1. Area of Present Philippine Claims The Philippines began to lay its claim over the Spratly Islands in 1970s.

The Ph ilippines claims the western section of the Spratlys, or the "Kalayaan Isaland G roup" as called by the Philippines. That encompasses 53 islands, reefs, shoals c ays, rocks and atolls with an area of 64,976 square miles. It is about 450 nauti cal miles from Manila and 230 nautical miles from Palawan. The Thitu Island (ren amed as Pag-asa/Pagasa by the Philippines) is the biggest island and the Philipp ines occupied this island in the 1970s. Along with Thitu Island, other islands i n the Spratlys occupied by the Philippines include Flat Island (Feixin Dao in Ch inese, Patag as the Philippines renamed it), Nansha Island (Mahuan Dao, Lawak), West York Island (Xiyue Dao, Likas), Lankiam Cay (Shuanghuan Shazhou, Panata), L oita Island (Nanyue Dao, Kota), and Commodore Reef (Siling Jiao, Rizal Reef). 2. Brief History of the Filipino Interest in the Spratlys and its Development Out of its economic and strategic motivations, the French government made formal claims to the Spratlys in the early 1930s. On July 25 1933 the French Foreign M inistry announced the occupation of the nine islets of the Spratlys and asserted French sovereignty over them for the first time. The French action brought imme diate protests from China.[2] At that time, the Philippines was a colony of Amer ica. Some Filipino congressman said the nine islands should belong to the Philip pines according to the Treaty of Paris. However his suggestion was ignored by Wa shington since the Spratly Islands obviously were not within the Philippine boun dary as stated by the Treaty Limits. During the Second World War, Japan occupied both the Paracels (Paracel Islands) and Spratlys in 1939 shortly after they controlled Hainan Island. The Japanese u sed Itu Aba Island (Taiping Dao) as a submarine base and a springboard for its i nvasion of the Philippines. At the end of the Pacific War in 1945, the Japanese forces on the South China Sea surrendered to the representatives of China. [1,p7 -8]. The newly established Philippine government Foreign Minister Qurino advocat ed on 23 July 1946 that the new Southern Islands (a term used by the Japanese fo r all the islands in the South China Sea) should be given to his country. This w as the first indication of the interests in the Spratly Islands from the Philipp ines government. In April 1949 , the Philippines sent its navy to explore the Spratlys. An articl e published in Manila Bulletin on May 15 1950 said that the Philippine governmen t should occupy the Spratly Islands together with the United States because it w as closer to Palawan compared with China and Vietnam. On May 17, the Philippine President Quirino said that if the Chinese Kuomingtang (Nationalist Party) troop s really occupied the Spratlys, then Philippine didn't need to occupy them. Howe ver, if the islands fell into the communist enemy's hand, the Philippine securit y is threatened. So he created this theory that the Spratlys should belong to th e nearest country according to international law. and the Philippines is the nea rest. In 1956 Tomas Cloma together with his brothers and 40 crew explored the Spratlys and claimed to have "discovered" and occupied 53 islands and reefs of the Sprat lys. They proclaimed "formal ownership" over them and renamed these islands and reefs the Kalayaan (Freedomland) Island Group. The Philippine act was immediately met with protests from PRC, Taiwan, Saigon as well as France. The PRC denounced Tomas Cloma's alleged "discovery" as totally groundless. Manila responded to Taipei and Saigon that it had no claims on the S pratlys [1, p11]. Since then Taiwan sent troops to the Islands to patrol the Spr atly Islands and stationed on Itu Aba Island to prevent further such allegations . In early July 1971, the Philippine government alleged that the Taiwanese troops on the Itu Aba Island "fired on a boat carrying a Philippine congressman". After this the Philippine government announced on July 10 1971 that "it had sent a di plomatic note to Taipei asking that the Chinese garrison be withdrawn from Itua Aba". Manila stated that 53 islands and reefs once occupied by Tomas Cloma shoul d belong to the Philippines, because the area was terra nullius at the time of i ts occupation and was "acquired according to the modes of acquisition recognized under international law, among which are occupation and effective administratio

