Sultan of Sulu: No to PH consular office in Sabah

Sultan of Sulu: No to PH consular office in Sabah

THE Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo reiterated its rejection of proposals made by Malaysians for the Philippine government to open a consular office in Sabah.

Apparently agitated by the reports that the Aquino administration has decided to open a consular office in Sabah, Sultan Esmail Kiram 2nd, the reigning Sultan of Sulu and North Borneo, expressed serious concern.

The Sultan’s wazir, not quite his prime minister but his policy adviser, former Gov. Almarin Centi Tillah of Tawi-Tawi, relayed these concerns to The Manila Times’ Publisher-Editor Rene Bas.

“We have every reason to believe that the plan while being denied publicly by Aquino officials, was agreed upon in secret between President Aquino and Prime Minister Najib Razak,” Al Tillah said.

“This is a betrayal not only of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo but also of the Republic of the Philippines. It is against Philippine national interest to virtually abandon the claim to Sabah by opening a consular office there and thereby show the world that the Philippine government accepts Malaysian sovereignty over Sabah,” he added.

In a separate event also on Monday, the Sultanate’s spokesman, Abhraham Idjurani, told Manila Times reporter Ritchie Horario of the Sultanate’s rejection of the plans “of the government to establish a Philippine consular office in Sabah.

Idjurani said saying that this is tantamount to surrendering Philippine sovereignty over Sabah to Malaysia.

“The Sultanate of Sulu is vehemently opposing any move by Malacañang to put up a Consular Office in the disputed territory,” Idjirani said.

The establishment of a consular office in the disputed territory was raised during the recent visit of President Benigno Aquino 3rd in Malaysia.

In case the plan pushes through, Idjirani said, Aquino would be the first Philippine President to start with “a wrong policy to waste a national legacy and as part of the Muslim contribution to nation building.”

“He has forgotten that any effort to diminish this legacy is a betrayal to the Filipino Great Cause,” he added.

He added that Aquino must remind Malaysia that it should adhere to the rule of law embodied in the 1963 Manila Accord.

North Borneo is that part of Sabah that is the sovereign territory of the reigning Sultans of Sulu and North Borneo.

The present Sultan, Esmail Kiram II, as his predecessors did, gladly accepts the fact of his being a Filipino citizen. Therefore, any lands and seas in his realm is part of the Republic of the Philippines.

That Sabah is Philippine territory is affirmed by the transfer by the then reigning Sultan of Sulu and North Borneo, Muhammad Esmail Kiram I, “of full sovereignty, title and dominion” over Sabah to the Philippines on September 12, 1962. The President of the Philippines then was Diosdado Macapagal.

Legal documents show that Sabah was leased by the Sultan of Sulu and North Borneo to agents of the British North Borneo Company. The UK then handed over the lease to the leaders of Malaya when they, with British support, were forming the Federation of Malaysia.

The Malaysian government maintains that Sabah belongs to it and Sabah is a state of the federation. The Philippines disputes that claim.

During President Aquino’s visit to Malaysia last week, Malaysian media once again played up proposals that the Philippines open a consular office in Sabah.

Problems of Filipino “migrants” in Sabah—Filipino Muslims carrying Philippine passports—have been cited by Malaysians as the reason there should be a consulate.

The way the news reached the Philippines, it seemed as if President Aquino and his administration have agreed to these proposals.

That is not true. President Aquino himself has stated that he did not want the Sabah dispute to be discussed but that Prime Minister Najib Razak did.

