Understanding the Sabah dispute

To understand (1) the claim of the Sultan of Sulu over Sabah, (2) the standoff in
Lahad Datu town in Sabah, (3) the stand-down admonition of President Aquino
directing the followers of Sultan Jamalul Kiram III led by his brother Datu Raja Muda
Agbimuddin Kiram to withdraw and return peacefully to the Philippines, and (4) the
enforcement actions of the Malaysian authorities that sadly resulted in death and
injury, I think it is best to begin by discussing the concepts of sovereignty and
ownership.
Sovereignty is the perpetual and absolute power of a state (not of an individual) to
command obedience within its territory. This power is manifested through the state’s
constitution and laws, and is enforced by governmental agencies and officials. When
needed, the state’s military and police forces can be called to back this enforcement.
Sovereignty has external and internal aspects, external being the state’s ability to act
without foreign intervention. It is often equated with independence. Internal
sovereignty refers to the power of the state to rule within its borders and to govern
both citizens (at home and abroad) and aliens staying in its territory. In the exercise of
internal sovereignty, it maintains peace and order, fixes the relationships of people,
and governs the rights to own properties situated within its borders.

Ownership, on the other hand, has a limited scope. It generally refers to the right to
control a thing (including land), especially its possession, use, disposition and
recovery. Ownership rights, especially over land and natural resources, are controlled
and regulated by the state.
Sultan’s claim. In brief, the Sultan of Sulu claims ownership, not sovereignty, over a
huge tract of land called Sabah. He alleges that his forebears leased the property to the
British North Borneo Company, which in turn ceded its leasehold rights to Malaysia.
Up to now, rentals for the property are paid the sultan.
In 1963, after an alleged referendum showing that the residents did not want to be part
of the Philippines or of the Sultanate of Sulu, Malaysia incorporated Sabah as part of
its national territory. Since that time, Malaysia has exercised sovereignty over the
area, keeping peace and order, regulating the relations among the people, and
governing the ownership, possession and enjoyment of property rights.
Obviously, then, the sultan’s claim is subject to the sovereign power of Malaysia and
Malaysian laws. The stealthy entry of the sultan’s followers into Sabah violated
Malaysian immigration and other laws; hence, they could be held accountable by
Malaysian authorities. Even assuming that as proof of ownership, rentals are being
paid in perpetuity, the sultan, as lessor, cannot deprive Malaysia, as lessee, of its
possessory rights by force and illegal entry.
Since the sultan and his followers are Filipino citizens, the Philippines started
diplomatic initiatives with Malaysia to secure their safety and wellbeing, and to
enable them to leave Sabah voluntarily and peacefully.
However, as such citizens, they may be held answerable, after the observance of due
process, for violations of Philippine laws. The Department of Justice is reportedly
poised to investigate them for “inciting to war, or giving motives for reprisals; illegal
possession of firearms; illegal assembly” and other crimes.
If, say, a Malaysian sultan is granted ownership rights by a past colonizer of the
Philippines (like Spain) over a vast tract of land in Mindanao, the armed followers of
that Malaysian sultan cannot just cross Philippine borders and occupy such property
without the permission of the Philippines, regardless of whether Malaysia or the
sultan has pending claims of sovereignty or ownership. By parity of reasoning, the
Philippine government, in the exercise of its sovereignty, can take immigration,
ejectment and other enforcement actions.
Philippine claim. During the term of President Diosdado Macapagal—in the 1960s, at
about the same time that Malaysia took over Sabah—the Philippines asserted a
sovereign claim over the property, then known as North Borneo. Since then, however,
the claim has largely remained dormant.

The Philippine Constitution “renounces war as an instrument of national policy,

adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the
land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and
amity with all nations.”
Moreover, the United Nations Charter (Art. 51) obligates its members, including the
Philippines, to settle international disputes only by peaceful means—that is, by
negotiation, good offices, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial
settlement in the International Court of Justice, resort to regional agencies or
arrangements, and other peaceful methods. The Philippines cannot employ war or
other nonpeaceful ways to resolve the dispute.
To conclude, I believe the Philippines should continue pressing its sovereign claim via
the peaceful methods I mentioned. Meanwhile, the Sultanate of Sulu should abandon
nonlegal methods and respect the actual and existing sovereignty of Malaysia. If the
sultan so desires, he may avail himself of the internal legal processes there to validate
his ownership claims.
Should the Philippines succeed in its peaceful quest, then the sultan may continue his
ownership claims in the Philippines pursuant to Philippine laws. This, I think, is the
peaceful and legal way of settling the dispute.
North Borneo dispute
The North Borneo dispute is the territorial dispute between the Federation of Malaysia and
the Republic of the Philippines over much of the eastern part of the state of Sabah, a territory known
as North Borneo prior to the formation of the Malaysian federation. The Philippines, presenting itself as
the successor state of theSultanate of Sulu, retains a "dormant claim" on Sabah on the basis that the
territory was only leased to theBritish North Borneo Company in 1878, with the sovereignty of the
Sultanate (and subsequently the Republic) over the territory never having been
relinquished.[2] However, Malaysia considers this dispute as a "non-issue" as it interprets the 1878
agreement as that of cession[3] and that it deems that the residents of Sabah had exercised their right
to self-determination when they joined to form the Malaysian federation in 1963.[4]

