Sabah Standoff Issues

[niky]

The SULTAN of SULU transferred all his territories to the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES including SABAH.

By doing that, the PHILIPPINES has now the POWER and all LEGAL RIGHTS to claim SABAH.

The SULTAN of SULU, his relatives, and the suluks/tausugs described SABAH as

not only TAUSUG'S territory but also ALL FILIPINO'S territory!

If the Sultan has transferred all legal rights to the Philippine government, why is Malaysia paying rent to him, and what right does he have to send armed troops to Sabah in the case of a rental dispute? Shouldn't both be the prerogative of the government?





-

[Revenant]

The SULTAN of SULU transferred all his territories to the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES including SABAH.

By doing that, the PHILIPPINES has now the POWER and all LEGAL RIGHTS to claim SABAH.

The SULTAN of SULU, his relatives, and the suluks/tausugs described SABAH as

not only TAUSUG'S territory but also ALL FILIPINO'S territory!

The Sultanate of Sulu did not transfer its territories to the Philippines; they just gave the Philippines the authority to represent the Sultanate and its respective interests for a period of 20 years. The timeline has already lapsed in the 1980's with not much going, hence, giving the authority back to the Sultanate. From "Princess" Jacel Kiram herself:

In an interview on GMA News' “Unang Hirit,” Princess Jacel Kiram said the resolution authorizing the Philippine government to represent the sultanate in the territorial dispute had already “lapsed.”

“Nag-lapse na po ito. Nakalagay po 'dun sa kasulatan na in 20 years time, kung wala pong nagawa ang gobyerno... may expiration 'yung authority. So back to the Sultanate of Sulu na ulit,” she said.

Sabah Ownership Issue: Between Sultanate and Malaysia Only

[badkuk]

The Sultanate of Sulu did not transfer its territories to the Philippines; they just gave the Philippines the authority to represent the Sultanate and its respective interests for a period of 20 years. The timeline has already lapsed in the 1980's with not much going, hence, giving the authority back to the Sultanate. From "Princess" Jacel Kiram herself:



Sabah Ownership Issue: Between Sultanate and Malaysia Only

Really, why would you fight or Sabah, legally or literally, if ownership has not been resolved. E di parang naging tauhan lang ng sultan ang PH govt. Why fight for it when you will eventually have to fight for it again with the sultan...and possibly reignite conflict with the ARMM/MNLF/etc. should the facts be twisted again, to be construed as an invasion of sorts, since the sultan hasn't given it to the govt?

[Tj_abs]

Now 3.5 yrs into pnoy administration you're asking why this administration didn't follow it up? – The contents of the letter that Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III sent to President Benigno Aquino III just weeks AFTER his INAGURATION in 2010, and which Aquino ADMITTED got "LOST in the bureaucratic maze," was revealed by the sultanate as the Philippine government drew fire both for its OFFICIAL NEGLECT and for sounding more like Malaysia’s ally in the Sabah crisis.

In the letter, the sultan was offering to provide inputs on the long-drawn search for comprehensive peace in Muslim Mindanao, noting the sultanate’s relations with the two rebel groups MNLF and MILF. He was also seeking an audience with the President to talk about their claim to Sabah or North Borneo, which the sultanate leased to British merchants in 1878, but which the British government gave to Malaysia when its federation was created. The sultanate ceded its claim to the Philippine government so that it can stand a better chance of being pursued. the Kirams had said their group decided to pursue the Philippines’ claim to Sabah last month as they felt left out of the peace negotiations between the government and the MILF. The two sides had achieved strides last year, with the signing of a framework agreement for the establishment of a Bangsamoro juridical entity without even mentioning the sabah claims. (Okay, I thought they would say – the dog ate your letter.)

[Tj_abs]

Akala ko dati ung sabah is nasa sardinas lang heheh

[oliver1013]

Ok na ko dito sa Maynila, ok na ko sa aircon na opisina ko...sa buhay ko. Ayaw ko makipaglaban sa Malaysia.

Sa inyong mga atat kunin ang Sabah, mag boluntaryo na kayo at sumama sa giyera dun..walang mangyayari kaka satsat online...

