Owen Lynch' Spanish Colonial Sovereignty over the Islands: Legal Origins and Justification:

An article review: Owen Lynch in his “Spanish Colonial Sovereignty Over the Philippine Islands: Legal Origins and Justifications” and its understanding of Philippine History.

           Understanding Phiilppine colonial history, in this article of Owen J. Lynch should originate from explanation of the political legitimacy of the colonial power. Were these colonial powers, in particular Spain and the United States had the legal right to impose their sovereignty on the Philippines? This issue is very relevant especially when one deals with the Muslim contention that they were “never” colonized by Spain and therefore, the cession of Mindanao and Sulu to the Americans in the Treaty of Paris was invalid

Dr.Owen Lynch, an environmental and human rights law specialist, earned earned his Master of Laws and Doctor of Laws with honors from Yale University in 1985 and 1992 (based on his google profile). He had conducted research and advocated for environmental justice and sustainable development. One could infer from his background his interest to defend the rights of the third world countries. This article on Spanish colonial sovereignty was well-researched and used substantial primary sources.

The issue focused by this article was on whether the Spaniards’ control of the Philippine islands was legal and legitimate? Dr. .Owen contextualized his claims, first by narrating the conditions prevailing before Spanish explorations to the New World, notably that by Christopher Columbus when there was an ostensible threat to Spanish claims on the “discovered territories” in the Americas. The rivalry between Portugal and Spain was apparent over rights of ownership, and by extension, the wealth of the New World that was the driving force behind their avid desire to gain the favour of the Pope of that time, Alexander VI. We must remember that both Portugal and Spain are Catholics and since there was yet no clear international law regarding rights over “discovered” territories during this Age of Exploration, Pope’s mediation offered some kind of remedy. Owen then proceeded to second, mention the Papal Bulls issued by Pope Alexander and how these were revised over time to accommodate both Spain and Portugal’s reaction. What we had always learned in class was that Alexander VI’s bull of Inter Caetera of July 1493 or Treaty of Tordesillas divided the world into two, in order for both Spain and Portugal avoid potential conflict in their territorial claims. But even this treaty proved to be contentious later on. But what makes the Papal mediation significant according to Owen, was the inclusion of missionary duties of both Spain and Portugal to convert the natives that they “discovered” or conquered to Christianity. We would come to know this later on as the Patronato Real, where the sovereign monarch had the obligation to support the missionaries the Pope sends to these new territories. Hence, the phrase “ the cross follows the sword”, i.e. the expansion not only of Spanish and Portuguese sovereignty carries with it the expansion of Christianity as well. Owen, would then attribute this religious injunction to the conflict between ecclesiastical and civil authorities.  Nonetheless, Spain under its monarchs until King Philip II viewed the religious presence with a temporary expediency. Obviously, they needed the Pope’s blessings to legitimize their claims over the territories they would be “discover”.

Real conflicts over property rights will manifest in the Philippines where Spain was able to finally impose its sovereignty over. The encomienda awarded to Spain’s loyal soldiers and civil servants was not really a right of ownership but a mere right to collect tribute from the natives. Such tribute was expressedly intended for the well-being of the natives, including their right for religious education from the missionaries. Thus, the complaints of the friars about encomenderos’ corruption that led to its final abolition by 1700s. Owen, at this point,cited Phelan and other secondary sources about the friars taking over much of the lands, by way of the hacienda system- lands accumulated through donations by the native elites as well as by royal grants.

While, the Philippine islands may have been not fully pacified, as evidenced by the scant tributes collected proportionate to the areas claimed as Spanish territories, Owen asserted that it has always been the rule that consent of the ruled is needed in order to legitimize one’s claim of power over them. The Synod of 1582 emphasized that Spain had no legal right to dispossess the natives’ properties including land, even for the purpose of tribute collection, unless they interfered with the missionary activities. Because of this, the consent of the natives to be under Spanish sovereignty (and thus, pay the tribute) should first be secured. Eventually, complaints that though Spain was a legal sovereign over the entire Philippines, yet only a few were paying tributes. Thus, the need to forcibly bring the islands to subjection, or else Spanish power will be a mere farce. By 1700s Spanish oppression would elicit rebellions, though sporadic, around the archipelago. As for Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan, including the Mountain Province in Luzon, indigenous peoples here and the Moros continued to resist the Spaniards.

When the Americans came and subdue the islands, it was just assumed that the entire Philippines was theirs by right. This claim was legitimized by the Treaty of Paris, where the United States agreed to pay Spain $20M, in recognition of the Spanish “improvements” during her rule of 333 years. This annexation would have large implications to the American pacification of Mindanao and Sulu which was bloody and chaotic. At this instance, Owen, although mentioned that the Sultanate of Sulu was recognized to be de facto sovereign, the Bates Treaty and its abrogation was hardly mentioned. Probably, he thought that this is not covered by his article which he only limited to Spanish sovereignty.

In conclusion, this article of Owen, brings to light important issues regarding Spanish claim for legitimacy on the Philippine Islands, particularly whether it is right for an invader to control a group of people, bring them to subjection and convert them without their consent. The Synod of 1582 advanced the importance of consent by the subject people before they can fully colonized. This is a primordial right of persons is recognized by the church. The author’s use of primary sources to support his claim; secondary sources to help contextualise his arguments, and the logical flow of his narrative makes this article a good material for Readings in Phiippine History class. His credibility is supported by his academic and legal background as well as his advocacy for the property rights as can be gleaned on his involvement in environmental justice and sustainable development.