'If we don't pursue our claim to Sabah, we may be doing violence to our Constitution' ~ Ambassador Lauro Baja

The article "Don't play into Malaysia's hands" was written at the height of the Sabah stand-off by former Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador Lauro Baja. It is a brief analysis of the Tanduo siege which President Aquino termed a "hopeless cause."

Ambassador Baja warned,"If we do not pursue, we may do violence to our own Constitution, to House Resolution No. 321 adopted on April 24, 1962 and to the Supreme Court decision upholding the validity of RA 5522 and declaring that the PH has title and dominion over Sabah."

FULL ARTICLE: 

‘Don’t play into Malaysia’s hand’
February 27, 2013
By LAURO L. BAJA JR.

THE President has gone on TV appealing and at the same time chastising the Sultan of Sulu over the standoff in Lahad Datu in Sabah.

The next few days will tell the wisdom of doing it in public. His statements and actions give the unintended consequence of leaning on our own nationals over a foreign power. We may be playing into Malaysia’s hands who has been adopting a studied but cavalier attitude over the standoff. They are exercising acts of “effectivités” over Sabah during this standoff by their actions and even by their silence over our naive pronouncements.

“Effectivités” in a territorial dispute between countries gives weight to actual and continued exercise of authority over a territory. This is the basis of the International Court of Justice ’s 2002 decision on the Ligatan Sipadan case where the court awarded the area to Malaysia over Indonesia. Also the same principle in the case between Chile and Peru and between Nicaragua and Guatemala.

The Sabah standoff should rouse the Philippine Rip van Winkle attitude towards our claim to the area. It provides the country with a unique but sensitive opportunity to revisit our claim. If the Philippines can deal with the situation with some diplomatic imagination and finesse it can correct some missteps of the past which led to the current state of helplessness insofar as the issue is concerned.

Those missteps include the abortive “peopling” of Sabah by Filipinos under the Marcos administration which resulted in the Jabidah mnassacre. Also advocating and/or agreeing to a United Nations referendum in Sabah in 1963 without adequate strategic preparations which resulted in adverse outcome for the Philippines.

The solid legal foundation of our claim still exists.

In the transfer of sovereignty document which the Sultan of Sulu signed with the Philippine government, it was expressly provided that the transfer shall be deemed voided if the Philippines shall fail to pursue the claim. The sultan understandably feels he is now free to pursue the claim himself.

The President should find an opportunity to convene the National Security Council to consider the matter. The ramifications of the standoff have far reaching consequences and both the legislative and judicial branches of the government have pronounced themselves on the issue.

As days pass, the confluence of events makes it imperative that the Philippines now define its policy on Sabah. To continue putting the claim in the backburner is not a policy. This is an illusion, a mirage.

Will it be in the national interest to pursue the claim to Sabah? Strong legal grounds still exist although eroded by our statements and actions and inactions. If we do not pursue, then we lay to waste previous international efforts in the UN, in the London and Bangkok talks, in the ICJ, in the Manila Accord of 1963.

If we do not pursue, we may do violence to our own Constitution, to House Resolution No. 321 adopted on April 24, 1962 and to the Supreme Court decision upholding the validity of RA 5522 and declaring that the PH has title and dominion over Sabah.

To study (again!) the legal merits of the claim is to consign it to the backburner for the next fifty years.

It is a sad commnetary on the Philippines if our own nationals should run to the UN because their government cannot protect their rights. This is not the spectacle our country wants to portray to the international community.

It is now urgent to cease to be “confused” and move and act decisively. Time to end the Kabuki play on Sabah.

(The author is a veteran Philippine diplomat. He was the Philippine Permament Representative to the United Nations from May 2003 to  February 2007. Prior to that, he was Foreign Affairs Undersecretary for Policy.)

Link to original story here.

Philippine claim to Sabah and Philippine law

Old Sultanate of Sulu flag

There is still a very poor understanding of what the Philippine Sabah claim is all about, it seems, even in the so-called educated class. I've just read comments in a thread somewhere spewed by someone who can recite some Wiki entry but still misses the point.

For instance, a well-known columnist for a Philippine broadsheet commented in a post by another columnist for another Philippine broadsheet the following:

(I will not name the said columnist to avoid embarassing him) "Sultanate might own it but that doesn't make it Philippine territory. No different from land owned by a Filipino family in Long Island - that's not Philippine territory. Do we send our troops to die for that?"

The comment of this columnist showed his total ignorance of where the Philippines is at in terms of the nation's Sabah claim. I was forced to butt in the conversation and told him about the law -- he did not comment any further because he was wrong: Sabah is, by Philippine law, a Philippine territory.

You see, Republic Acts 5522 and 5446 signed and passed in 1968 specify, stipulate that PH has acquired title and dominion over Sabah, hence, by law, it is PH territory albeit disputed and under de facto control of Malaysia. The law has not been abrogated, i.e., the RAs have not been repealed. So, even from a purely Philippine legal standpoint, Ph has the right to prosecute the claim. Sultanate or not, PH has contractual obligations to do it on behalf of the Republic. PH obligations were contracted based on the transfer of full sovereignty rights over Sabah by then Sultan Esmail Kiram 1 on 12 Sept 1962 which the Republic accepted through the government of President Diosdado Macapagal.