[gvtheogioJ]

Chuc mot ngay cuoi tuan lam viec hieu qua va hang say nhe
Dung quen tiep tuc dong gop cho dien dan nhe.
Tran trong.

[gearhead000]

Buti pa itong mga kapitbansa nating mga Vietnamese, concerned din issue ng Sabah.

[badkuk]

What i don't understand is why the Kirams, on the issue of Sabah, sent a letter instead of, oh i don't know, a meeting, even a phone call? For something as important as "giving" Sabah to the PH government...idadaan ko lang sa sulat?

Did they Kirams follow up with the DFA/P-Noy's men and discuss the matter further, e.g. "o, Mr. DFA, nabasa na ba ni P-Noy ung sulat? Ano reaksyon niya? Kelan kami pwedeng mag usap uli, e alangan magkakaintindihan kami sa isang sulat lang" ?

i had an unfortunate encounter i had with a lady over the phone; she was asking me to help her with her research. i was just starting out at the time so i really couldn't commit anything and, quite frankly, she was barking up the wrong tree. She went on this rant about me not being cooperative, etc. and all the time i was explaining to her that there are procedures to be followed, and how we can accomodate her request. Walang nangyari, her mind was made up na hindi namin siya tutulungan.

It's odd that i remember that incident now. Ako pa yung lumabas na uncooperative, when she was essentially asking for special treatment.


i once missed paying my credit card bills(company name withheld, rhymes with shmitibank)...by a few centavos: tinawagan kaagad ako following up payment. Sabah na yung pinag usapan, tapos...letter lang?


Pasensya na po, i have trouble reading legal stuff..but it seems that is is saying that we have a claim over Sabah...that the territory is in dispute..but it didn't say that Sabah belongs to PH.

So why did the Kirams go there and claim it? Doesn't that violent action put us in an awkward spot in pursuing those claims in the courts? Is Kiram a recognized representative of the PH government for that matter?

[Tj_abs]

Winning an argument on a matter of procedure is different from having your substantive claims sustained by the ICJ. The historical perspective you presented did not answer the question as to why the PH under GMA did not initiate a suit impleading Malaysia over Sabah.

For your guidance,The issue here is whether the phil has a legal right to claim sabah. This is a case of international law ( INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE)and not municipal law whereby the procedure and application of the law is based on charter of united nations and not under the rules of court or municipal law. Under the conflicts of law, there are no vested rights in rules of procedure; hence, a party to the action MUST submit himself to the procedural formalities of the forum. If you talk about SUBSTANTIVE law like the rules on prescription, if the phil gov't does not take steps to follow up this claim with a display of authority over territory, the right acquired is merely an inchoate title and if administration is not undertaken within reasonable time, the inchoate title is lost and forfeited. Undert international law, there are two kinds of dispute, legal and political. The philippine filed a legal dispute and not political because it involves "JUSTIFIABLE RIGHTS" based on LAW or FACT. If political, it CANNOT BE decided under the rules of international law. To be enlighten, under the charter of U.N., all members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the U.N. the parties to any dispute SHALL first of all seek a resolution by Negotiation,inquiry, mediation, conciliation,ARBITRATION, judicial settlement. Therefore the PH shall abide with the rules of international law specifically charter of U.N. lastly your question why PH under GMA did not initiate a suit impleading malaysia over sabah? Common sense, because of the intervention case of PH under GMA administration that the ICJ recognized the philippines has a VALID and LEGAL CLAIM by saying it will not affect its SABAH claim in 2001. Take note that before ICJ could acquire jurisdiction, CONSENT of the state is necessary. My question for you, if you are the prime minister of malaysia, will you submit the case to the ICJ?

