PUBLIC OFFICIALS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE LAW ENFORCERS, NOT LAW BREAKERS

"The video showed that Mayor Binay's aides were armed with armalites and semi-automatics. They were seen cocking their guns as if they were ready for war. Senator Nancy Binay was seen just watching without even attempting to intervene and do the right thing. It only means that she and her brother have the same corrupt, ego/power-tripping mentality."

By Marlene Howe
20 December 2013

Background: Social media is buzzing with criticisms over the extraordinary incident involving Mr Binay Junior, mayor of Makati City and son of Vice-President Jejomar Binay, one of the frontrunners come presidential election 2016, and three security guards of a posh Makati subdivision. Mr Binay, in an amazing display of power had the three guards arrested for refusing his convoy passage through the subdivision. The Inquirer news published a CCTV footage of the incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojFGo9RN5mY.

NO TO THE BINAYS NEXT ELECTION!

Senator Alan Cayetano said that DILG should investigate this incident involving the son of Vice-President Jojo Binay who is also the mayor of the industrial district of Makati. Mayor Junjun Binay wielded his power against the poor security guards and ordered their arrest for doing their job. But obviously, Mayor Binay and his sister, Senator Nancy Binay, don't want to follow the rules because they feel they are above any rule of law.

Mayor Junjun Binay was arrogant and delivered the classic ego/power-tripping phrase, DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM? He  may be the mayor of Makati but certainly not above the law! Will Mar Roxas, as DILG Secretary do the right thing and take action on this blatant abuse of power? And will President Aquino support this action? This is the time to show your impartiality and do your job of making public officials accountable for their actions. The video and testimonies from the witnesses should be enough to prove the case.


The video showed that Mayor Binay's aides were armed with armalites and semi-automatics. They were seen cocking their guns as if they were ready for war. Senator Nancy Binay was also seen just watching without even attempting to intervene and do the right thing. It only means that she and her brother have the same corrupt, ego/power-tripping mentality..

Their father, the Vice-President also gave a lame excuse for his children's behavior saying that they, his children deserve some courtesy. What courtesy are you talking about, VP Binay? You mean they have to be given a pass not to follow the rules that other high profile and prominent people follow including foreign diplomats? What makes them above everybody else? You are a poor excuse of a father and public servant and you only proved that you have a corrupt mind as well and therefore, YOU DON'T DESERVE TO WORK FOR US! 

In fact, none of you deserve to be in the position of power because you are abusive and corrupt. It's a common knowledge that your children lack the experience to be leaders but because of your money and power they were put in the position of public trust. The Binays only proved to be UNTRUSTWORTHY of public trust. REMEMBER THIS, THE PEOPLE ARE YOUR BOSSES AND YOU ARE THE EMPLOYEES! 

