, “According to the Philippine National Mapping and Resource Information Authority, the Scarborough Reef or Huangyan Dao does not fall within the territorial sovereignty of the Philippines. It is 10 miles off the line drawn under the Treaty of Paris; however, the area is within the 200-mile Philippine economic zone.”

Mr. Carpio’s comment on this: “First of all, the rule in international law is that only the head of state or the foreign minister can issue a statement of a letter binding the state. He may be an ambassador or undersecretary but his (Mr. Tan’s) statement is not binding on the state.”

The 1990 document published by the Chinese Embassy in Manila disputing the Philippines’ territorial claims to the Scarborough Shoal is “without value,” Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) Maritime Affairs Spokesperson Rogelio Villanueva, Jr. said after the Chinese embassy presented as “legal evidence” the correspondence between former Ambassador Tan, Jr. and the “German radio operator” Löffler (Inquirer.net, March 166).

“As regards the recent letter posted by the Chinese Embassy in Manila, the DFA will not engage in conjecture or speculation over a document of uncertain origin and authenticity, and certainly without value,” Mr. Villanueva said at the press briefing.

The Chinese are doing everything, right or wrong, to wrest territory from the Philippines. More than for fishing grounds or suspected mineral and oil deposits, they could really be strategizing for geopolitical power and control — the West Philippine Sea is a vital passageway not only for economic trade but for military and security advantages.

At the donation launch and lecture, Mr. Carpio was asked anxious questions of what’s-going-to-happen-next and what-are-we-going-to-do-about-it? There was a suggestion to submit another complaint or protest to international legal venues such as the PCA.

In the audience were many young students who were there “because of ‘free admission’ (no fees, no special invitation, only internet registration) to listen to a high-intellectual level discussion of a big political issue (the West Philippine Sea) that they wanted to know about clearly, more than just for curiosity.” This was verbalized by many young attendees. It must have struck some angsty self-consciousness in the VIP government officials from the history, culture, and arts departments to be engulfed by the impassioned youth with their silent questions, wanting to know what is happening to their future.

For seven years, Mr. Carpio traveled to Madrid and parts of the United States in search of an original print of the 1875 Carta General del Archipielago Filipino, the Philippine News Agency reported, before his donation of this very “definitive” map to the National Library. “If you visit Manila during the early 1900s up to the 1930s, prints of Carta General were plenty,” said Mr. Carpio in an online forum of the National Youth Forum for the West Philippine Sea.

The favorable resolution of the West Philippine Sea issues is for the future of our youth.

Amelia H. C. Ylagan is a doctor of Business Administration from the University of the Philippines.

[e-mail]