n". [3] Meanwhile the Philippines sent its navy to occupy Thitu Island and Nansh an Island. In April 1972, the Philippines government incorporated the "Kalayaan" group into Palawan Province as a municipality. In February 1974, the Philippines government stated that the Philippines forces had occupied five islets of the Spratlys. The Philippines government justified i ts occupation of the Spratly Islands as "the strategic importance of the Kalayaa n area to the Philippine security". [5] By 1978 the Philippines had occupied two more islands, and later the Philippines further occupied Siling Jiao (Commodore Reef), in 1980 they occupied Liyue Tan (Reed Bank). On June 11, 1978, Filipino president Marcos signed a Presidential D ecree 1596 which claimed the Kalayaan group. The 1978 decree omitted Spratly Isl and and include Amboyna Cay which was not claimed by Cloma. It also said that "s ome countries claimed some parts of this area but they had given up and thus the claims are not valid anymore..." [4] On July 17, 1978, a Presidential Decree 1599 was issued, proclaiming that the Ka layaan Group was within Philippine EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone). 3. Was the Spratlys res nullius before any Filipino claims? The Philippines base their claims of sovereignty over the Spratlys on the issues of res nullius. The definition ofres nullius is "A thing which has no owner or A thing which has been abandoned by its owner is as much res nullius as if it ha d never belonged to any one." Japan unconditionally surrendered in 1945 after their defeat in the World War II . Towards the end of 1946, the Chinese government sent a naval task force consis ting of four warships to the Spratlys and Paracels to execute demonstrative poss essor acts on the spot. The task force sailed from Guangdong (Canton) on Decembe r 9, 1946. The two war ships Taiping and Zhongye set course for the Spratlys and after 3 days' sailing, they reached Itu Aba Island, the principal island of the Spratlys on the morning of December 12, 1946. They immediately sent telegraphs to Nanjing to report on their arrival and later stationed on the Itu Aba Island. The Itu Aba Island was surveyed. The task force also reached and surveyed other Spratly Islands including Nanyue Island, Thitu Island, North Danger Reef etc. T he symbols of Japanese sovereignty were removed and a Sovereignty Stone Marker w as placed on the Itu Aba Island. They also held a take-over ceremony. In December 1947 Territorial Administration Section of Ministry of Internal Affa irs published a list of South China Sea Islands Names and a Map of South China S ea Islands. The Itu Aba Island is renamed to Taiping Island, the Thitu Island is renamed to Zhongye Island, the commanders name of the task force is also used as a name of a Sand Cay (Dunqian Shazhou). So has China ever abandoned her ownership over the Spratlys? No. The Chinese gov ernment has never relinquished its claim to these islands. After the "Kingdom of Humantiy and Republic of Songhrati-Morac-Meads" issue Taiwan has restored the g arrison on Taiping Island and the navy has frequently patrolled the Spratlys. Just like what is expressed in Taipei's response to the Philippines: The world h as been on notice for years and years that China has a garrison on the Islands. It is childishly naive to entertain any notion that Cloma and associates' claim to "right of discovery" can serve as the legal basis for Philippine government's claiming and the actions as announced by President Marcos. The pursuit of an pr ivate and official claim to the Spratly Islands should be held to be a violation of international law and a provocation to China.[1, p71] 4. Is Geography Proximity a legal Basis for Philippine's claim in the Spratlys? There is no international law saying geographical proximity can be used here to justify its claims in the Kalayaan Island Group. If we use the proximity basis, many isolated islands in Sulu Sea are much closer to Borneo than to the Philippi nes, should the Philippines give these islands to Malaysia or Brunei? 5. Is National Security a legal basis for the Filipino Claim? If Philippines national security can serve as a legal basis for its claim in the Spratly Islands. Does that mean the Philippines will just invade any other nati on's sovereign land if they feel that they are not secure? 6. Conclusion

The Philippine's claims in the Spratly Islands, is not legal, although the Phili ppines try to base their claims on different bases. The Spratlys was not res nul lius, and the Philippines' claims based on geographic proximity and national sec urity are illegal. here are two simple ways to determine what a Filipino is: by his name and by wha t he eats. Fiestas, the wheel, town cemeteries, plowing, spoon and fork, social graces, the guisado, rondalla, potato, papaya, camote, La Virgen Mara, paper and book culture ,la mesa, la silla, painting, old street names and our family surnames, Holy Wee k andSimbang gab, the bahay na bat, the calendar that we use, the name of our coun try, our nationality, etc. All these items, techniques, and concepts that were o nce foreign to us are now considered endemic. Without these, it is unthinkable f or a Filipino to even exist. But these things