Rewriting sovereignty

Maps are no longer the only basis for territories, and before borders are challenged on paper, they are often challenged in the mind first. That is why the recent claims of Chinese academic scholars that ‘Batanes belongs to China through Taiwan’ should not be dismissed as a mere academic exercise. The claim, made during a symposium in Guangzhou, argues that the Philippines has no historical or legal basis for administering the province. 

For many Filipinos, it sounded absurd—a historical revision with no legal standing against a province that has long been administered by the Philippines. But the greatest threat lies in the real lesson behind the claim. It is that we underestimate how sovereignty is defended long before it is ever challenged on the ground. 

The controversy also raises an important question about the role of academia. Universities are not there to support political aspirations, but rather to seek the truth through evidence. Since scholarship depends on free discussion and inquiry, academic freedom must always be upheld. This, however, should never be used as a cover for selective historical interpretations. The issue is not that academics should be forbidden to discuss the historical ties among China, Taiwan, and neighboring regions. Historical research is still important and essential. The problem is that countries can twist history to make fake or weak land claims look official and legitimate. Academic discourse runs the risk of being used as a vehicle for political messaging in these situations. 

The assertions made reflect what many experts describe as lawfare—the use of the law by a country against its enemies, especially by challenging the legality of military or foreign policy. While the claims itself does not alter international law, it demonstrates how narratives can be cultivated over time in hopes of influencing future perceptions. 

This is also not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern. Over the years, China has consistently employed multiple strategies to reinforce its territorial ambitions—from publishing new standard maps and expanding the so-called “ten-dash line,” to deploying coast guard and maritime militia vessels in disputed waters, and advancing historical and legal narratives that support its claims. None of these actions alone changes international law. Instead, they rely on persistence. 

This strategy presents a difficult challenge for countries like the Philippines, where China does not necessarily need to win every legal argument or every diplomatic exchange. It only needs to maintain constant pressure while smaller nations struggle to match the same level of resources, influence, and global messaging. The danger, therefore, is not simply China’s size but the consistency of its strategy. A territorial claim does not become stronger because it is true; it becomes more persuasive when it is repeated often enough that people stop questioning it. 

Despite these narratives, the historical and legal record remains clear. Today, Batanes is governed under Philippine law, represented by elected Filipino officials, and recognized internationally as part of Philippine territory. Department of Labor and Employment Chief Francis Tolentino, principal author of the Philippine Maritime Zones Law and author of Winds of Sovereignty: The Mavulis Poems, rejected the said claims of the scholars. He also cited historical and constitutional evidence such as the 1898 Treaty of Paris, the 1900 Treaty of Washington, and the 1930 US-UK Convention, which served as the foundation for the 1935 Constitution, which established Batanes’ northern boundary at 21° 25′ North. He pointed out that Spain formally annexed the islands into the Philippine archipelago in 1783 under Governor-General José Basco y Vargas, and that Batanes’ Ivatan heritage predates these treaties by centuries. 

With all these, history has shown that territorial disputes rarely begin with ships entering coastlines. They often begin with stories. 

The first territory any nation can lose is not an island—it is its memory. If Filipinos fail to preserve and understand the truth about our own history, others will not hesitate to write it for us. That is why the issue is not simply about China. It is also about us. Could we confidently explain why Batanes belongs to the Philippines beyond simply saying, “Because it has always been ours”? 

In an age where misinformation spreads faster than facts, patriotism cannot rely on assumptions. National pride without historical understanding is fragile.  We often celebrate Independence Day, Rizal Day, or even History classes, yet we rarely recognize the historical knowledge preserved in every aspect of it. Every archived document, every story written in the textbook, and every teacher who shared these lessons tells our history with integrity, strengthening the country’s defense against attempts to rewrite our national story. 

Therefore, the Philippines’ response should be more than just outrage. Enhancing historical literacy, promoting reliable scholarship, maintaining archival records, and effectively communicating with global audiences should all be part of it. The historical and legal foundation of Philippine sovereignty over Batanes is maintained through the efforts of historians, legal scholars, educators, journalists, and diplomats who refuse to allow the truth to be rewritten.

Batanes is still governed and will be governed by the Philippines. But sovereignty is not defended only by coast guards or treaties. It is defended every day in classrooms, libraries, archives, and newsrooms. The first territory any nation loses is not an island—it is its memory. Once people forget the truth of their own history, someone else will gladly write a different one, and the fiction becomes easier to believe. 

If Filipinos fail to safeguard that memory, we may one day discover that the battle for our sovereignty was lost not at sea, but in silence.