Chan, Krizanelle R.

History/GEPH
BSN- Level 1-A Sir Virgilio J. Seballe

Guide Questions
1. What is the main distinction between primary and secondary source?

Primary sources are the direct participants or eyewitnesses of the event. These
are original sources during the time of the event. These can be diaries, letters
photographs, government records, videos, speeches, and artifacts. On the other hand,
secondary sources are derived from the primary sources. Secondary sources are an
analysis or interpretation of the primary source. It provides the reader with an opinion or
a summarization of the event.

2. Why is primary source important in the study of history?

Primary sources provide direct evidence for the study of history. Primary sources
provide authentic and credible information for its viewers. It also provides the audience
with a direct unbiased story of what truly happened in our history. It allows us to
understand the historical context of the events that took place. Without primary sources
we will be unable to know what truly happened during the past.

3. What is the purpose of a secondary source?

Secondary sources provide the reader with an interpretation and analysis of the
historical event. This can help the audience have a deep perception of the event which
helps in understanding the significance, context and impacts of history. Secondary
sources also offer summarizations of the primary sources which helps in the efficiency
and accessibility of research. Lastly, secondary sources offer various interpretations that
can challenge the audience’s minds to think deeper about the past.

4. At present, how do you discriminate between contradicting reports of a single

event from different sources?

First, we must check if the source is credible and reliable. We can check the
authors background information, expertise, qualifications, and biases. We should also
check if the publisher of the source is credible. Media outlets, academic journals, and
university websites are some of the credible sources. Credible sources also use
references in their work to provide evidence.
Then, we should read and analyze the context of the different sources and look
for logic, coherence, and evidence in the work. The context that has the three are
usually the most credible one. We should also read the primary source of information to
understand the work without unbiased opinions and interpretations.
 Furthermore, looking for other sources of information that talks about the same
topic can also help in discriminating the reports of each side. The side that has many
similar opinions are most likely to be the most credible one.

5. Why should official records of the government be made accessible to the public?

The public has the right to know what goes inside the government circle that they
voted for. Having the right to know will provide a healthy community and relationship
between the leaders and the citizens. This will give the citizens a chance to make
informed decisions about their lives.
Living in a democratic country and giving the citizens the right to know will
improve and promote the country’s teamwork, democracy, freedom of speech,
transparency, and the self-accountability of the leaders of the country. If the official
records of the government will not be labelled as “confidential” when they are released to
the public eye.

Corruption is very popular within the leaders of Philippine government, so giving

the people a chance to know what they do will help us, the voters, and citizens, to
ensure that our vote for them will make our lives better and a little bit easier.
Activity 1

Read the excerpts below then do a comparative analysis.

a. Which is the primary source and the secondary source between the two readings?

Robert B. Fox’s “The Tabon Caves: Archaeological Explorations and Excavations on

Palawan Island, Philippines” is the primary source while Whilliam Henry Scott’s
“Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History” is the secondary
source. Robert B. Fox’s work is the primary source because the information he shared
was based on his firsthand experience, he is the original source of the information.
Meanwhile, Whilliam Henry Scott’s work interpreted and analyzed Fox’s work for his own
work. He didn’t experience the study firsthand, rather he is using various other primary
sources to complete his study. Also, the title of the readings says a lot about who is the
primary source of information and who is secondary. Fox’s title was mainly about the
subject in the excerpt while Scott’s title was about the compilation of materials for the
study of Philippines history.

b. Do a credibility analysis of the sources. Who between the two authors is more
credible to talk about the topic?

Robert B. Fox is an archaeologist who directly experienced the explorations and

excavations in the Tabon Caves of Palawan Island, Philippines. He is the original and
primary source of the information regarding the remains of the Tabon Man. His work
provided firsthand and direct evidence of explanation of his experiences inside the cave.
Meanwhile, Whilliam Henry Scott is a historian who used Fox’s work for his “Prehispanic
Source Materials for the study of the Philippine History.” He analyzed and interpreted
Fox’s findings and used various of other primary sources to provide an understanding of
Philippine history.
Since Robert B. Fox is the primary source, he is considered more credible. He is
more authoritative regarding the topic because of his direct involvement and experience
in the study. He is also an archaeologist, which means that he knows more about the
study of prehistoric fossils, and how to share it with the audience.
Activity 2
Work in pairs. Look for the sources used by the Philippines and China in their respective claims
of sovereignty over the Scarborough Shoal and identify which are primary sources. Also look for
the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and explain the reason for its decision. Present
your findings in class.
Partners with Ms. Jade Mariane Cataya.