The Malaysian PM suggested the establishment of a hotline over the Sabah dispute. The hotline would be between the Philippine and Malaysian security authorities. The Malaysian PM himself told journalists this detail.

http://manilatimes.net/sultan-of-sulu-no-to-ph-consular-office-in-sabah/81648/

PH’s Sabah claim not on Aquino agenda

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

US Navy officer's (Ret) memo to leaders in PH Govt: Strengthen 'Institutional Performance' to diminish 'Drivers of Conflict'

Admins' note: There has been no respite this year for the widely-perceived incompetent Aquino Govt: the Tausug siege of Sabah that saw Suluks and Tausugs murdered by Kuala Lumpur troops while Pres Aquino merely delivered ultimatums from PM Najib of Malaysia, the billion-peso 'pork barrel' scam of which the 'accused' Janet Napoles has not been charged formally as of this writing, revelations of corruption scandals one after another, culminating in the armed conflict in Zamboanga which observers fear could ignite a full-scale war in Mindanao. The author issues a memo to remind leaders in Govt that... 
 
Unless the PHL strengthens "Institutional Performance," it will never be able to diminish "Drivers of Conflict."

By Sam Marcelo
25 September 2013

We had wargamed this before and had had proven that in a conflict environment, institutional performance is paramount in diminishing drivers of conflict. Alas, with the corruption brought about by pork barrel, and the Aquino administration miscalculation that caused the Zamboanga MNLF uprising, drivers of conflict will continue to flourish.

Drivers of conflict include but are not limited to: political impact of illicit wealth, economic incentive for conflict, effects of economic decline, injustice, impunity, political violence, threat from ex-combatant, popular support for violent factions, external destabilization, social disintegration, population displacement, social cleavages, and etc.

Institutional Performance include but are not limited to: public confidence in the govt, transparency, accountability, fiscal integrity, infrastructure, access to basic needs, provision of basic social services, public order and safety, equality before the law, administration of justice, respect for human rights, reconciliation processes, and etc.

The "Drivers of Conflict" and "Institutional Performance" have their respective measures and methodology that needed to be implemented and preferred trends that needed to be observed.

~~ o ~~

Sam Marcelo is a United States Navy officer (retired). Sam comes from a long line of naval officers. His father, VAdmiral Virgilio P Marcelo, (AFP) was one of the most respected flag-officers-in-command of the Philippine Navy. This memo is also posted on the Philippine Sabah Claim Forum where Sam is a member.

Aquino Government's un-involved observer stance on Sabah claim by Filipinos - beyond comprehension

In her article "Reclaiming Sabah", Manila Standard Today columnist Linda V. Jimeno, rightly points out: 

"Why the government is taking the stance of an un-involved observer is beyond comprehension. When the sovereignty and dominion over the territory was transferred to the Philippine government by the Sultanate in 1962–which the government accepted as shown in its many overt acts–the government took on the responsibility of reclaiming Sabah and protecting Filipinos who initiate non-violent actions to revive the Philippine claim." 

Full article: 

Reclaiming Sabah Posted on Apr. 15, 2013 Manila Standard Today

In my column last week entitled “Legal basis for the Sabah claim,” I discussed how the Sulu Sultanate came to acquire North Borneo (Sabah) and exercise dominion and sovereignty over it, and how Malaysia  came to possess the territory. 

In this article, questions on what the Philippines has done to make an official claim over Sabah and how Malaysia responded will be discussed, culling from the booklet written by Prof. Emmanuel Q. Yap, founder of the People’s Patriotic Movement. 

When the Sulu Sultanate transferred by a legal instrument its dominion and sovereignty over Sabah to the Philippine government in 1962, did the government do anything to assert its ownership over Sabah? Yes. Even before the Federation of Malaysia came into being, the Philippine government, in 1950, advised the British government that it had a claim over Sabah. Too, the Federation of Malaya (not yet Malaysia) recognized that there was an Aide Memoire dated August 2, 1962 from the Foreign Affairs Department of the Philippines which reminded the Federation of Malaya that “Britain occupies the territory by the terms of the lease which, in no way, entitles the British government to claim ownership or sovereignty over the territory or to transfer it to any entity whatsoever.” 

The Federation of Malaya acknowledged this Aide Memoire by also handing an Aide Memoire to the Philippine Ambassador in Kuala Lumpur on October 3, 1962 stating that the government of the Federation of Malaya and the British government agreed that they would work towards a formal agreement for the transfer of the North Borneo territory (and Singapore) to the Federation of Malaysia. No such formal agreement was ever reached. Yet, Britain proceeded to include Sabah among the territories it transferred to Malaysia. 