NO TO THE BINAYS NEXT ELECTION! 

~~~O~~~

Below is the incident reported in the Philippine Inquirer so you know what happened:

The general manager of the Dasmariñas Village Association (DVA) on Thursday defended the three guards who barred the convoy of Makati Mayor Junjun Binay from using the gate of the subdivision on Banyan and McKinley Roads on Nov. 30, saying they did nothing wrong.

“The rules apply to everybody,” DVA general manager Mike Bucoy said on Thursday. He said the subdivision did not have a “VIP policy.”

Bucoy was referring to the village policy prohibiting the exit of vehicles from the gate after 10 p.m.

The Inquirer reported on Wednesday that Binay had ordered the arrest of the three security guards after his convoy, which included his sister Sen. Nancy Binay, was prevented from using the gate close to midnight three weeks ago.

The guards insisted that the group could not pass through the gate, citing the village policy. The source interviewed by the Inquirer said the same policy was being followed by high-profile residents.

The 187-hectare Dasmariñas Village is home to the embassies of China, the Czech Republic, Egypt, India, Mexico, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Sri Lanka and Turkey, and the consulates of Oman and Vanuatu.

Prominent politicians and celebrities who reside there include Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, former Sen. Joker Arroyo, former Tarlac Rep. Peping Cojuangco, former Speaker Jose de Venecia and singer Sharon Cuneta.

According to the source and the CCTV footage released by Inquirer.net, Binay called for the police who then arrested the three security guards.

Asked if the guards were reprimanded for what happened, Bucoy said they were alright and were still working at the village.

“Wala namang mali na ginawa iyong mga guards ko (Our guards did nothing wrong),” he said.

This was echoed by Inquirer columnist and television host Solita “Winnie” Collas-Monsod who said: “The guards were correct… And Mayor Binay was obviously wrong. He was taking advantage of his position and trying to be above the law. And anything that goes above the law is wrong.”

Read more here.

Marlene Howe is co-Founder and Administrator of the Philippine Sabah Claim Forum and of the Defenders of Philippine Sabah and Spratly Claims community as well as  administrator of this blog. Ms Howe is US based but keeps a home in the Philippines.

A DIFFERENCE IN LEADERSHIP CAN MAKE OR BREAK THE COUNTRY

So much of the country's pork barrel funds have gone to waste financing not-so-important projects to gain political leverage and to line the private pockets of politicians. Poverty has been an ongoing problem and keeps the country in third world status when in fact, we should be one of the richest countries in the world because of our rich and immense natural resources. But our leaders have failed to capitalize on those because of their self-serving agenda.

By Marlene D. Howe
12 December 2013

There have been many posts on Facebook regarding leadership in the Philippines. The recent earthquake and typhoon Yolanda that hit the Central Visayas -- and before that the Zamboanga siege, showed the inept ability of our government leaders to deal with crisis as well as their selfish agenda and hubris. Someone mentioned that perhaps our culture has something to do with the way we are. How come then that developed countries seem to be more productive while we cannot seem to get ahead? We are regressing instead of progressing! 

Basically, all cultures are similar from the ancient days when our forefathers hunted for food. Culture only plays a part in our poverty because of failed leadership. Let's use Singapore as an example. The country, though smaller than ours, is much progressive than the Philippines thanks to leadership. But I put the blame on the people in general for voting for the same inutile trapos to the seat of power.

Here's my take on leadership in the Philippines compared to that of our neighboring country like Japan and our failure in readiness:

So much of the country's pork barrel funds went to waste financing not-so-important projects to gain political leverage and to line the private pockets of politicians. Poverty has been an ongoing problem and keeps the country in the third world status when in fact, we are supposed to be one of the richest countries in the world because of our rich and immense natural resources. But our leaders have failed to capitalize on those because of their self-serving agenda. They have not even thought of ways to prepare for catastrophic events like typhoon that has been a part of our life since time immemorial. We are geographically located in a disaster-prone area and yet our government does not have a plan or programs in placed to mitigate losses, recover and rehabilitate. Only the elites and those in the position of power to steal from the people get richer and the majority gets poorer.

There's a big difference between Japan and the Philippines. That is LEADERSHIP! I can't help compare the two countries because while Japan was able to rise up amidst the rubble of war and became an economic power, the Philippines in contrast, remains in the pit of misery. Japan also has emergency programs worth emulating. We have seen that during the tsunami and Fukushima disaster. The world saw how calm and organized their recovery methods are and there are designated refugee centers throughout the country with well-stocked emergency supplies.

In comparison to the Philippines, kung kelan tayo may calamity saka pa lang tayo mangangapa! (We prepare for calamity when it's there.) The recent typhoon Yolanda proved our inability to handle crisis once more. And though we received a lot of foreign donations, many of them were left rotting in the warehouse and many were sold to the grocery stores. Chaos and pandemonium in the aftermath of the typhoon went out of control because our politicians were busy in power tripping and finger-pointing.

Incidentally, I have said the same thing many times in the past comparing the Japanese leaders to our kapit-tuko disgraced politicians. Japanese leaders embroiled in disgraceful controversy commit hara-kiri or seppuku (suicide) while ours keep the status quo and lie to their teeth. Sila na ang may kasalanan, sila pa ang galit! I don't advocate suicide as it is a sin in many religious beliefs and culture. But at least, they should have the decency to resign from their post for the good of the country so our leaders can focus on other important issues. Japanese people also don't vote for someone with known questionable background unlike the Filipinos who keep voting for the same corrupt trapos and unqualified and inutile celebrities or political dynasty for a measly sum or celebrity status. 

The Filipino voters can't seem to separate personal admiration or adulation of the celebrity from the qualities of a true public servants. This has been the cycle that our people seem to be uninterested to change. Complacency and apathy became the norm. Our current desolate state is the manifestation of our reckless and "bahala na" attitude. Change comes from within! If we change our mindset, we can affect TRUE CHANGE by voting for the right reason and not for selfish reason. Vote for the right candidates because you know and you believe these people have honest desire to serve the people. If the candidate/s turned out to be corrupt or inept, don't vote for that person again. If we do this, our politicians will be more conscientious in their job knowing that come next election they will be out of job. We, the people have that power to hire and fire public servants. Let's be conscientious and not sell our votes. This is what PATRIOTISM is all about! Show love for the country by doing the right thing. 