1878 Agreement
On 22 January 1878, the Sultanate of Sulu and a British commercial syndicate made up of Alfred
Dent and Baron von Overbeck signed an agreement, which, depending on the translation used,
stipulated that North Borneo was either ceded or leased to the British syndicate in return for a payment
of 5,000 Malayan dollars per year.[7][8]

The 1878 agreement was written in Malay using the Jawi script, in which the contentious wordings are
as follows:

sudah kuredhai pajakan dengan keredhaan dan kesukaan kita sendiri kepada tuan Gustavus Baron von
Overbeck yang tinggal dalam negeri Hong Kong dan kepada Alfred Dent Esquire yang tinggal dalam
negeri London... sampai selama-lamanya sekalian perintah dan kuasa yang kita punya yang takluk
kepada kita di tanah besar Pulau Borneo dari Sungai Pandasan di sebelah barat sampai sepanjang
semua tanah di pantai sebelah timur sejauh Sungai Sibuku di sebelah selatan.[9]
The keyword in the agreement is the ambiguous term pajakan, a Malay term which was translated by
Spanish linguists in 1878 and by American anthropologists H. Otley Beyer and Harold Conklin in 1946 as
"arrendamiento" or "lease".[10][11][12]However, the British used the interpretation of historian Najeeb
Mitry Saleeby in 1908 and William George Maxwell and William Summer Gibson in 1924, which
translated pajak as "grant and cede".[13][14][15][16] It can be argued however, that "pajakan" means
"mortgage" or "pawn" or even "wholesale", as per the contemporary meaning of "pajakan" in Sulu and
Malay.[17][18] Furthermore, the term "selama-lama" which means "forever" or "in perpetuity" indicate a
binding effect beyond the lifetime of the then Sultan. The ambiguity led to the different interpretation
of the original Malay text, as shown in two versions below:

British version

“ ...hereby grant and cede of our own free and sovereign will to Gustavus Baron de Overbeck of
Hong Kong and Alfred Dent Esquire of London...and assigns for ever and in perpetuity all the
rights and powers belonging to us over all the territories and lands being tritutary to us on the
mainland of the island of Borneo commencing from the Pandassan River on the north-west coast
and extending along the whole east coast as far as the Sibuco River in the south...[13]

Sulu version

“ ...do hereby lease of our own freewill and satisfaction to...all the territories and lands being
tributary to [us] together with their heirs, associates, successors and assigns forever and until
the end of time, all rights and powers which we possess over all territories and lads tributary to
us on the mainland of the Island of Borneo, commencing from the Pandassan River on the west
coast to Maludu Bay, and extending along the whole east coast as far as Sibuco River on the
south...[10]

However, it is acknowledged that the British never paid such compensation to the Sultanate of Sulu but
during a meeting of Maphilindo between the Philippine, Malayan and Indonesian governments in 1963,
the Philippine government said the Sultan of Sulu wanted the payment of 5,000 from the Malaysian
government.[19]The first Malaysian Prime Minister at the time, Tunku Abdul Rahman said he would go
back to Kuala Lumpur and get on the request.[19] Since then, the Malaysian Embassy in the Philippines
issues a check in the amount of 5,300 ringgit (US$1710 or about 77,000 Philippine pesos) to the legal
counsel of the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu. Malaysia considers the amount an annual “cession” payment
for the land, while the sultan’s descendants consider it “rent”.[20]

The foregoing Sulu claim rests on the treaty signed by Sultan Jamalul Alam of Sulu appointing Baron de
Overbeck as Dato Bendahara and Raja Sandakan on 22 January 1878. However, a further, earlier treaty
signed by Sultan Abdul Momin of Brunei appointed Baron de Overbeck as the Maharaja Sabah, Rajah
Gaya and Sandakan. This was signed on 29 December 1877, and granted the territories of Paitan as far
as the Sibuco River,[21] which overlaps the Sulu Sultanate's claim of their dominion in Sabah. In 1877, the
Brunei Sultanate still believed and maintained that the territory was under its control.[6]
Madrid Protocol
As attested to by the International Court of Justice, the Sultan of Sulu relinquished the sovereign rights
over all his possessions in favour of Spain, based on the "Bases of Peace and Capitulation" signed by the
Sultan of Sulu and the crown of Spain in Jolo on 22 July 1878.[22] The Sultan stayed on as ruler in
protectorate status.[23]