Scarborough Shoal has been the subject of a sovereignty dispute between China and the
Philippines since April 8, 2012. In the South China Sea, about 120 nautical miles west of the
Philippine Island of Luzon, is a rock known as Scarborough Shoal. Scarborough Shoal does not
have any structures built on it, but China effectively controls the area because of China's
continuous coast guard presence there since 2012. As a result of its ongoing, peaceful, and
exclusive effective control and sovereignty over the shoal, the Philippines views Bajo de
Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) as a fundamental component of its territory.

Philippines’ Claim:
Scarborough Shoal and all other Spanish marine holdings surrounding the Philippine
archipelago were transferred from Spain to the United States in 1898. The Philippines received
ownership of the Scarborough Shoal after they gained their independence from the United
States.
The name Bajo de Masinloc (translated as “under Masinloc”) itself identifies the shoal as a
particular political subdivision of the Philippine province of Zambales, known as Masinloc.
One of the earliest known and most accurate maps of the area, named
Carta Hydrographical y Chorographica De Las Yslas Filipinas by Fr.
Pedro Murillo Velarde, SJ, and published in 1734, included Bajo de
Masinloc as part of Zambales and was named as the Panacot Shoal.
In 1792, another map drawn by the Alejandro Malaspina expedition and
published in 1808 in Madrid, Spain, also showed Bajo de Masinloc as
part of Philippine territory.
When it comes to the proximity, the Philippines is closer to the
Scarborough Shoal than the country China. The Scarborough Shoal
is approximately 120 nautical miles (222 km) apart from the main
island of Luzon. While China’s Hainan Island is 472 nautical miles
(874 km) apart from the northeast part of the Scarborough Shoal.
 Furthermore, in the year 1965, Philippine flags were placed in some of the
shoals in the West Philippine Sea It raised an 8.3-meter-high flagpole. This
also included a small light house in the shoal. Bajo de Masinloc was also
used as an impact range for defense purposes by the Philippine and U.S.
Naval Forces in the military camp located in Subic Bay, Zambales.
Additionally, in the year of 1997, Congressman Roque Ablan and Jose Yap
erected another flag in the shoal.
Philippine’s primary source is the maps that were used and created back
then by Father Padre Murillo and Alejandro Malaspina. The historical maps
of the Philippines show the geographical places and territories of the
Philippines.

China’s Claim:
A map during the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368) was discovered,
which shows that China owns the Scarborough Shoal or
Huangyan Island. The map during the Yuan Dynasty is an
official government map while the Philippines maps were
created by non-government officials and were for personal
use and unofficial records.
Furthermore, during the year 1935, China released an official
list of South China Sea islands, shoals, reefs, etc. which had
the Scarborough Shoal included as a part of the Zhongsa
Islands. The Department of Territory of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Government then
approved the 172 islands in the South China Sea in 1947. Scarborough Shoal was latered
named Huangyan Island in 1983 as the island’s standard name, which can also be called as
Minzhu Jiao.
Moreover, the nine dashed line in the map of China refers to the
historical lines that China used to outline its territorial claims in
the South China Sea. It has been used by China since 1940 for
the South China Sea. It is also seen as China’s control and
sovereignty in the land and water within the U-shaped area.
China claims that the Scarborough Shoal is Terra Nullius,
meaning that it is a no man’s island. China considers the
Scarborough Shoal as unclaimed, uninhabited, and does not belong to any country or anyone.
Maps from the Yuan Dynasty and China’s historical records are considered as the Primary
Source of information and basis for their claims. Specially, the map with the nine dashed line.
The nine-dash line is their main argument for claiming full authority on the West Philippine Sea.