~~~~O~~~~

Marlene Howe is co-Founder and Administrator of the Philippine Sabah Claim Forum and of the Defenders of Philippine Sabah and Spratly Claims community as well as  administrator of this blog. Ms Howe is US based but keeps a home in the Philippines.

THE PHILIPPINE CLAIM TO SABAH IS FAR FROM BEING "DEAD AND BURIED!"

IN PICTURE: Symposium banner for the reclamation of Sabah, the first salvo of the 21st century launched by Senator Nene Pimentel on the Sultanate claim to North Borneo (Sabah)

THE "INVASION" OF SABAH BY A GROUP OF TAUSUGS FROM SULU this week, led by a descendant of a sultan of Sulu -- no matter how many times removed, which, incidentally frightened Putrajaya is a wake up call not only to Malaysians but also to Filipinos... 

IT PROVES THAT THE Sabah claim is FAR FROM BEING DEAD AND BURIED! Our government must have the courage to face the issue squarely and see to it that in the interest of the citizens of the Republic in Sulu, in the interest of justice and fair play, it is essential that this government find the guts to face the issue squarely and deal with Kuala Lumpur intelligently.

THE PHILIPPINES OWES MALAYSIA OR MALAYA NOTHING! Absolutely nothing... This government must not feel obligated just because PM Najib Razak (the son of the former Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Razak, one of the enemies of the Philippines) has helped 'engineer' a new political entity that would ultimately incorporate a vast portion of Mindanao into the Malaysia Federation. This government MUST BE more cunning. It will be a waster of precious rations to have leaders in this country of such lowly calibre with absolutely no guts to face the Sabah claim issue squarely.

IF SUCH WERE TO BE THE FATE OF THIS NATION's Sabah claim, i.e., in the hands of nignogish leaders, it would be better for the Sultanate of Sulu to rescind its sovereignty rights transfer and perhaps to do it by themselves just as the sons of Sulu have just done this week -- invade Sabah with the help of others, map their plans correctly, gather the real 'nerve of war' to back them up and yes, do it on their own.

THE SULTANATE OF SULU CAN INVOKE THE PROVISION in the 1962 sovereignty rights transfer terms whereby Sultan Esmail Kiram stipulated that if the Republic of the Philippines fails to reclaim Sabah within a given time, i.e., 30 years, sovereignty rights will revert to the Sultanate of Sulu.