[Altis6453]

For your guidance,The issue here is whether the phil has a legal right to claim sabah. This is a case of international law ( INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE)and not municipal law whereby the procedure and application of the law is based on charter of united nations and not under the rules of court or municipal law. Under the conflicts of law, there are no vested rights in rules of procedure; hence, a party to the action MUST submit himself to the procedural formalities of the forum. If you talk about SUBSTANTIVE law like the rules on prescription, if the phil gov't does not take steps to follow up this claim with a display of authority over territory, the right acquired is merely an inchoate title and if administration is not undertaken within reasonable time, the inchoate title is lost and forfeited. Undert international law, there are two kinds of dispute, legal and political. The philippine filed a legal dispute and not political because it involves "JUSTIFIABLE RIGHTS" based on LAW or FACT. If political, it CANNOT BE decided under the rules of international law. To be enlighten, under the charter of U.N., all members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the U.N. the parties to any dispute SHALL first of all seek a resolution by Negotiation,inquiry, mediation, conciliation,ARBITRATION, judicial settlement. Therefore the PH shall abide with the rules of international law specifically charter of U.N. lastly your question why PH under GMA did not initiate a suit impleading malaysia over sabah? Common sense, because of the intervention case of PH under GMA administration that the ICJ recognized the philippines has a VALID and LEGAL CLAIM by saying it will not affect its SABAH claim in 2001. Take note that before ICJ could acquire jurisdiction, CONSENT of the state is necessary. My question for you, if you are the prime minister of malaysia, will you submit the case to the ICJ?

Well, now we're at the bottom of it, thank you for supplying the conclusion.

If during that time our officials could not institute a case directly precisely because the consent of the disputing states is required for jurisdiction, the same reasoning can also be applied to the present.

Again, take the reasoning of the ICJ in that case in context. The matter under dispute IS NOT SABAH but a different territory being disputed by Indonesia and Malaysia. Recognizing a valid and legal claim by an intervening state is one thing. Categorically stating that the PH has title and right to exercise sovereignty over Sabah is another.

If your proposal, however, is for the PH to follow up its claim over SABAH by a display of authority, you are inviting military conflict by advocating acts which may be considered as aggression towards another state.

[Tj_abs]

Well, now we're at the bottom of it, thank you for supplying the conclusion.

If during that time our officials could not institute a case directly precisely because the consent of the disputing states is required for jurisdiction, the same reasoning can also be applied to the present.

Again, take the reasoning of the ICJ in that case in context. The matter under dispute IS NOT SABAH but a different territory being disputed by Indonesia and Malaysia. Recognizing a valid and legal claim by an intervening state is one thing. Categorically stating that the PH has title and right to exercise sovereignty over Sabah is another.

If your proposal, however, is for the PH to follow up its claim over SABAH by a display of authority, you are inviting military conflict by advocating acts which may be considered as aggression towards another state.

Thank you for your understanding of which law will be applied. Now you know why MALAYSIA is so so scared of the ICJ knowing that the PH gov't has LEGAL and VALID claim of SABAH. However , you are misguided with the facts of the case between INDONESIA VS MALAYSIA case. In the years immediately before the formation of MALAYSIA, two commissions of enquiry visited NORTH BORNEO(SABAH) along with neighbouring SARAWAK in order to establish the state of public opinion there regarding merger with MALAYSIA and SINGAPORE. the commission was mandated at addressing self determination of of the people of SABAH to freely determine their own political status and freely pursue their own economic development. the first commission is the COBBOLD COMMISSION was established by the Malayan and BRITISH government. the commission found that one third of the population of each territory strongly favourers early realisation of MALAYSIA. take note that INDONESIA and the PHILIPPINES rejected the findings of COBBOLD. In 1963, a tripartite meeting was held in MANILA between the INDONESIAN president SOEKARNO, PH president D.MACAPAGAL and MALAYAN prime minister ABDUL RAHMAN. the meeting AGREED to PETITION the UN to send another commission of enquiry and the PH and INDONESIA agreed to drop their OBJECTION to the FORMATION of MALAYSIA including NORTH BORNEO ( SABAH) if the new commission found popular opinion in the territories in favour. The UN Mission to SABAH was established, comprising members of the UN Secretariat from argentina,brazil, japan,pakistan and jordan. The mission's report found that " a sizeable majority of the people" in favour of joining MALAYSIA. The INDONESIA and the PHILIPPINES rejected the report's findings . SABAH'S position within MALAYSIA was reinforced by the ruling made by the ICJ for PULAU SIPADAN and PULAU LIGITAN to remain under jurisdiction and soveriegnty of MALAYSIA rather than INDONESIA. hence The INDONESIA and MALAYSIA submitted the INTERNATIONAL TERRITORIAL DISPUTE TO THE ICJ. SInce the PH Government has a LEGAL AND HISTORICAL CLAIMS, The PH Gov't had an application to intervene in the case of SIPADAN ISLAND,LIGITAN ISLAND AND INCLUDING NORTH BORNEO (SABAH) DURING GMA ADMINISTRATION. the intervention was REJECTED but the ICJ decision RECOGNIZED the PH has a VALID AND LEGAL CLAIM BY SAYING IT WILL NOT AFFECT ITS SABAH CLAIMS SINCE 2001.

