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.

The Political Dimension of Agrarian Reform

The POLITICAL DIMENSION OF THE AGRARIAN REFORM IN THE PHILIPPINES

INTRODUCTION:

            “Agrarian Reform means redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits produced, to farmers and regular farm workers who are landless, irrespective of tenurial  arrangement, to include the totality of factors and support services designed to lift the economic status of the beneficiaries and all other arrangements alternative to the physical redistribution of lands, such as production or profit-sharing, labor administration, and the distribution of shares of stocks, which will allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits of the lands they work.” (RA6657 Chapter II Section 7)This definition of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law actually was th culmination of the quest for a real land reform that the country aspired for from pre-colonial period up to the present. What makes this law significant for the people of Mindanao was its provision for ancestral land; something that the framers of the Constitution beginning Malolos Constitution up to the Constitution of 1973 had omitted

             In the Philippines, land distribution was a factor in governance from pre-colonial to the present. When the Spaniards came, a more systematic process was made to wean the pre-colonial Filipinos from their property rights where slavery was the mode of production. This means that wealth was measured in terms of how many slaves one possessed. Spaniards with their Regalian doctrine where the right of the monarch of their possessions including lands was absolute introduced the encomienda system which gave the right of the King to establish encomiendas to be awarded to their loyal subject. (Please see Jane Calkins Foster, “The Encomienda System in the Philippine Islands : 1571-1597” Loyola University Chicago. A Masters Thesis, 1956 p. 183p Note: Most of the sources she used were primary sources).While such right was limited to collect tributes from the natives on delimited territories this was later evolved as a form of land ownership institutionalized through the hacienda system. Haciendas were vast tracts of land cultivated for cash crops that were privately owned by hacienderos. They could be the principalia (native/mestizo elites) or religious orders who were awarded by Spain for their meritorious deeds through patronato real or were voluntary  donations by the principalia themselves. (ibid. also see Phelan, The Hispanization of the Philippines, Corpus, O.D., Roots of the Filipino Nation, vol.1) Inequality, thus, was traced to this colonial legacy.

             The American period systematized land ownership through the passage of a series of Land laws during the Taft administration (Reports of the Philippine Commission, 1901; The Philippine Gazette, Also see Renato Constantino, A Past Revisited 1975, Agoncillo and Guerrero, A History of the Filipino People). These laws became the bases of modern day land ownership in the Philippines. However, these proved to be contentious, particularly regarding public versus private lands. It was deemed that lands that were not properly titled  through the Torrens title system were considered public lands and are therefore disposable and alienable by the government. These lands were largely located in the virgin, uncultivated lands of Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan. Resettlements to these public lands by settlers from Luzon and Visayas resulted

resulted to land dispossessions of the natives of Mindanao-the Moros and the indigenous people.

            The government resettlement programs to Mindanao was initiated by the Americans through the Department of Mindanao and Sulu. It answered the clamor develop the island as an agrarian resource for production of rice and corn as well as the business interests of the United States for gutta percha (or rubber) for their car manufacturing in the U.S. Mindanao also was rich in mineral (copper and gold mines) and timber resources. The homestead program that opened five resettlements in North Cotabato, known as agricultural colonies, paved the way for the landless Filipinos from Luzon and Visayas (see Pelzer, Settlements in Southeast Asia; also Peter Gowing, Mandate on the Moroland) to become owner-cultivators, as envisioned by the program. This program was considerably expensive for the government because the allocation for support of these settlers was huge (for their transportation, living allowances as well as loans to support their agrarian venture). Thus, the support was terminated after six years of implementation ( see Pelzer, Ulindang). However, Manuel Quezon, the president of the Philippine Commonwealth saw the political importance of resettling restive farmers and laborers from Luzon to Mindanao, thereby dubbed it as a “land of promise”. The NLSA or National Land Settlement Authority, as Quezon saw it, was also an opportunity to further legitimize Filipino presence into this far-flung territory of the Philippines. Furthermore, the growing Japanese ghetto in Davao had to be arrested due to Japanese expansionism during that time (Rico Jose, Japanese Military History in the Philippines). Thus, there was an exodus of Filipino settlers from Ilocos and Iloilo to southern Cotabato along the Allah and Koronadal Valleys. (see Ulindang, Resettling the Huks.)