~~ Originally posted on Defenders of the Philippine Sabah and Spratly Claims

DECLASSIFIED U.S. STATE DEPT NOTES PROVIDE INSIGHT INTO WHY PH HAD TO GO IT ALONE ON SABAH CLAIM BACK IN THE 60s

DECLASSIFIED U.S. STATE DEPT NOTES PROVIDE INSIGHT INTO WHY PH HAD TO GO IT ALONE ON SABAH CLAIM BACK IN THE 60s 

From the Archives Re: Sabah

Doc List No. Prev Next

FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1964–1968
VOLUME XXVI, INDONESIA; MALAYSIA-SINGAPORE; PHILIPPINES, DOCUMENT 367

367. Action Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs (Bundy) to Secretary of State Rusk 1

Washington, May 20, 1968.

SUBJECT
The Sabah Dispute and ASEAN
Discussion:
As you will recall, at the luncheon May 9, Foreign Minister Thanat raised the question of the Philippine-Malaysian dispute over Sabah and his concern that the dispute may disrupt the ASEAN ministerial meeting in August. Thanat plans to reason with both parties before the bilateral talks on Sabah open in Bangkok June 17. He would like us to persuade President Marcos to cool off the quarrel. We did not at the time so inform Thanat, but we have told the Filipinos informally, when they mentioned the issue, that we thought they should quiet the matter. (See Manila 8618 and State 136076 attached at Tab B.)2

After giving the matter further thought, and discussing it with the Country Directors in EA, I believe that we should continue to avoid active intervention in the Sabah dispute, and to avoid initiating discussions on this issue with any of the interested governments. In arriving at this conclusion, I considered the following points:

(1) Seriousness of Present Impasse—We expect the Bangkok talks on Sabah to fail, with mutual recriminations. Malaysia intends to reject the Philippine claim outright and to refuse a second round of talks, even if (according to one senior Malaysian official) the Philippines react by breaking diplomatic relations again. The Malaysians also plan to stage a military demonstration in Sabah while the bilateral talks are going on. On the Philippine side, President Marcos is reported to have reversed the moderate line urged by Foreign Secretary Ramos, and the Department of Foreign Affairs is now taking a “second hard look” at the relative priorities of regional cooperation and the Sabah claim.

(2) Sabah as a Southeast Asian Problem—We have told both the Filipinos and the Malaysians that we consider Sabah primarily a problem which they will have to work out for themselves. Other members of ASEAN, working separately or jointly, may be able to help them work out a face-saving compromise, or to persuade them at least to try to contain the dispute in order to minimize the damage to regional cooperation. I believe that advice or pressure from outside powers, however well-intended, would only weaken the sense of responsibility of ASEAN members for handling their own affairs, and that at this point, we can best encourage the development of ASEAN by standing aside and letting the member states decide for themselves how to deal with the potential threat posed by the Sabah dispute.

(3) U.S.-Philippine Relations and Philippines in Southeast Asia—I believe that it would be unwise especially for the U.S. to attempt to guide or influence the Philippines on this issue. Such a move would encourage the Filipinos' tendency to draw us into their affairs and then to consider us responsible for the situation. It would also reinforce the view held by other Southeast Asian nations that the Philippine Government cannot be dealt with as a responsible Government, but must be approached through Uncle Sam, who will keep them in line. If the Philippines is to play a responsible role in Southeast Asian affairs, Fililpino leaders must learn to conduct their affairs without guidance from us, and to bear the consequences of their mistakes.

The attached telegram (Tab A)3 would instruct Bangkok to follow up the luncheon conversation of May 9 with Thanat with a fuller discussion of the Sabah issue, and to outline an appropriate portion of the reasoning I have given above. Other addressees would be authorized to draw on the message in discussions with interested officials, but not to raise the Sabah question independently.

Recommendation:

That you sign the attached telegram to Bangkok concerning the Sabah dispute.

1 Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1967–69, POL 18 MALAYSIA. Secret. Drafted by Ruth A. McLendon (EA/PHL) and cleared by EA, EA/PHL and in draft with EA/IND, EA/MS, EA/TB, and EA/RA.

