Reason & Concern

Ronquillo C. Tolentino

The Sabah Standoff

The Sabah standoff which started on February 12, 2013 in Tanduao village in the Sabah town of Lahad Datu had already claimed 63 lives. As a consequence, the United Nations through Secretary General  Ban Kimoon called upon the parties for a peaceful resolution. He also expressed concern on the impact of violence to the civilian population and migrants in the region.  

As I write this, Malaysian Foreign Minister Anifa Aman had been reported to have  boldly announced in the state-run radio the adamant stand of the Malaysian government to negotiate a peaceful  end to the Sabah crisis.

Documentary evidence and historical titles would show the strong claim of the Philippine government to Sabah.

As a brief backgrounder, the Sultan of Sulu became ruler of northern Borneo through a cession from the Sultan of Brunei in recognition and gratitude to the help of the Sultan of Sulu in putting an end to a rebellion in 1704. In January 1878, Baron von Overbeck negotiated with the Sultan of Sulu for the lease of Sabah.  Questions on the lease of Sabah came in 1936 when the Sultan of Sulu died.   

                                                          

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, in a speech he delivered   on September 30, 2002 before the University of the East, College of Arts and Sciences symposium said: “The contract which carried the date of January 1878, was drafted by Overbeck and written in the Malaysian language in Arabic characters. The contract used the Malaysian word “padjak” to described the nature of the agreed transaction. The British and Malaysian claimed the word  “padjak” meant “sale or cession” and not “lease”. But scholars and Spanish documents translated the word “padjak” to mean the English word “lease” or the Spanish word “arrendamiento”.

Early on December 18, 1939, the High Court of the State of Borneo declared in a decision in Civil Suit No. 169/39, through a decision statement of Chief Justice C.F.C. Mackaskie that the heirs of the sultan were legally entitled the payment for North Borneo, “which the decision calls “cession payment” on the basis of an English translation by Maxwell and Gibson”. Although an obiter dictum opinion, Mackaskie categorically stated that the  Philippine government is the successor-in-sovereignty to the Sultanate of Sulu.

With the signing of the Federation of Malaya Act on July 31, 1957 as a sovereign country within the British Commonwealth came the termination  by the Sultan of Sulu  of the Overbeck and Dent lease effective January 22, 1958. When Peninsular Malaya was granted independence    on August 31, 1957, it included North Borneo (Sabah) in the concept and as part of Malaysia on May 27, 1961. This forced President Diosdado Macapagal to initiate the filing of the Philippine claim in North Borneo (Sabah). On April 24, 1962, the Heirs of the Sultan of Sulu ceded sovereignty over Sabah to the Philippine government. 

Actually, this was followed on September 12, l962 when the Sultan of Sulu ceded all rights, proprietary title, dominion and sovereignty to the Republic of the Philippines. I recall the resolution (Resolution No. 321) on February 5, l962 filed by Rep. Godofredo P. Ramos of Aklan stating among others, thus: “It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the claim to North Borneo is legal and valid”. The resolution was unanimously adopted even as it urged President Macapagal to taking concrete and necessary steps for the recovery of North Borneo (Sabah). Then Vice-President Emmanuel Pelaez addressed the United Nations General Assembly on September 27, l962 asserting the Philippine claim to Sabah to be valid and legal and historical grounds. Pelaez emphasized that the claim has been put forward with the sincere assurance of the Philippines’ desire that the issue be settled by peaceful means.

Notwithstanding the Manila Accord on August 5, l963 on the policy agreement signing by  the Federation of Malaya, the Philippines  and Indonesia  (MAPHILINDO) to peacefully resolve the issue on North Borneo coupled with a joint communique by the foreign ministers of the  three countries on August 5, 1963 that the inclusion of North Borneo in the Federation of Malaya would not  prejudice the Philippine claim. Malaysia rejected the Philippine claim on July 17, l968 during the Bangkok talks. The Malaysian government, speaking through its foreign minister, stated that the position of his government is that” the Philippines has no claim at all, that there is nothing to settle, and there is nothing to talk about.”

In the 23rd session of the United Nations General Assembly on October 15, 1968, when the Philippine delegation declared its policy statement to bring the issue to the World Court, consistent with the Manila Accord agreement, Malaysia stated that the people of Sabah had shown their desire to be with the Federation of Malaysia ending that there is no Philippine claim and therefore nothing to discuss.

So many events have then transpired. The Supreme Court, in its decision in G.R. 187167, July 16, 2011 in upholding the baseline law stated that R.A. 9522 did not repeal R.A. 5466 and that, therefore, the Philippine claim over Sabah is retained and can be pursued. The decision further states that Section 2 of  RA 5466, which RA 9522 did not repeal, keeps open the door for drawing the baseline of Sabah.  That said section states:” The definition of the baseline of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago is without prejudice to the delineation of the baseline of the territory around the territory of Sabah situated in North Borneo over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty.” 

The landing of the followers of Jamal Kiram on a Sabah village on February 12, 2013 should be peacefully settled and resolved by the Philippines with the Malaysian government without abdicating the Philippines’ peaceful claim to Sabah. /MP