             These resettlement programs ( to which were added the Land Settlement Development Corporation, Economic Development Corps and National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Agency) would be a bone of contention for the newly declared independent Republic after World War II, as they ostensibly caused distress and marginalization to both the Muslims and Indigenous peoples of Mindanao. The homesteading program of the government they believe was prejudicial to their interests and further dispossessed them from their ancestral domains.

             Agrarian Reform of the Philippine government through resettlement that was supposed to address the issues of landlessness apparently was apparently inadequate. Diosdado Macapagal issued Agrarian Land Reform Code of the Philippines for the first time, in 1963 that aims to :“TO ORDAIN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND REFORM CODE AND TO INSTITUTE LAND REFORMS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INCLUDING THE ABOLITION OF TENANCY AND THE CHANNELING OF CAPITAL INTO INDUSTRY, PROVIDE FOR THE NECESSARY IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES, APPROPRIATE FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”.  

    Thus, followed the government intervention to address the growing inequality in the country. Ferdinand Marcos had his own land reform program and finally, Corazon Aquino through the Constitution of 1987 also instituted land reform program, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program(CARP) in the country..

            The Constitution of 1987 provided for a recognition of the rights of the indigenous peoples of their ancestral land as embodied in the IPRA law (citation). One could infer that peace and order problems in Mindanao could be traced to land problems and that beginning the promulgation of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 or Republic Act 6657 was an attempt to find solutions to inequality in the Philippines.

            Currently, the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) which aimed to  address property and territorial rights of the Bangsamoro for equality; and to redress historical injustice is undergoing the proper legislative procedures towards its approval and implementation. As provided in this BBL, land ownership rights as already defined and implemented through the CARL will still be recognized, prior to its implementation.

BY: FAINA C. ABAYA-ULINDANG

 

Louis Gottchalk on Understanding History

Second Day Output #3 (by Mam Faina) 4 June 2018 on Louis Gottchalk, Understanding History chapt 3 and 4

TOPIC AND SUBTOPIC	ARGUMENTS	MAIN THESIS-as successfully established	3 ASSESSMENT TASKS	3 SCORING TOOLS
Meaning of history	“Accounts of phenomena(esp human affairs)that arein chronological order”	History as the study of mankind from past to present	1.Creative group discussion on an important source/eyewitnesses report such as  Pigafetta’s report on the First Mass of the Philippines 2.Product-Output presentation-give a research assignment where they will interview a survivor of the second world war to describe their experiences-who they lived (food, clothing and shelter) and present in class in the form of a video clip. This product would serve as a primary source 3.Special Report or a seminar inviting a practicing historian/writer on his research and writing experience	1.Graded Recitation 2.Checklist e.g Rules in determining reliability 3.Examination on what are primary and secondary courses
“Objectivity” and “subjectivity	To be objective is to be impartial. Historians somehow could be subjective.	It is impossible to capture History in its entirety so it is largely interpretive which is subjective.
Imagination in Historiography	In present history as continuous narrative one need to use imagination	The inevitable gaps in data collecting make it necessary for historians to use logical and credible insertions to fill in these gaps
Artifacts as sources of history	Physical mute sources such as currencies, monuments, need to be mediated with historical interpretations	By giving context to artifacts, the historian makes these alive and relevant to his audience or readers.
Historical method and historiography defined	There should be set of rules to be followed to determine credibility or reliability of sources used	Historiography has evolved as a discipline from the Humanities to the Social sciences in its use of the scientific method i.e. evidence-based
The Document as primary source	Historians should use original documents since these are the most reliable source	Written eyewitnesses accounts are primary sources;  while secondary sources  are not as reliable as primary sources.
Test of authenticity	The use of external and external criticisms determine the authenticity of a source	Writing history should aspire to approximate the truth through the use of reliable sources
What is a Historical fact?	Determination of factuality should pass four tests re-truthfulness,willingness to tell the truth, ability to tell it and independent corroboration	Writing of history should aspire to approximate the truth
Corroboration	Independent corroboration adds to the credibility of a source	Writing of history should aspire to approximate the truth
Certitude versus certainty	Corroboration provides certitude but not certainty	Writing of history should aspire to approximate the truth