that are crucial for our everyday existence are taken for granted like the the clouds in the sky. Indeed, if we strip away everything Asian from our identity, the Hispanic attrib utes will still remain. And these attributes are the same ones that the whole wo rld can see in each and every Hispanic country scattered around the globe. But i f we take away everything Hispanic in us to give way to purist nationalist dicta tes, then we will cease to become Filipino. We will disintegrate back to what we were before theconquistadores came: disunited; separated into a myriad of triba l kingdoms; perpetually aggressive towards one another. In other words, if we remove our Hispanic traits, it will not harm the Hispanic world one bit. What will remain is the Malay or Austronesian in us that never made u s Filipinos in the first place. The pre-Filipino Malay/Austronesian is composed of many tribes (Tagalog, Ilocano, Tausug, Ilongo, Pampangueo, etc.) that were nev er one, never united as a compact nation. The scattered Malay/Austronesian tribe s in this archipelago which we now call our own before the Spaniards came never aspired into uniting with one another to become a much bigger nation because eac h tribe already thought of itself as a nation. To a pre-Filipino Bicolanos mind, why should they unite with the pre-Filipino Cebuanos just to become another nati on? This they never thought of. And it took a foreign power for us to realize this F ilipinization that we treasure to this very day. This is the importance of reassessing our nations history. I always claim that ou rs is perhaps the most unique in the world because it is so mangled, so distorte d. We continuously badmouth the nation (Spain) who virtually created us, complai ning all the time that they raped and destroyed our culture even though we use cuc hara and tenedor during meals while eating adobo or any guisado-based dishes, lo ok at thecalendario everyday, check out the time with our relj, say para to the j eepney driver, celebrate the Holiday Seasons, plan to visit Spanish Vigan to see the fantastic houses there, etc. But why continue this baseless, foolish, and c ounterproductive hatred? The Spaniards are no longer here. And we continuously d eny the strong fact that without Spain, the concept of what a Filipino truly is as we know it today would have never existed. And by attacking our Spanish past, we are only harming ourselves, not Spain. Rather than focus on personages, dates, and places, Philippine History teachers should focus more on the process of Filipinization. The word history comes from th e greek verb historeo which means to learn by inquiry. So that is what teachers of Philippine History should do: inculcate into the minds of their students to inq uire about the past,their past. History should not be about memorization of date s, places, events, names, etc. History is not a memorization contest. Although i t is understandbale that, as much as possible, we should just leave historical f acts to speak for themselves, it could not be feasible if our educators themselv es continue to condition the minds of our young students into hating a past that should not be hated at all. In our particular situation, we all must learn how to reassess and inquire about the process of Filipinization. Why? Because of thi s so-called crisis of national identity which many scholars today erroneously cl aim we have.

As I have argued before, our national identity never left us. It has been with u s all this time. A systematic false teaching of Philippine History just made us think that we do not have one. Ang hind marunong lumign sa pinangaligan ay hind macacaratng sa parroonan, says an o galog proverb. But how can we move forward, how will we be able to determine whe re we are going if we do not know where we have come from? We always look into a mythical pre-Hispanic past, yearn for it, but that era of our lives "was never us ". It was only the catalyst to Hispanization which was really Filipinization . And this process gave birth to who and what we are today. The pre-Hispanic Fili pino was never us. We have to calmly accept that fact, the way we have to accept natural disasters as part of our reality. Ms mabuti siguro tayo gayn cung hind tayo sinacop ng ma Kastil. This is a very defeati st observation that has been prevailing for about a century already, for it has no basis most especially if we are to review our countrys economic history. Why a spire of reverting to a pre-Filipino past that never was? The Philippines is such an ungrateful nation. We deserve to be poor. Thus, for a ll the unfounded badmouthing that we have thrown against her, we owe mother Spai n an apology, and not the other way around. It is time that we Filipinos should go back to our roots. Our real roots. That w ay, we will be able to steer the course of our national destiny