New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines

Page 36 of 45 FirstFirst ... 26323334353637383940 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 444
  1. Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    6,940
    #351
    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...

  2. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    3,872
    #352
    Quote Originally Posted by Tj_abs View Post
    A good question deserves a good answer. Under our history, who is the first president of the philippines initiated to file a claim dispute over the sabah? cory?ramos?estrada? pnoy? Gma?none of the above.It was President Diosdado Macapagal who initiated the filing of the Philippine claim on Sabah in 1961.but In August 4, 1977, Marcos announced that the Philippines was giving up its claim to Sabah in order “to eliminate of the burdens of ASEAN.” Republic Act No. 5446 enacted in 1968 was never repealed, and its Section 2 says:

    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.” (Emphasis mine).

    A dormant claim? Mr. Aquino and his spokespersons are demonstrating such scandalous level of ignorance about such an important issue.
    In 13 March 2001, about two months in office, president Gloria Arroyo’s government filed a petition to intervene at the proceedings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the territorial dispute over the islands of Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan between Indonesia and Malaysia. (Yes, that’s the island where the Abu Sayyaf kidnapped foreign tourists in 2000.)

    What’s the basis of the Philippines attempt to intervene in the case? Two of the reasons our country cited in the suit:

    “[a] 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.

    “[b] 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.In Aug. 20, 2008, Mrs. Arroyo issued “Guidelines on matters pertaining to North Borneo (Sabah)” which said that all official activity related to Sabah should have Department of Foreign Affairs clearance. In July 16, 2011, a Supreme Court upheld the baseline law, noting that the Philippine claim over Sabah is retained and can be pursued. Legally speaking under international law,before the ICJ could acquire jurisdiction over the case, consent of the parties is needed and only the states may be parties in cases before it. Here both parties indonesia and malaysia consented to bring the disputed sabah/ north borneo case to the ICJ. Upon the assumption of office of GMA,the philippine gov't initiated and filed intervention case on the grounds that PHILIPPINES has a VALID CLAIM against SABAH/ North borneo. The ICJ ACKNOWLEDGE All of the arguments and evidence presented to the ICJ . Even though the PHILIPPINES was rejected to intervene as a "NON-PARTY" again as a "NON-PARTY"

    The Philippines did not lose totally because:

    1. “Each one of the arguments made by the Philippines, and specifically opposed or objected to by Malaysia and Indonesia, was upheld by the Court in our favor. Our ARGUMENTS on matters of procedure or substance were UPHELD because they were SUPERIOR to the counter-arguments of Malaysia and Indonesia.

    2. As a bonus, we have put on record a territorial claim to North Borneo, and the Court has assured us that it will NOT do anything that will prejudice this historic claim.”
    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.

  3. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,705
    #353
    Quote Originally Posted by Tj_abs View Post
    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?





    -





    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

  4. Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    7
    #354
    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.

  5. Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,722
    #355
    Buti pa itong mga kapitbansa nating mga Vietnamese, concerned din issue ng Sabah.

  6. Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,720
    #356
    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?
    Last edited by badkuk; March 16th, 2013 at 10:41 PM.

  7. Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,101
    #357
    Quote Originally Posted by Altis6453 View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Tj_abs; March 17th, 2013 at 01:13 AM.

  8. Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,101
    #358
    Quote Originally Posted by niky View Post
    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.

  9. Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,101
    #359
    Quote Originally Posted by gvtheogioJ View Post
    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

  10. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    3,872
    #360
    Quote Originally Posted by Tj_abs View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Altis6453; March 17th, 2013 at 09:22 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Sabah Standoff Issues