As far as the second contention is concerned, ( recognizing a valid and legal claim by intervening state is one thing, PH has title and right to exercise sovereignty over sabah is another). First, the cause of action ( INTERVENTION) of the PH gov't is proper on the basis that the PH has a LEGAL INTEREST in the matter in litigation. THE PROCEDURE OF FILING A CLAIM against MALYSIA IS MISPLACED. Why? because the PH has TITLE and RIGHT over SABAH. LEGAL CLAIM BASIS - the claim was based on HISTORICAL FACTS AND COURT JUDGMENT. the LEASE AGREEMENT is DEFINITELY a proof otherwise there will be no basis for any agreement if such OWNERSHIP WAS NOT ESTABLISHED at all. Basic elementary rule is that the owner has the right to enjoy and dispose a thing. why do you have to file a CLAIM, when in fact you are the owner of the land?

Lastly , it is not my proposal. if PH gov't does not take step to file intervention case and let say the ICJ decides in favor of MALAYSIA against INDONESIA, you suggested to file a CLAIM, surely it will affect our claims because of the decision of the ICJ. under the rules of international law, prescription is one way of acquiring territory therefore if that is the scenario the territory belonging to one state ( PH/SABAH) is transferred to the adverse and uninterrupted possession by the Malaysia for a sufficiently long period of time. In our jurisdiction, "THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP ON THEIR RIGHTS" just like hitting two birds with one stone

[Altis6453]

Thank you for your understanding of which law will be applied. Now you know why MALAYSIA is so so scared of the ICJ knowing that the PH gov't has LEGAL and VALID claim of SABAH. However , you are misguided with the facts of the case between INDONESIA VS MALAYSIA case. In the years immediately before the formation of MALAYSIA, two commissions of enquiry visited NORTH BORNEO(SABAH) along with neighbouring SARAWAK in order to establish the state of public opinion there regarding merger with MALAYSIA and SINGAPORE. the commission was mandated at addressing self determination of of the people of SABAH to freely determine their own political status and freely pursue their own economic development. the first commission is the COBBOLD COMMISSION was established by the Malayan and BRITISH government. the commission found that one third of the population of each territory strongly favourers early realisation of MALAYSIA. take note that INDONESIA and the PHILIPPINES rejected the findings of COBBOLD. In 1963, a tripartite meeting was held in MANILA between the INDONESIAN president SOEKARNO, PH president D.MACAPAGAL and MALAYAN prime minister ABDUL RAHMAN. the meeting AGREED to PETITION the UN to send another commission of enquiry and the PH and INDONESIA agreed to drop their OBJECTION to the FORMATION of MALAYSIA including NORTH BORNEO ( SABAH) if the new commission found popular opinion in the territories in favour. The UN Mission to SABAH was established, comprising members of the UN Secretariat from argentina,brazil, japan,pakistan and jordan. The mission's report found that " a sizeable majority of the people" in favour of joining MALAYSIA. The INDONESIA and the PHILIPPINES rejected the report's findings . SABAH'S position within MALAYSIA was reinforced by the ruling made by the ICJ for PULAU SIPADAN and PULAU LIGITAN to remain under jurisdiction and soveriegnty of MALAYSIA rather than INDONESIA. hence The INDONESIA and MALAYSIA submitted the INTERNATIONAL TERRITORIAL DISPUTE TO THE ICJ. SInce the PH Government has a LEGAL AND HISTORICAL CLAIMS, The PH Gov't had an application to intervene in the case of SIPADAN ISLAND,LIGITAN ISLAND AND INCLUDING NORTH BORNEO (SABAH) DURING GMA ADMINISTRATION. the intervention was REJECTED but the ICJ decision RECOGNIZED the PH has a VALID AND LEGAL CLAIM BY SAYING IT WILL NOT AFFECT ITS SABAH CLAIMS SINCE 2001.

