MANILA: The Philippines has questioned the authenticity of a 1990 diplomatic letter recently circulated by the Chinese Embassy that appears to suggest Manila once acknowledged Scarborough Shoal was outside Philippine territorial sovereignty, as the long-running dispute over the South China Sea feature flared again.
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva Jr on Monday (March 16) said the Philippines would not “engage in conjecture or speculation over a document of uncertain origin and authenticity”, after the Chinese Embassy posted on Facebook on March 14 what it said was a letter from the Philippine Embassy in Bonn, Germany, dated Feb 2, 1990.
Both China and the Philippines claim Scarborough Shoal, but sovereignty remains unresolved. China took control in 2012 after a stand-off and has since stationed its coast guard and fishing vessels there.
Scarborough lies about 222km west of Zambales, well within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ) – an area of the sea stretching 200 nautical miles from a country’s coastline over which the country has sovereign rights, including to exploit the natural resources in the area – but it is also claimed by China, whose nearest island province of Hainan is 650km away.
The document, which appears to bear the signature of then Philippine Ambassador Bienvenido Tan Jr and is addressed to German HAM radio operator Dieter Loffler, states that Scarborough Shoal “does not fall within the territorial sovereignty of the Philippines” but lies within the country’s EEZ.
The letter also says the shoal – known in the Philippines as Bajo de Masinloc and in China as Huangyan Island – lies about 10 miles outside the line drawn under the Treaty of Paris (1898), which defined the colonial-era boundaries of the Philippine archipelago after Spain ceded the islands to the US.
The Chinese Embassy cited the purported document as historical evidence supporting Beijing’s claim to the shoal, located about 230km west of the main Philippine island of Luzon.
The post was also part of the embassy’s latest exchange with the Philippine Coast Guard’s spokesman, Rear-Admiral Jay Tarriela, one of the most vocal officials defending Manila’s position in the South China Sea dispute.
“According to the Philippine National Mapping and Resource Information Authority, the Scarborough Reef or Huangyan Dao does not fall within the territorial sovereignty of the Philippines,” the embassy wrote. “One cannot help but ask: How many of Tarriela’s other views cannot withstand scrutiny by the facts?”
The DFA rejected the implication, reiterating Manila’s longstanding claim over the shoal.
“The Department of Foreign Affairs firmly underscores the Philippines’ indivisible, incontrovertible and longstanding sovereignty over Bajo de Masinloc and the Kalayaan Island Group,” Villanueva said.
He used the Philippine names for Scarborough Shoal and the Spratly Islands, another group of contested features in the South China Sea.
Villanueva also stressed that documents affecting territorial claims should be assessed through recognised legal processes rather than through social media posts.
“China must be reminded that maritime and territorial claims are subject to established international legal procedures and dispute settlement mechanisms, not to unilateral proclamations or social media posts,” he said during a press briefing.
Philippine officials have long cited historical and legal evidence to support their claim, including the Murillo Velarde map of 1734, which depicts Scarborough Shoal as part of the Philippine archipelago.
The map was among the evidence presented by Manila before an international tribunal that in 2016 invalidated China’s sweeping “nine-dash line” claim to most of the South China Sea.
The tribunal also ruled that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights within its EEZ and that Scarborough Shoal is a traditional fishing ground for fishermen from several countries, including the Philippines, China and Vietnam.
Beijing rejected the ruling and has continued to assert its claims across the strategic waterway. In 2025, it announced plans to declare Scarborough a national marine nature reserve, a move condemned by the Philippines.
No authority to determine sovereignty
Analysts say the latest exchange reflects a broader battle over narratives in the South China Sea dispute, where historical documents are often invoked to reinforce competing sovereignty claims.
Geopolitical analyst Don McLain Gill of De La Salle University in Manila said China’s use of the decades-old diplomatic correspondence appeared to be an attempt to recycle material that Beijing had previously cited in its arguments.
“What China is trying to do is provide these so-called evidences that it has desperately grasped for in order to justify its illegal claims over Bajo de Masinloc,” he said.
But Gill noted that a diplomatic letter from an ambassador does not determine territorial sovereignty.
“An ambassador does not have the authority to declare such issues of sovereignty. These are decisions made by the national government and the Department of Foreign Affairs,” he said, adding that the move appeared aimed at creating confusion about the Philippines’ legal position.
Dindo Manhit of Manila-based think-tank Stratbase Institute said the document in question was also likely being used to shape public perception, particularly among audiences less familiar with the legal details of the South China Sea dispute.
“The audience is not the analysing crowd,” he said. “It’s the ordinary people who might see this circulating on social media and think: ‘Back in 1990, the Philippines itself already said this wasn’t ours.’”
He warned that such narratives could weaken public resolve by creating doubts about Manila’s claims, especially among Filipinos who may not be aware of the legal findings of the 2016 arbitration case.
Despite the sharp exchange, Villanueva said Manila remains committed to diplomatic engagement with Beijing, even as tensions persist in contested waters.
However, he stressed dialogue would not come at the expense of Philippine territorial claims.
“Engagement is not concession,” he said. “Our sovereignty is non-negotiable.” - The Straits Times/ANN