2 Both attached but neither printed.

3 The draft telegram is attached, but is not printed. According to a handwritten note, Rusk approved its transmission and it was sent on May 21 at 12:30 p.m.

(NB: Credit to Yolanda Ortega Stern for the Philippine Sabah Claim Forum for the research.)

------------------------------------------------------

My thoughts off the cuff:

I have come across some similar documents -- declassified State Dept documents but not as clear as this. I suppose these notes were written during the SEATO meeting in Bangok (Lyndon Johnson was there)

WE WERE "SOLD"! What makes me think that the Sabah claim was "sold"? Because of this portion in the State Dept report: "(3) U.S.-Philippine Relations and Philippines in Southeast Asia—I believe that it would be unwise especially for the U.S. to attempt to guide or influence the Philippines on this issue. Such a move would encourage the Filipinos' tendency to draw us into their affairs and then to consider us responsible for the situation. It would also reinforce the view held by other Southeast Asian nations that the Philippine Government cannot be dealt with as a responsible Government, but must be approached through Uncle Sam, who will keep them in line. If the Philippines is to play a responsible role in Southeast Asian affairs, Fililpino leaders must learn to conduct their affairs without guidance from us, and to bear the consequences of their mistakes."

"Fililpino leaders must learn to conduct their affairs without guidance from us" but at the same time, the US always expected us to toe the line when it came to their desiderata. Extraordinary! They really wanted us on leash -- to bark when they said so and to heel at command and at the same time, we were expected to 'act independently.' Simply simply extraordinary! 

This how-to-handle-the-Philippines policy'must have been the same stand since 1963 when the Philippines filed a protest with the UN about the planned Malaysia Federation incorporating Sabah and Sarawak. We did not received any backing for our protest with the UN from our American allies. There's been no evidence that they did. 

My question has now been half answered, i.e., "Why did not the Americans want to help us pursue the Sabah claim?" My most generous thought is that they couldn't be bothered -- but that's only part of the answer... There is a tactical or perhaps, more serious strategical reason and that's what I would like to find out. I say this because Britain helped their former colony Malaya Federation (which is now Malaysia Federation following the 1963 annexation of Sabah and Sarawak) -- America could have done the same for us. Really they could have. 

At the same time, the State Dept or the CIA must have been aware of the Marcos preparations for Oplan Merdeka, the first physical attempt by the Philippines to re-take North Borneo or Sabah, a plan that he had begun to put up in earnest in 1967 or a year before this note was released...

They [the Americans] could not have ignored that... Were they just simply turning a blind eye but at the same time knew that they would step in and stop Marcos one way or the other if he went ahead and carried with his plans to "invade" Sabah?

A relative of mine who had been a legal adviser to one of the presidents and who later on became defence undersecretary for another Philippine president had informed me that in early 1968, the US had agreed to transfer vessels to the Philippines which the US knew  -- no way they wouldn't have known because they were already aware of Oplan Merdeka somehow -- would be used to ferry troops across Sabah... At the last minute when Jabidah Massacre was exposed, the vessels were turned back and sailed back to Vietnam.

These are not conjenctures. They were events that happened prior to the failed Philippine re-taking of Sabah or the denunciation of the covert operation made famous by media as the Jabidah Massacre. But the big question remains: Why did America not support our Sabah claim bid?  

By Anne de Bretagne
For the Philippine Sabah Claim Forum
and For the Defenders of the Philippine Sabah and Spratly Claims
26 Sept 2012

In picture: US Secretary of State Dean Rusk, the man who sealed the fate of the Philippine Sabah claim.

22 June: 50th anniversary of the filing of the Philippine claim to Sabah in the United Nations

Today is the 50th anniversary of the official filing of Philippines' claim to Sabah.