As far as the second contention is concerned, ( recognizing a valid and legal claim by intervening state is one thing, PH has title and right to exercise sovereignty over sabah is another). First, the cause of action ( INTERVENTION) of the PH gov't is proper on the basis that the PH has a LEGAL INTEREST in the matter in litigation. THE PROCEDURE OF FILING A CLAIM against MALYSIA IS MISPLACED. Why? because the PH has TITLE and RIGHT over SABAH. LEGAL CLAIM BASIS - the claim was based on HISTORICAL FACTS AND COURT JUDGMENT. the LEASE AGREEMENT is DEFINITELY a proof otherwise there will be no basis for any agreement if such OWNERSHIP WAS NOT ESTABLISHED at all. Basic elementary rule is that the owner has the right to enjoy and dispose a thing. why do you have to file a CLAIM, when in fact you are the owner of the land?

Lastly , it is not my proposal. if PH gov't does not take step to file intervention case and let say the ICJ decides in favor of MALAYSIA against INDONESIA, you suggested to file a CLAIM, surely it will affect our claims because of the decision of the ICJ. under the rules of international law, prescription is one way of acquiring territory therefore if that is the scenario the territory belonging to one state ( PH/SABAH) is transferred to the adverse and uninterrupted possession by the Malaysia for a sufficiently long period of time. In our jurisdiction, "THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP ON THEIR RIGHTS" just like hitting two birds with one stone

Sorry but I find your logic about not instituting a claim directly versus Malaysia flawed.

Malaysia exercises possession and sovereignty over SABAH ipso facto. It's quite difficult for the PH to act as intervenor and hope to re-acquire SABAH, or at the very least have a judgment conclusively determining its rights.

So what if the PH and Indonesia rejected the results of the referendum of the inhabitants of SABAH? Did it serve to remove the legitimacy nonetheless? Moreover, granted that Malaysia pays "rent" for what it now claims as "payment for cession" to the Sultanate of Sabah, does it serve to remove their ability to exercise authority over there?

If the PH doesn't institute a claim over SABAH and you say its the correct way to go, then why fault the government now for not doing it?

As far as I can understand, the ICJ's findings cannot bind those who have not agreed to submit under its jurisdiction. Hence, the issue that the PH stands to lose its "ownership" of SABAH by prescription is unfounded.

[Tj_abs]

Sorry but I find your logic about not instituting a claim directly versus Malaysia flawed.

Malaysia exercises possession and sovereignty over SABAH ipso facto. It's quite difficult for the PH to act as intervenor and hope to re-acquire SABAH, or at the very least have a judgment conclusively determining its rights.

So what if the PH and Indonesia rejected the results of the referendum of the inhabitants of SABAH? Did it serve to remove the legitimacy nonetheless? Moreover, granted that Malaysia pays "rent" for what it now claims as "payment for cession" to the Sultanate of Sabah, does it serve to remove their ability to exercise authority over there?

If the PH doesn't institute a claim over SABAH and you say its the correct way to go, then why fault the government now for not doing it?

As far as I can understand, the ICJ's findings cannot bind those who have not agreed to submit under its jurisdiction. Hence, the issue that the PH stands to lose its "ownership" of SABAH by prescription is unfounded.

let us determine the issues involved in this case,

1.whether or not the PH gov't has a valid claim over sabah

2.whether or not the intervention case ( indonesia vs malaysia) filed by PH gov't under is valid

3.whether or not the proper cause of action is to institute a claim against malaysia during GMA administration.