In 1885, Great Britain, Germany and Spain signed the Madrid Protocol to cement Spanish influence over
the islands of the Philippines. In the same agreement, Spain relinquished all claims to North Borneo
which had belonged to the Sultanate in the past in favour of Great Britain.[24]

The Spanish Government renounces, as far as regards the British Government, all claims of sovereignty
over the territories of the continent of Borneo, which belong, or which have belonged in the past to the
Sultan of Sulu (Jolo), and which comprise the neighbouring islands of Balambangan, Banguey, and
Malawali, as well as all those comprised within a zone of three maritime leagues from the coast, and
which form part of the territories administered by the Company styled the "British North Borneo
Company".

— Article III, Madrid Protocol of 1885

1903 Confirmation of Cession of certain island
On 22 April 1903, the successor of Sultan Jamalul Alam, Sultan Jamalul Kiram II, signed a document
known as "Confirmation of cession of certain islands", under which he grant and ceded additional
islands, in addition to the land agreed upon in 1878, in the vicinity of the mainland of North Borneo
from Banggi Island to Sibuku Bay to British North Borneo Company.[25]

In the 1903 agreement, the ambiguous term "pajakan" was no longer used, but instead the phrase "kita
telah keredhai menyerahkan kepada pemerintah British North Borneo" which literally means "we have
willingly surrendered to the Government of British North Borneo" was used in the agreement, asserting
the understanding of the Sulu Sultanate of that time of the meaning of the earlier agreement in 1878.[26]

The confirmatory deed of 1903 makes it known and understood between the two parties that the
islands mentioned were included in the cession of the districts and islands mentioned in 22 January
1878 agreement. Additional cession money was set at 300 dollars a year with arrears due for past
occupation of 3,200 dollars. The originally agreed 5,000 dollars increased to 5,300 dollars per year
payable annually.[27][28][29][note 1]

Macaskie decision of 1939

In 1939, propriety claimants Dayang Dayang Hadji Piandao and eight other heirs filed a civil suit
regarding the "cession money" payable to the heirs of Sultan of Sulu –the then incumbent Jamalul Kiram
II having died childless in June 1936. Chief Justice C. F. C. Macaskie of the High Court of North Borneo
ruled on the share entitlement of each claimant.[30]

This ruling has often been quoted by proponents of the Sulu Sultanate's claim as proof of North
Borneo's acknowledgment of the sultan's ownership of the territory, although it was made solely to
determine who as heir was entitled to the "cession money" of 5,300 Malaysian ringgit per year.
Philippine claim
The Sultanate of Sulu was granted the north-eastern part of the territory as a prize for helping the Sultan
of Brunei against his enemies in 1658. However, on 22 July 1878, the Sultanate of Sulu relinquished the
sovereign rights over all his possessions in favour ofSpain, based on the "Bases of Peace and
Capitulation" signed by the Sultan of Sulu and Spain in Jolo. The Spanish then claimed the area in
northern Borneo but ending its claim soon under the Madrid Protocol of 1885 after the United
Kingdom and Germany recognised its presence in the Philippine archipelago in return for the Spanish to
stop interfering the British affairs in northern Borneo.[24] Once the protocol had been ratified, the British
North Borneo Chartered company proceeded with the administration of North Borneo, and in 1888,
North Borneo became a British protectorate.[32]

On 15 July 1946, the North Borneo Cession Order in Council, 1946, declared that the State of North
Borneo is annexed to the British Crown, hence becoming a British colony.[33] In September 1946, F. B.
Harrison, former American Governor-General of the Philippines, urged the Philippine Government to
protest this proclamation. America posited the claim on the premise that Spain had never acquired
sovereignty over North Borneo, and thus did not have the right to transfer claims of sovereignty over
North Borneo to the United Kingdom in the Madrid Protocol of 1885.[34] This argument however,
contradicts the treaty made between Spain and the Sultanate of Sulu in 1878, which expressly states
that all of the territory of the Sultanate of Sulu is relinquished to Spain. Furthermore, the American view
may be based on an erroneous interpretation of that part of the 1878 and the earlier 1836 treaties, that
excluded North Borneo from the Sulu transfer to Spanish sovereignty (when in fact the exclusion merely
referred to Spanish protection offered to the Sultan of Sulu in case he was attacked). The United States
based government also refused to intervene in the dispute, officially maintaining a neutral stance on the
matter and continuing to recognise Sabah as part of Malaysia.[35]