On 22 June 1962 or fifty years ago today, the Philippines, under President Diosdado Macapagal officially filed the Republic's claim to Sabah in the United Nations based on historical and legal sultanate of Sulu ownership right.

Fifty years hence, nothing concrete has been done to raise the issue with Malaysia. Instead, in 2003, the daughter of President Diosdado Macapagal who became 'president' extra-constitutionally opened the gates of Mindanao to the Malaysians by allowing the Malaysians to control the so-called peace talks with the MILF and almost gave a huge chunk of Mindanao. 

Today, the son of the senator who denounced President Marcos plans to invade Sabah in the late 60s and who has become president himself has continued the process -- in Kuala Lumpur to boot leading to a signed agreement under the diktat of Malaysia for the creation of a "new political entity."

Where has national self-respect gone???

Lease documents shown below. You may also click on this link here.

Fifty years ago, Philippines filed claim to Sabah

PHILIPPINE SABAH CLAIM FORUM DATES AND EVENTS TO REMEMBER IN RELATION TO NATION'S SABAH CLAIM

By Anne de Bretagne
10 June 2012
For the Philippine Sabah Claim Forum

FIFTY YEARS AGO OR ON 22 JUNE 1962 MORE PRECISELY: PHILIPPINES FILED OFFICIAL CLAIM TO SABAH BUT PHILIPPINES FAILED TO OBTAIN SUPPORT FROM ITS FORMER COLONIAL MASTER TURNED MAJOR ALLY, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The Malayans (not yet Malaysians) under Tunku Abdul Rahman, on the other hand, not only had the full support of Great Britain, its former overlords and then key ally but it also appeared that they had received blanket approval to annex Sabah from then United Nations Secretary General U Thant (undoubtedly through the largesse and political pressure by then superpower and Malaya colonials Great Britain.)

The question that comes to mind is why did not the United States of America give the Philippines support in its bid to establish its sovereignty rights over Sabah in 1962 or even during the 60s while the claim was clearly a hot item in the United Nations? The United States which was Philippine colonial master and at the time of the claim was filed was the Philippines' great  'benefactor.' The US, was, after al, a superpower in its own right and could have exerted influence on the United Nations and why not on Great Britain, its major ally and friend with whom it has a 'special' relationship? What happened that the United States decided not to intervene on behalf of the Philippines?

Dates and events to remember related to events surrounding the Philippine Sabah claim:

31 August 1957: Federation of Malaya (not yet MALAYSIA) was established on the Malay Peninsula thus giving the former British colony its political independence, while Britain kept Singapore, Sarawak, Brunei, and British North Borneo (Sabah) outside the federation.

12 May 1961: Malay prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman set about the formation of the Federation of Malaysia (successor to Federation of Malaya) —the political union of Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak, and Sabah. The proposal was noted to have been well received in Peninsular MALAYA and Singapore but it was also noted that it was not popular in the three Borneo territories (which included Sabah) which stood to be annexed in the planned Federation of Malaysia.

May 1962: Senator Jovito Salonga treatise on "THE NORTH BORNEO QUESTION" and published in  Manila Times, Manila Chronicle, Philippines Free Press

22 June 1962: Philippines under President Diosdado Macapagal filed official claim to Sabah as successor in interest and formally opposed the planned annexation of Sabah by then Federation of Malaya and Great Britain from whom Peninsular Malaya had become independent.

12 September 1962 (and not on 11 September as claimed by some fake sultan and impostor prince claiming to be representing Sultanate of Sulu): official and formal transfer of sovereignty rights over Sabah to the Republic of the Philippines by Sultanate of Sulu through Sultan Esmail Kiram, legal and moral owners of Sabah.

January 1963: President Sukarno began a low-intensity conflict with Malaya known as Konfrontasi to prevent the annexation of Sarawak which Indonesia claimed as part of the Indonesian territory.

16 September 1963: Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore were annexed to Federation of MALAYA to create the Federation of MALAYSIA. Philippines and the newly formed Federation of Malaysia severed diplomatic ties.