4.whether or not the SABAH is part of PH territory

5.whether or not the PH gov't has the right to file a claim against SABAH

On the first issue, The PH gov't has a valid and legal claim.the claim was based on HISTORICAL FACTS AND COURT JUDGMENT. the LEASE AGREEMENT is DEFINITELY a proof otherwise there will be no basis for any agreement if such OWNERSHIP WAS NOT ESTABLISHED at all.

Second issue: the cause of action of the PH gov't (intervention case) is proper. under the terms of Article 62 of the Statute:
Should a State consider that it has an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the decision in the case, it may submit a request to the Court to be permitted to intervene. Intervention under Article 62 of the Statute is for the purpose of protecting a State's 'interest of a legal nature' that might be affected by a decision in an existing case already established between other States. It is not intended to enable a third State to tack on a new case. On the contrary, the procedure of intervention is to ensure that a State with possibly affected interests may be permitted to intervene even though there is no jurisdictional link and it therefore cannot become a party." The Philippines is seeking to intervene in the case as a non-party.The Court concludes that notwithstanding that the first two of the objects indicated by the Philippines for its intervention are appropriate, the Philippines has not discharged its obligation to convince the Court that specified legal interests may be affected in the particular circumstances of this case.

3. Third issue: The remedy of filing a claim during the pendency of the case of Malaysia and Indonesia is not proper. During that time,the issue involved is the Special Agreement between the two States INDONESIA and MALAYSIA, signed at Kuala Lumpur on 31 May 1997 and having entered into force on 14 May 1998. In that Special Agreement they requested the Court to determine on the basis of the treaties, agreements and any other evidence furnished by the Parties. the Philippines had been aware that the Court had been seized of the dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia for more than two years before it filed its Application to intervene in the proceeding ( In march 13,2001, about 2 two months in office PH gov't under GMA filed a petition to intervene ). the purpose of filling intervention is that First, to preserve and safeguard the historical and legal rights of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines arising from its claim to dominion and sovereignty over the territory of North Borneo, to the extent that these rights are affected, or may be affected, by a determination of the Court of the question of sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan. Second, to intervene in the proceedings in order to inform the Honorable Court of the nature and extent of the historical and legal rights of the Republic of the Philippines which may be affected by the Court's decision. Third. to appreciate more fully the indispensable role of the Honourable Court in comprehensive conflict prevention and not merely for the resolution of legal disputes. Therefore, filing a claim is misplaced.

4. Fourth issue: The SABAH is part of our territory.The claim was based on several historical facts and court judgment.
The lease agreement is definitely a proof The contract was between Sri Paduka Maulana Al Sultan Mohammad Jamalul Alam - representing the sultanate as owner and sovereign of Sabah on one hand, and that of Gustavus Baron de Overbeck and Alfred Dent, representing the British East India Co. (then became the North Borneo Co.), on the other as lessee of Sabah, was executed on June 22, 1878. Though the British turned over the possession and government of Sabah to the federation, the Malaysians have not remissed in paying the annual rental. The 1939 court judgement on the claim had handed ownership of North Borneo to the heirs of the Sultanate prior to the formation of Malaysian federation in 1963. The judgment of Chief Justice C.F.C. Makaskie of the High Court of North Borneo in the civil suit filed by the late Dayang Dayang Hadji Piandao and eight other heirs of the Sultan of Sulu, including the famous Putlih (Princess) Tarhata Kiram, upheld the validity of the claim of the heirs. The Philippines also concludes that:
"Any claim or title to territory in or islands near North Bomeo that assumes or posits or purports to rest a critical link on the legitimate sovereign title of Great Britain from 1878 up to the present is unfounded. Similarly, the interpretation of any treaty, agreement or document concenling the legal status of North Borneo as well as islands off the coast of North Borneo which would presume or take for granted the existence of British sovereignty and dominion over these territories has no basis at all in history as well as in law". "Fr. Joaquin Bernas said the national territory mentioned in the present [B]1987 Constitution[/B] was in substance a copy of the 1973 counterpart. In short there was no change in our Constitution and did not in any way remove Scarborough shoal, Kalayaan island group, and Sabah. The SC further said that the statutory claim over Sabah under Sec. 2 RA 5446 is retained. RA 9522 did not repeal and keeps open the drawing of baselines of Sabah: “Sec. 2 The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Act is without prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea around the territory of Sabah, situated in North Borneo over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty.