On December 29, 1962, the Philippines and the United Kingdom announced an agreement to hold talks on the Philippine claim. Thus, from January 28 to February 1, 1963 the first Ministerial Conference on the Claims was held in London with then Vice President Emmanuel Pelaez heading the RP panel. 

Did not the Philippines object to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia on September 16, 1963 which included Sabah? Yes, it did, together with Indonesia which, in turn, was claiming Sarawak. Thus, then Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, Indonesian President Soekarno and Philippine President Diosdado Macapagal met in Manila in August 1963.  The Manila Accord of 1963 was signed where Malaysia agreed that the inclusion of Sabah in its Federation would not prejudice the Philippine claim. Malaysia acknowledged the right of the Philippines to pursue its claim in accordance with international laws and the United Nations principles of pacific settlement of disputes. 

From February 5 to 10, 1964, the first round of talks between Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia (known as the Maphilindo talks) was held in Bangkok. Around the same time, President Macapagal and the Malaysian Prime Minister met in Phnom Penh. The Tunku agreed to elevate the claim to the International Court of Justice and encouraged the Philippines to submit a memorandum detailing the basis of its claims. The foreign affairs ministers of the Maphilindo states held a second round of talks from March 5 to 6, 1964. Then in June 1964 the Philippines gave to Malaysia its memorandum, “Philippine Claim to North Borneo Vol. 1” as suggested by the Malaysian Prime Minister. 

What happened in the Maphilindo talks in Bangkok? The talks failed because Malaysia unilaterally rejected the Philippine claim to Sabah and then terminated the talks. In so doing, it arrogated unto itself the power of a judge while being a contending party in the dispute. The talks were held supposedly to agree on what modes of settlement, as provided in the Manila Accord of 1963, were acceptable to both governments. 

How significant are the meetings in London and in Bangkok to the Philippine claim? The London foreign ministers’ meeting was significant in that it gave the Philippine claim the status of a legitimate international dispute. On the other hand, the Maphilindo agreement to meet in Bangkok pursuant to the Manila Accord was significant in that it contained a reservation agreed upon by the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia that the formation of Malaysia would not prejudice the unresolved Philippine claim over North Borneo (Sabah). All three countries also agreed to settle the dispute by peaceful means such as arbitration. In effect, therefore, Malaysia accepted the existence of the legitimacy of the Philippine claim to Sabah. 

What is the effect of Malaysia’s unilateral termination of the Maphilindo talks in Bangkok? Malaysia violated several solemn agreements. One of them is the Manila Accord. Another is the agreement between the Philippine President and the Malaysian Prime Minister in Phnom Penh that the two countries would discuss the “best way of settling the claim, not precluding reference to the International Court of Justice.” Still another was the exchange of Communique between the two countries where both essentially agreed to discuss the best way to settle the claim. 

Should the Sultanate of Sulu be blamed for taking proactive action in reclaiming Sabah? The manner the Sultanate asserted its claim may not have been the proper and legal way but this writer will not go as far as blaming the Sultanate. The historical records speak for themselves. Why the government is taking the stance of an un-involved observer is beyond comprehension. When the sovereignty and dominion over the territory was transferred to the Philippine government by the Sultanate in 1962–which the government accepted as shown in its many overt acts–the government took on the responsibility of reclaiming Sabah and protecting Filipinos who initiate non-violent actions to revive the Philippine claim. 

E-mail: ritalindaj@gmail.com   Visit: www.jimenolaw.com.ph

Related blog posts:

The Most Beautiful Defence of the Philippine Sabah Claim

Signing of the Manila Accord

Government must not confuse itself on who is who in the Sulu Sultanate

Commentary by retired Ambassadors Baja and Lavinia

Senator Salonga warns Senator Sumulong

Should the Aquino Government now kill the Sabah claim to appease Malaysia?