Now, in my view, the Republic is duty bound to raise the claim and to help in the recognition of the Sultanate of Sulu royal heirs (sultanate of Sulu contrary to some claim is not extinct) as proprietary right holders. It is actually as simple as that. Also, it is my conviction that the Philippine government cannot simply drop or relinquish the claim without violating the law that is if the law has not been repealed, which I am sure has not [been repealed]. It is as simple as that, sultanate or no sultanate.

~~ Admin AdB
for the Defenders of the Philippine Sabah and Spratly Claims
02 March 2013 or the 2nd Day of Infamy for the Republic's betrayal of the Suluks in Sabah

THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, A REPUBLIC ACT AND A PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE ON SABAH

HERE'S A 2008 MEMORANDUM NO. 162 EXECUTED BY MALACANANG ON GUIDELINES PERTAINING TO SABAH. UNLESS THIS MALACANANG DIRECTIVE HAS BEEN REVOKED BY THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION, THIS DIRECTIVE REMAINS IN PLACE: THE REPUBLIC DOES NOT OFFICIALLY RECOGNISE SABAH AS BELONGING TO ANY OTHER FOREIGN ENTITY OR COUNTRY; ALL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, CIVIL SERVANTS, EMPLOYEES, ARE FORBIDDEN TO SAY THAT SABAH BELONGS TO MALAYSIA.

IF EVER THERE IS ANY DOUBT THAT SABAH IS NOT RECOGNISED BY THE REPUBLIC AS A PHILIPPINE TERRITORY, WE SUGGEST THEY CONSULT REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5446, AN ACT THAT AMMENDED THE PREVIOUS REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3046 APPROVED ON 18SEPTEMBER 1968 WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THERE IS NO PREJUDICE TO THE "ANNEXATION" OF SABAH TO PHILIPPINES.

THIS REPUBLIC ACT HAS NOT BEEN ABROGATED AND REMAINS IN FORCE.

REPUBLIC ACT 5446 STIPULATES THAT IT 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."

CLEAR AND SIMPLE: THIS LAW DEFINES THE LEGAL "ANNEXATION OF SABAH" AND IS PART AND PARCEL OF OUR NATIONAL LAWS 

===============

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3046 

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9522 

Republic of the Philippines 

Congress of the Philippines 

Metro Manila 

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5446 

September 18, 1968 

AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION ONE OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED THIRTY HUNDRED AND FORTY-SIX, ENTITLED "AN ACT TO DEFINE THE BASELINES OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA OF THE PHILIPPINES" 

Section 1. To correct typographical errors, Sec. one of Republic Act numbered thirty hundred and forty-six is amended to read as follows: 

Section 1. The baselines for the territorial sea of the Philippines are hereby defined and described* specifically as follows:  

*NB: PLEASE SEE THE DIFFERENT LATITUDE, LONGTIDE AND AZIMUTH INDICATORS OF THE SCOPE OF TERRITORY OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES IN THE CHAN ROBLES LAW LIBRARY -- MUCH TOO LONG TO LIST THEM IN THIS POST. LINK:http://www.chanrobles.com/republicacts/republicactno5446.html#.USWXJh2-rMZ

Section 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. 

Section 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval. 

Approved: September 18, 1968

==================

NOTE: ANALOGY BY ADMIN APM, ONE OF THE ADMINS, WHO IS ALSO A LAW DEGREE HOLDER AND ACTS AS THE LEGAL ADVISER TO THE Defenders of the Philippine Sabah & Spratly Claims:

Section 1 defines and describes the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago, which rightly did not include Sabah because it is not a part of the archipelago, but a separate territory over which the Philippines have a sovereign right to, as clearly stated in Section 2.  

In addition, Section 2 expressly reserves the rights of the Philippines to delineate the baseline of the territorial sea around Sabah.  

Analogy: It's like saying in Section 1 -- this Act delineates and defines the boundaries of mainland USA. And Section 2 would then say -- The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of mainland USA as provided in this Act is without prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea around the territory of the states of Alaska and Hawaii over which the USA has acquired dominion and sovereignty.

=====================


FURTHERMORE, PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I - NATIONAL TERRITORY:
•The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas.

NOTE: "and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty" = MEANS THAT SABAH IS PART OF THE PHILIPPINES BECAUSE SOVEREIGNTY RIGHTS OVER SABAH WERE OFFICIALLY TRANSFERRED (signed and sealed) TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES BY THE SULTANATE OF SULU ON 12 SEPT 1962 DURING THE TERM OF PRESIDENT DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL LONG BEFORE THE 1987 CONSTITUTION WAS PROMULGATED. HENCE, SABAH HAS NOT BEEN EXCLUDED AT ALL FROM THE SCOPE OF PHIL NATIONAL TERRITORY UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION CONTRARY TO WHAT SOME BELIEVE. 


~~ Admins, Defenders of Philippine Sabah and Spratly Claims