5. Fifth issue: The Philippines being a sovereign state may file a claim suit to the ICJ. Since the Sultanate of sulu is not a state, it cannot sue and be sued at the ICJ. However the jurisdiction of the court over contentious cases depends on the consent of the parties. Hence if MALAYSIA refuses to be a party then the ICJ cannot acquire jurisdiction and cannot hear the sabah dispute. However, there are other peaceful recourse method by the present government like the ASEAN in which both state the PH and MALAYSIA are members. Finally, its up to the present gov't administration to resolve that matter. Inmo, SABAH stand-off is a test of leadership of the present government.

OT: Why pnoy didn't include the sabah claim in his " Framework agreement on the bangsamoro"?

[hein]

Sorry but I find your logic about not instituting a claim directly versus Malaysia flawed.

Malaysia exercises possession and sovereignty over SABAH ipso facto. It's quite difficult for the PH to act as intervenor and hope to re-acquire SABAH, or at the very least have a judgment conclusively determining its rights.

So what if the PH and Indonesia rejected the results of the referendum of the inhabitants of SABAH? Did it serve to remove the legitimacy nonetheless? Moreover, granted that Malaysia pays "rent" for what it now claims as "payment for cession" to the Sultanate of Sabah, does it serve to remove their ability to exercise authority over there?

If the PH doesn't institute a claim over SABAH and you say its the correct way to go, then why fault the government now for not doing it?

As far as I can understand, the ICJ's findings cannot bind those who have not agreed to submit under its jurisdiction. Hence, the issue that the PH stands to lose its "ownership" of SABAH by prescription is unfounded.

TRANSLATION: MALAYSIA WILL NEVER RETURN SABAH UNLESS FORCED TO.

Is the PH, as a military Weakling, able to wage War to get it back?

As seen by recent events, Malaysia is willing to go to war to keep Sabah.

[Tj_abs]

If the Sultan has transferred all legal rights to the Philippine government, why is Malaysia paying rent to him, and what right does he have to send armed troops to Sabah in the case of a rental dispute? Shouldn't both be the prerogative of the government?





-

- sir that's their current position.

[Tj_abs]

Chuc mot ngay cuoi tuan lam viec hieu qua va hang say nhe
Dung quen tiep tuc dong gop cho dien dan nhe.
Tran trong.

Have a nice weekend work effectively and enthusiasm bared Do not forget to continue to contribute to the forum and nhe. Tran in. - translate google

[Tj_abs]

Reminders, malaysia kalaban. hehehehehe

Wow philippines vs malaysia, truly asia hehe

[Altis6453]

A pretty good comment:

By Conrado de Quiros

Philippine Daily Inquirer 11:20 pm | Monday, March 18th, 2013

Malaysia is treating us like dirt, one says, and we are taking it like wimps. The Malaysians are acting like they are our master, says another, and government is bowing to it. Malaysia is massacring Filipinos with impunity, says still another, and government will not rage and rail over it. Malaysia has grabbed a part of Philippine territory, says still another, and government has ceded it altogether. We should not call it “Team PNoy,” says still another, we should call it “Team Malaysia.”

Who’s to blame for the deaths of the people who have tried to seize Sabah by force? Government. Who’s to blame for the deaths of the many more Filipinos who are being driven off Sabah dead or alive? Government. Who’s to blame for the insult and injury the country is suffering in the hands of Malaysia? Government.

Can anything be more idiotic?

Of course government should protest the ferocity and viciousness with which the Filipinos in Sabah are being quite literally pushed to the sea, one that makes little distinction between legal and illegal, one that makes little distinction between combatant and noncombatant, one that makes little distinction between life and death. Of course we ourselves must vociferate and expostulate against the human rights violations and outright atrocities being wreaked on the Filipinos in Sabah, that is about life and that is about Filipinos, two of the most precious things for us.

