Sabah Standoff Issues

[Tj_abs]

[QUOTE=Altis6453;2106965]Well, I'll keep my points simple:

1. If, as you said, the purpose of framing the peace deal with the MILF is for peace, then the territories to be "administered" by the Bangsamoro entity as agreed to the PH is merely anciliary. Again, why mention SABAH at all if its not material to the peace deal as between the parties?

Answer: Inmo, SABAH must be included in the framework because it has been neglected and sleeping for a long period of time. Take note that the framework agreement is not yet the peace agreement. It is an agreement to work toward the formulation of the peace agreement. For your information, the very first section of the framework already announces the enormity of the challenge " the parties agree that the status quo is unacceptable and that the bangsamoro shall be established to replace the ARMM autonomous region of muslim mindanao. The bangsamoro is the new autonomous political entity. The framework itself in its present form, poses some PROCEDURAL challenges and hints at the SUBSTANTIVE issues that may arise. A major procedural part of the framework itself is the FORMATION of the powerful transition commission. will the MNLF have a role? What are the substantive issues already reflected even from the current framework which the government may have to defend or clarify? The framework says that the form of government shall be "MINISTERIAL". The Pnoy administration and the MILF still have to clarify what this means. INMO, the clearest characteristics of the agreement is LACK OF CLARITY. the agreement itself says, " the parties commit to work further on the details of the framework agreement in the context of this document and complete a comprehensive agreement by the end of the year". So, what did the parties really agree about beyond agreeing to continue working? Moreover, Since it is located in Mindanao, to what extent of territorial jurisdiction of bangsamoro? Who will govern the territory of sabah wherein SABAH is part of our territory as enshrined in the constitution? my question for you, why the Bangsamoro Peace Framework agreement between MILF and Philippine government signed in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia? or maybe the peace deal, which was brokered by Malaysia aims at establishing the "bangsamoro" region and the peace deal is also TO PREVENT a renewed claim on SABAH? Pwede naman dito sa pilipinas bakit sa malaysia pa mag pipirmahan?

2. As I've previously mentioned, Malaysia is claiming that the padyak is interpreted as "cession" and not a lease. While I know this to be a debateable point, especially in light of historical circumstances surrounding how they were able to exercise acts of sovereignty over SABAH for decades, this is exactly how they intend to dispute the supposed ownership by the Sultanate of Sulu.

Answer: I dont know if Malaysian gov't knows how to read, understand and interpret a " SIMPLE CONTRACT OF LEASE ". I beg to disagree about your contention that a simple contract of lease is "DEBATABLE point". It is construed as verba legis or plain meaning rule. A cardinal rule in statutory construction is that when the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation. There is only room for application. As the statute is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. Under the International law, cession is a derivative mode of acquisition by which territory is belonging to one state is transferred to the sovereignty of another state in accordance with the agreement before them. Following their line of argument shows that their evidence is weak and there is no leg to stand on. Thats why im asking you, if your are the legal counsel of malaysia, what is your legal and valid claims aside from cessation?


3. Since you again make reference to the ICJ case between Indonesia and Malaysia over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan, I beg to disagree that intervention was the ONLY remedy available and that a claim could not be INSTITUTED DIRECTLY by the PH against Malaysia notwithstanding the pendency of that case. Again, the findings of the ICJ in the case, could not have affected the PH claims to SABAH simply because the PH WAS NOT A PARTY and it may disregard whatever declarations of the ICJ could have made to the contrary. It's like the ICJ saying you can't claim what's yours while others are fighting it out over a different territory altogether. See the non-sequitur here?

Answer: Stare decisis. The rest is history. The PH gov't must be prospective in this issue. Our government must resolve the issue peacefully in accordance with law.

4. Further to the previous point, I will reiterate this: the PH could've filed the claim against Malaysia in the ICJ over SABAH during the time of GMA. In fact, it should have done so immediately after the ICJ stated that no rights of the PH would be affected in the case of Indonesia vs. Malaysia. Why did they fail to do so?