*In picture: President Diosdado Macapagal aboard USS Oklahoma in 1962.

Scarborough Shoal: Philippines has better claim [than China] just as Philippines has indisputable sovereignty rights over Sabah and Malaysia has none

*Picture of Scarborough Shoal from Global Balita

In this standoff with China [over the Scarborough Shoal], let us not forget the lesson we learned from Sabah which has been an unresolved issue for almost fifty years. The mistake the previous Sultan of the Sultanate made leasing Sabah to Malaysia then turning over the sovereignty to the Republic of the Philippines to the failed takeover that resulted in the infamous Jabidah massacre is a lesson we have learned. We should not let our guards down and always be vigilant in protecting our territory. 

Below is the opinion of retired Philippine ambassador, Nelson D. Lavina published in and reprinted from The Daily Inquirer.

For more than a month now, a vessel or two of the Philippine government have been facing eyeball to eyeball dozens of Chinese vessels at the Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal. Both China and the Philippines claim historic rights over the shoal which is 124 nautical miles off the coast of Zambales. 

Recently, Philippine and US government officials discussed in Washington, DC the South China Sea issue. The United States was neutral in the controversy but expressed interest in the freedom of navigation. The officials took note of the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT); the United States promised, as it has promised before, assistance in upgrading the Philippine Navy. Earlier, the Chinese asked the United States not to meddle in the issue. 

It is recalled that Secretary Henry Kissinger took the view that while the United States was bound by the MDT, the Kalayaan group of islands, which became a municipality of Palawan in 1978, would not, as a disputed territory, fall within the term “metropolitan” Philippine territory. However, US State Secretary Cyrus Vance informed Gen. Carlos P. Romulo in a diplomatic letter dated Jan. 6, 1979 that under the terms of the MDT, the United States was bound to counteract, in accordance with its constitutional processes, any attack on “Philippine armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.” Hence, the Kalayaan group in the Spratlys was evidently embraced in the US commitment. 

The Vance assurance clearly covers the present situation in Scarborough, a shoal in the South West Philippine Sea “in the Pacific.” Ergo, an attack by China against any Philippine armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the area would trigger, under the MDT, American retaliation, in accordance with its constitutional processes, against “the common enemy.” 

But Manila wisely chooses to follow the path of diplomatic solution. After Beijing spurned negotiations, Manila has decided to elevate the issue to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) itself, for the settlement of disputes on the application or interpretation of the provisions of the convention. 

About five decades ago, the Philippines was also prepared to go to the International Court of Justice on the issue of Sabah. We invited Malaysia to The Hague. Malaysia, firmly backed up by the United Kingdom, refused. And the Philippine claim to Sabah has remained in limbo since then. 

Now President Aquino need not spend sleepless nights. Under the Unclos, member-states like China and the Philippines have the special obligation to settle disputes involving the application or interpretation of Unclos provisions. China has to join the Philippines in Hamburg. From all indications, the Philippines has a better claim. 

—NELSON D. LAVIÑA,retired ambassador,nlavina3@fastmail.fm

Posted by Lioness of Sabah

PHILIPPINE GOVT GUIDELINES ON MATTERS PERTAINING TO NORTH BORNEO (SABAH)

Four years ago, Malacanang issued a Memorandum [GUIDELINES ON MATTERS PERTAINING T0 NORTH BORNEO (SABAH)] to government departments with regard to the handling of the burning Sabah issue.

So, contrary to what many detractors of the Philippine Sabah claim, the Government of the Republic of Philippines has never recognised Malaysia's purported sovereignty over North Borneo (Sabah). The Philippines, effectively, has always maintained historical and legal rights over Sabah. The documents have also been posted on Facebook by the Philippine Sabah Claim Forum.