But to do all this without condemning the irresponsibility and criminal recklessness of those who provoked this crisis, who stoked this conflagration, who conjured this horror into being, that is stupid. To be silent, to be dumb, about the original sin, the original cause, the original act that precipitated all this, that is idiotic. That is to be anti-Filipino. That is to make us the laughingstock of the world.

Before the Kirams’ hilariously named “royal army”—can anything be more atavistic?—landed in Tanduao to reclaim a piece of land they lost long ago and liberate a people who are already free, the Filipinos in Sabah lived relatively peacefully. Although many of them were illegals, they had managed to work or earn from various livelihoods without being unduly harassed by the cops. Though many of them were illegals, they had managed to get along with their Sabah neighbors, not all of whom were fellow Tausug, dreaming one day of at least becoming legals and at most of becoming Malaysians.

Then suddenly the Kirams came uninvited, unwelcomed and unwanted, and overnight everything changed. The security forces in Sabah moved to expel them, and as happens in incursions like this, they expelled more than them, they oppressed more than them, they killed more than them. And Filipinos, both legal and illegal, both those who had migrated there recently or had lived there most of their lives, ended up fleeing back to a country they barely acknowledged (which was why they left in the first place) and barely recognized, having left too young to even know about it.

And you blame government for this?

The head of the pin upon which all this rests, the iota of justification upon which all this lies, is that the Sultanate of Sulu owns Sabah, the Kirams own Sabah. You will find in all the articles and tracts that defend this inanity mention of how the British North Borneo Company and ultimately the British government itself conspired to steal Sabah from them. You will not find in them a single, solitary, teeny-weeny mention of the Sabah people themselves. Specifically, you will not find in them mention of the fact that the Sabah people struggled to be free, gained self-rule in 1963, and voted to become part of Malaysia. You will not find in them mention of the fact that the Sabah people are so fiercely proud and independent they insist to this day that they did not join the Malaysian Federation, they helped create the Malaysian Federation along with other states.

How in the face of this can Sabah belong to the Kirams? How in the face of this can the Sabah people be subjects of the Sultan of Sulu?

What is that but saying the Sabah people do not matter? What is that but saying the Sabah people do not exist? Hell, what is that but saying the wishes of the Sabah people are irrelevant, the history of the Sabah people for the last hundred years is irrelevant, the right of the Sabah people to decide their own fate and destiny is irrelevant? Basta lang, they are royal subjects of the Sultan of Sulu?

When in fact the Sabah people are not just the most relevant thing in this equation, they are the most pivotal element in this equation, the most central variable in this equation, the most decisive factor in this equation. When in fact what the Sabah people want is the be-all and end-all of this equation. Certainly what they do not want is the Kirams, what they do not want is to become subjects of the Sultanate of Sulu, what they do not want is anyone screwing their freedom.

You want to blame anyone, blame the Kirams. Frankly, I don’t know why they haven’t been arrested yet for sparking all this violence, for precipitating all this atrocity, for causing all these deaths. And not quite incidentally for embarrassing us in the eyes of the world, for shaming us in the eyes of the world—with no small help from the batty voices that say the Kirams have a right to subjugate the Sabahans, government is wrong not to support their idiotic quest. At the very time when we are climbing out of a decade of rut and rot and restoring luster and pride to being Filipino. What the Kirams have done is not pro-Filipino, it is anti-Filipino. Arresting them is not anti-Filipino, it is pro-Filipino. Punishing them is not being pro-Malaysia, it is pro-Filipino. Hell, it is pro-sanity.

Get real, people.

[crazy_boy]

ang mali sa Kirams is that they did not involve the Philippine government sa latest stint nila. They did not inform the government of their plan. biglang nag squat nalang sa Sabah and claiming its their. Fine if it is theirs, pero may proper procedure naman.

and hindi ko sure if tama ba yung info na nabasa ko, pero yung 11 heirs daw nagaaway away din ba?