Answer: Why do you have to file a direct claim at that time when malaysia is not exercising his authority over sabah? As a matter of fact, they are still paying yearly rentals. Logically, If malaysia has a valid claim of ownership, why do they have to pay yearly rentals?


5. I don't argue against your position that SABAH is PH territory. What I do find delinquent is the mishmash of citations (High Court of Borneo, Fr. Bernas, Supreme Court) which doesn't lend proper perspective as far as presenting the PH case regarding its ownership. Are you confident that citing municipal law (i.e. the Constitution, Baselines Law, SC jurisprudence, local legal authorities) will put the PH ownership claims over the top? All I understood from all of that is that the PH did not drop its claim to SABAH and that is a pretty weak point to argue if you want affirmation of ownership.

Answer: From the viewpoint of international tribunals, the decision should always incline in favor of international law while from the viewpoint of municipal tribunal, the decisions usually determined by considerations of self interest therefore, what is favorable in this case relating to international dispute as a rule is international law. Again, our claim of ownership was based on several historical facts,lease agreement and court judgment. Take note that in International law, The decision of the courts is part of subsidiary sources of international law.

OT: Philippine defense secretary Voltaire Gazmin has made a statement that PH claims to SABAH has a legal basis. In our PH history, On 1963, The PH gov't under D. Macapagal acknowledge the SABAH as part of our national territory. During that time, there was a transfer of sovereignty document by the PH gov't and the sultan of sulu. Even President F. Marcos acknowledge its claim. INMO, failure to pursue would mean wasting previous efforts made by the PH before the UN and other international forums since 1960s. It could also mean violating the PH constitution and other rules, as well as the Supreme Court decisions declaring the PH has dominion over SABAH.

[Ry_Tower]

^ Tama na yan Kj_abs este Tj_abs.

Ito na lang pag-usapan natin. Hot princess! :D

Malaysians tweet about Jacel Kiram | Inquirer Technology

[Altis6453]

^ Tama na yan Kj_abs este Tj_abs.

Ito na lang pag-usapan natin. Hot princess! :D

Malaysians tweet about Jacel Kiram | Inquirer Technology

I hope he follows your advice.

The discussion is getting pointless. Si Jacel nalang intindihin natin!

[hein]

Reminders, malaysia kalaban. hehehehehe

Of course. Kaya before you send an armed contingent to Sabah, which is currently enemy territory, make sure you can handle their defenses. Otherwise, nothing will happen except wasted lives and a more emboldened Malaysia.

"KNOW THY ENEMY" is the most important thing to realize before you go to war.

Right now, chances of the PH getting back Sabah without going to war: 0.01%

[Altis6453]

Of course. Kaya before you send an armed contingent to Sabah, which is currently enemy territory, make sure you can handle their defenses. Otherwise, nothing will happen except wasted lives and a more emboldened Malaysia.

"KNOW THY ENEMY" is the most important thing to realize before you go to war.

Too bad that our media see it fit to portray the government as the enemy insofar as Sabah is concerned. Their criticisms targeting Malaysia are largely getting ignored.

[Ry_Tower]

And the drama continues. Bakit naman gagawin ng malaysia yan. Eh panalo na sila.

Plot to assassinate Kiram, followers bared | Inquirer Global Nation

[badkuk]

post deleted

[Pipefish]

Ignored Sultan’s Malaysia Invasion Risks Peace: Southeast Asia

[greenlyt]

pag may assasination attemp hindi dapat ina-announce sa media, pinag-aaralan dapat muna kung papano pigilan

[Altis6453]

pag may assasination attemp hindi dapat ina-announce sa media, pinag-aaralan dapat muna kung papano pigilan

QFT!

Mukha kasi medyo nag-subside na ang media interest in the Kirams and the issue of Sabah. Kelangan merong bagong development to keep them in the news.