AS a Filipino, I stand with the rest of the Filipino nation in asserting and defending the established fact that Batanes is an integral part of the sovereign territory of the Republic of the Philippines. Its people are Filipinos, its elected institutions are Philippine institutions, and its territorial status is neither provisional nor negotiable. Insofar as the international community of nations is concerned, including the governments of China and the Philippines, Batanes is not an existing territorial dispute between the Philippines and China. That distinction matters.
One thing that needs to be cleared and emphasized is that the Chinese government has issued no formal or informal declaration asserting territorial sovereignty over Batanes. The controversial proposition emerged from an academic conference, not from the Chinese government.
Of course, the most defensible Philippine position is to firmly reject this theoretical proposition by these Chinese academics while refusing to misrepresent it as an established Chinese government policy.
An academic provocation perhaps
It was an academic provocation, perhaps, but not a Chinese government policy or position. The controversy originated at an academic conference at Jinan University in Guangzhou, China, where academics from several universities and research institutions argued that Batanes was a geographical extension of Taiwan and therefore belonged to China. The gathering was not simply one eccentric Chinese scholar speaking into a microphone. Jinan University’s own account said that more than 10 scholars from prominent universities and policy-oriented institutes participated, and that the discussion was intended to serve “major national strategic needs.”
That institutional setting makes the episode politically consequential. It deserves an intellectually, scholarly and academically rigorous rebuttal. But “consequential” is not the same as “official.”
The said academic gathering’s proposition should not be viewed as a foreign policy of the People’s Republic of China. Because it is not. Foreign Affairs Secretary Theresa Lazaro correctly observed that the Philippine government deals with the official positions of governments, not every proposition advanced by academics/scholars. Lazaro likewise described Philippine sovereignty over Batanes as settled and “not up for debate.”
This was the right diplomatic posture: Reject the proposition, defend the historical record, and avoid aggravating or escalating the matter into a state-to-state dispute where none exists specifically on Batanes.
The likes of Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr. are entitled to condemn the theory of these Chinese academics. But the Philippine government and its officials should resist responding repeatedly and theatrically to such academic provocation, for by constantly doing so, it just elevates the claim and may give it precisely the stature it lacks. A fringe, peripheral and far-flung academic theory or narrative only acquires political weight when government officials begin treating it as though it were already an official narrative. Note that in diplomacy, overreaction could unintentionally bestow credence to such a ridiculous proposition.
Scholarship should build bridges, not manufacture frontiers
Nevertheless, the Philippines should not be complacent. The seminar’s institutional connections and strategic framing justify careful monitoring. Academic discourse can sometimes function as a trial balloon, testing public reactions before an idea enters wider policy debate.
But vigilance is different from hysteria. The Philippine government should publish a concise historical and legal dossier, preferably in Filipino, English and Chinese, presenting the records of Spanish administration beginning in 1783; the Treaty of Washington; the provincial legislation and administrative records; the constitutional provisions; maps, censuses and electoral records; evidence of local governance; and testimony from Ivatan historians and community leaders. This would be more effective than responding to propaganda with slogans or counter-propaganda, which would only make matters more politically complicated and counterproductive to the Philippines-China bilateral relations.
To note, the Ivatans participated in the Philippine political community, resisted Spanish and Japanese rule, were represented in national institutions and remained under succeeding American and Philippine administrations. The National Historical Commission has emphasized that there is no credible evidence of Chinese administrative control over Batanes, whereas Philippine and predecessor governments have continuously exercised authority there for more than two centuries.
The Ivatans are the Indigenous ethnolinguistic people of Batanes, known for their strong maritime traditions, resilient communities, distinctive Ivatan language and stone houses designed to withstand the province’s powerful typhoons. Although they share historical and cultural links with Indigenous communities in Taiwan, such affinities do not determine sovereignty. Politically, legally and constitutionally, Ivatans are Filipinos and Batanes is an integral part of the Philippines.
Beijing, for its part, would help prevent needless suspicion by making clear that it does not regard Batanes as disputed territory. Such clarification would deny oxygen to irresponsible speculation and reassure Filipinos that an academic exercise will not be allowed to contaminate already difficult and challenging bilateral, political and diplomatic relations between the Philippines and China at present.
Most importantly, scholars must remember their larger responsibility. Scholarship should illuminate history, expose myths, foster and bridge mutual understanding among peoples, cultures and countries. It should not manipulate geography, ethnicity and selective readings of treaties to manufacture territorial controversies.
The Philippines and China already face a challenging diplomatic environment. Scholars should contribute to harmony and mutual understanding, not pour intellectual gasoline onto an already combustible bilateral relationship between the two countries.
Conclusion
Again, Batanes is Filipino. That is not a matter of sentiment alone, but an established historical, legal, political and human reality. The province has long been administered as part of the Philippines, its people participate fully in the country’s constitutional and political life, and no credible official territorial dispute currently exists between Manila and Beijing over its sovereignty. The Philippines must therefore defend Batanes firmly and unequivocally but with enough confidence and diplomatic discipline not to elevate a provocative academic theory into the bilateral dispute that it is not.
The arguments advanced by those Chinese academics against Philippine sovereignty over Batanes are weak because they mistake proximity for ownership and cultural connection for legal title. Sovereignty is not determined by geological resemblance, nor is territory transferred through shared ancestry, language or tradition. Peoples with close cultural and ethnolinguistic ties frequently live across international boundaries. The historical connections between the Ivatans and Indigenous communities in Taiwan are worthy of serious anthropological study, but anthropology is not a deed of title. Cultural affinity may explain human migration and interaction; it does not establish sovereign jurisdiction.
The so-called natural extension of Taiwan theory is equally flawed because it confuses maritime geology with territorial sovereignty. Concepts such as natural prolongation may be relevant to continental-shelf entitlements beneath the sea, but they do not grant a state sovereignty over an inhabited island that has been peacefully and continuously governed by another country. Geological continuity cannot erase treaties, legislation, political incorporation, effective administration, or the identity and consent of the people who live there.
The Philippines can defend every inch of its territory without abandoning diplomacy, and it can continue engaging China without surrendering a single legal or sovereign right. True strength lies not in reacting loudly to every provocation, but in responding with evidence, confidence, restraint and strategic clarity.
Batanes is Filipino, and the historical record is strong enough that Manila or the likes of Gibo need not manufacture a crisis between the two sides to prove it.