(NB: For easier reading, we have transcribed the PDF documents (1) Circurlar issued by then Executive Secretary Eduardo R Ermita (2)  Department of Education memorandum disseminated upon receipt of Malacanang Circular hereunder.)

Malacanang

Manila

MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR N0.`162

GUIDELINES ON MATTERS PERTAINING T0 NORTH BORNEO (SABAH)

WHEREAS, by virtue of Article 1 of _the 1987 Constitution on National Territory, the Phíiìppines has hìstorical and legal right over certain parts of North Borneo (Sabah);

WHEREAS, it is in the national interest to safeguard the country's hístoricai and legal right in North Borneo (Sabah);

WHEREAS, the Philippines believes in the peaceful resolution of disputes with neighboring countries as provided under the same Constitution, which expressly states that the Philippines adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations;

WHEREAS, there is a need for guidelines with regard to activities, acts or statements in relation to North Borneo (Sabah) for the protection of the said rights;

WHEREFORE, the following guìdeiìnes are hereby prescribed:

Section 1. No Department, agency, or instrumentality of the Philippine Government shall make any act or statement expressing or implying, directly or indirectiy, any recognition of a foreign state's sovereignty over North Borneo (Sabah) or non-recognition of Philippine title or historicai and legal rights to the same.

Section 2. Any official activity, act or statement relating to North Borneo (Sabah) or which may have bearing on the Philippine claim to said territory shall be carried out only with the clearance of or after consultations with the Department of

Foreign Affairs.

Section 3. Reference to North Borneo (Sabah) in official documents should not include its being part of a larger national/federal territory. These .documents include, but are not limited to, the following: Philippine passports, agreement, agreed minutes, joint communiqués, record of discussions, and similar documents..

Section 4. Philippine government visiting North' Bdrneo (Sabah) shall provide the DFA with a report on their travel thereto.

This Circular shall take effect immedately.

Done in the City of Manila, this 20th day of August in the year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Eight.

By authority of the President:

Eduardo R. Ermita

Executive Secretary

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Education

DepED MEMORANDUM

YN0. 412, S. 2008

DISSEMINATION OF MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO, 162 DATED AUGUST 20, 2008

(Guidelines on Matters Pertaining to North Borneo (SABAH)

To: Undersecretaries

      Assistant Secretaries

      Bureau Directors

      Directors of Services, Centers and Heads of Units

      Regional Directors

      Schools Division/ City Superintendents

      All Others Concerned

1. For the information and guidance of all concerned, enclosed is a copy of Memorandum Circular No. 162 dated August 20, 2008 entitled “Guidelines on Matters Pertaining to North Borneo [SABAH)”, which is self explanatory.

2. Immediate and Wide dissemination of this Memorandum is desired.

FRANKLIN C. SUNGA

Undersecretary

Encl.: As stated

Reference: None

Allotment: 1-(D.O. 50-97)

To be indicated in the Pergetual Index under the following Subjects:

LEGISLATIONS

OFFICIALS

POLICY

Sally: MC. No. 162

September 1, 2008

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NB: FOR A CLEARER VIEW OF THE PDF DOCUMENTS (shown below), PLEASE CONSULT THE PDF FILE ON THE FOLLOWING LINK: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2U9JuIVbTotQkVPckNjNW1HMEk/edit The PDF Documents were submitted by blog contributor Amando Respicion Boncales, researcher and graduate student, University of Illinois.

NB: ATTENTION! We wish to inform the public that the genuine Sabah Claim Society was created by the owners of this blog. They are Philippine patriots who have grouped together from around the world originally on Facebook but was since hijacked by a group of people sporting fake European nobility sounding titles "granted" on Facebook by an individual sporting a fake princely title as well. Please be warned that the said group of individuals, we believe, are in fact con artists out to "claim" Sabah for "get rich quick" reasons and are not genuine Philippine patriots. This blog is the genuine Sabah Claim Society.  For more information, please join the Philippine Sabah Claim Forum on Facebook.