Permanent Court of Arbitration regarding Scarborough Shoal

In the past few decades, the country China’s action in the Philippines have intruded their
sovereign rights regarding the country’s EEZ. China’s building and harbor offshore is within the
Philippines EEZ. Which destroyed coral reef areas of the construction and major excavation.
So, Philippines had to find a way to take control of their territory and take care of their fellow
Filipino fishermen.
On July 12, 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration overwhelmingly accepted and endorsed
the Philippines' petition. The Philippines had sufficient proof, and they concluded that there was
"no legal basis for China to claim historic rights" over the territory inside the nine-dash line
because there was no clear evidence that China had traditionally exercised exclusive control
over the waters or resources. Additionally, the tribunal found that the PRC (Peoples’ Republic of
China) had interfered with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration by, for instance, limiting
the traditional fishing rights of Filipino fishermen at Scarborough Shoal, and that it had violated
the Philippines' sovereign rights in its Exclusive Economic Zone. These actions caused severe
harm to the coral reef environment and the Philippines Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
Furthermore, International law provides a strong basis for the Philippine claim to the
Scarborough Shoal, also known as Bajo de Masinloc. The Philippines has a solid territorial
claim over Bajo de Masinloc compared to China's claim and in accordance with international
law's rules regarding the acquisition of property, particularly those based on effective
occupation. However, a nine-dash line on the map China has been using since the 1940s claims
almost the entire South China Sea, which includes the Scarborough Shoal.
In the South China Sea, which may be rich in natural resources, China's claims overlap those of
four nations: Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, including Brunei. The United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) established that due to Chinese People’s
compatibility issues with the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ), the tribunal stated that these
rights were extinguished, and it serves as the foundation for the sovereign rights and jurisdiction
that the Philippines claims over its maritime ownership of the features in Bajo de Masinloc.
Throughout these proceedings, the Tribunal has taken a variety of procedures to ensure that it
has jurisdiction and that the Philippines' claims are "well founded in fact and law." In terms of
jurisdiction, the Tribunal decided to treat China's informal communications as an objection to
jurisdiction, started a Hearing on Jurisdiction and Admissibility from 7 to 13 July 2015, and
questioned the Philippines on matters of jurisdiction both before and during the hearing,
including potential issues not raised in China's informal communications.
The Tribunal reviewed the Philippines' request for a declaration that, moving ahead, China will
respect the Philippines' rights and freedoms and fulfill its obligations under the Convention. The
Tribunal noted in this regard that both the Philippines and China have consistently agreed that
the Convention and general obligations of good faith define and control their behavior. The
Tribunal determined that the root of the disputes at issue in this arbitration is not any intention
on the part of China or the Philippines to violate the legal rights of the other, but rather
fundamentally different understandings of their respective rights under the Convention in the
South China Sea waters.
However, China did not participate in the decision of the Tribunal nor participated.
Though Philippines won the PCA, it would still be hard to take effect if the opposing team shows
no compliance nor interest in the matter. Though winning the Permanent Court of Arbitration
regarding Scarborough Shoal gives the Philippines a great chance of taking over the West
Philippine Sea, its islands, and shoals.
References:
https://news.abs-cbn.com/-depth/04/18/12/ph-has-claimed-scarborough-centuries
http://ph.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/zt/nhwt/201206/t20120611_1334618.htm
http://ph.china-
embassy.gov.cn/eng/zt/nhwt/201206/t20120615_1334621.htm#:~:text=In%201935%2C%20the
%20Lands%20and,the%20Zhongsha%20Islands%20of%20the
https://thediplomat.com/2016/06/what-does-the-nine-dash-line-actually-mean/
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/04/18/philippine-position-on-bajo-de-masinloc-and-the-
waters-within-its-vicinity/
https://www.rfa.org/english/commentaries/line-07162015121333.html
https://breakingdefense.com/2016/04/chinese-scarborough-shoal-base-would-threaten-manila/
https://www.loc.gov/resource/g8060.ct003137/?r=-0.698,-0.073,2.396,1.022,0
https://legacy.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/3520032041!.pdf
http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/07/12/16/read-arbitral-courts-ruling-on-philippines-vs-china
https://www.congress.gov.ph/press/details.php?pressid=6490&fbclid=IwAR0W0x80G9WLtEtT66
VOyXFjh3L3lYd3OnRZWwUSH67ga3l-1mz2rkSD-yc