On 12 September 1962, during President Diosdado Macapagal's administration, the Philippine

government claimed the territory ofNorth Borneo, and the full sovereignty, title and dominion over it
were "ceded" by the heirs of Sultan of Sulu, Muhammad Esmail E. Kiram I, to the Philippines.[37] The
Philippines broke off diplomatic relations with Malaysia after the federation was formed with Sabah in
1963, but probably resumed relations unofficially through the Manila Accord, in which the Philippines
made it clear that its position on the inclusion of North Borneo in the Federation of Malaysia was subject
to the final outcome of the Philippine claim to North Borneo. The representatives of Indonesia and the
Federation of Malaya seconded that the inclusion of North Borneo into the aforementioned Federation
"would not prejudice either the claim or any right thereunder".[38] It was revealed later in 1968 that
President Ferdinand Marcos was training a team of militants on Corregidor known as Operation
Merdeka for infiltration into Sabah.[39] The plan failed as a result of the Jabidah
massacre.[40][41] Diplomatic ties were resumed in 1989 and succeeding Philippine administrations have
placed the claim in abeyance in the interests of pursuing cordial economic and security relations
with Kuala Lumpur.[citation needed]

Republic Act 5446 in the Philippines, which took effect on 18 September 1968, regards Sabah as a
territory "over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty".[42] On 16
July 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the Philippine claim over Sabah is retained and may be pursued
in the future.[43] To date, Malaysia maintains that the Sabah claim is a non-issue and non-negotiable,
thereby rejecting any calls from the Philippines to resolve the matter in ICJ. Sabah authorities stated in
2009 that they see the claim made by the Philippines' Moro leader Nur Misuari to take Sabah to
International Court of Justice (ICJ) as a non-issue and that they dismiss the claim.[44]
Formation of Malaysia
Prior to the formation of the Malaysia, two commissions of enquiry visited North Borneo, along with
neighbouring Sarawak, to establish the state of public opinion there regarding merger with Malaya (and
Singapore). The commission was mandated to address self-determination of the people of Sabah, i.e.,
the right of the people of Sabah to freely determine their own political status and freely pursue their
own economic, social and cultural development. The first commission, usually known as the Cobbold
Commissionwas established by the Malayan and British governments and was headed by Lord Cobbold,
along with two representatives of Malaya and Britain (but neither of the territories under investigation).
The Commission found that 'About one third of the population of each territory [i.e. of North Borneo
and of Sarawak] strongly favours early realisation of Malaysia without too much concern over terms and
conditions. Another third, many of them favourable to the Malaysia project, ask, with varying degrees of
emphasis, for conditions and safeguards. The remaining third is divided between those who insist upon
independence before Malaysia is considered and those who would strongly prefer to see British rule
continue for some years to come'.[46] The Commission published its report on 1 August 1962 and had
made several recommendations. Unlike in Singapore, however, no referendum was ever conducted in
North Borneo and Sarawak.[47]

Indonesia and the Philippines rejected the findings of the Cobbold Commission. In 1963, a tripartite
meeting was held in Manila between Indonesian president Sukarno, Philippines president Diosdado
Macapagal and Malayan Prime MinisterTunku Abdul Rahman. The three heads of state signed an
agreement known as the Manila Accord, which stipulated that the inclusion of North Borneo as part of
Malaysia would not prejudice either the claim or any right thereunder by the Philippines to the territory.
It was further agreed to petition the UN to send another commission of enquiry and the Philippines and
Indonesia agreed to drop their objection to the formation of Malaysia if the new commission found
popular opinion in the territories in favour.

The UN Mission to Borneo was thus established, comprising members of the UN Secretariat
from Argentina, Brazil, Ceylon,Czechoslovakia, Ghana, Pakistan, Japan and Jordan.[48] The Mission's
report, authored by UN Secretary-General U Thant found ‘a sizeable majority of the people' in favour of
joining Malaysia.[49][50] Indonesia and the Philippines subsequently rejected the report's findings – and
Indonesia continued its semi-military policy of konfrontasi towards Malaysia.[51][52] The "referendum" did
not involve the entire population of North Borneo and Sarawak at that time, but only representative
consultations.[53] The UN mission report noted "(t)here was no reference to a referendum or plebiscite in
the request..." and that "(t)he Mission accordingly arranged for consultations with the population
through the elected representatives of the people, leaders of political parties and other groups and
organisations, and with all persons who were willing to express their views".[54][55]
Related events
In 2002, in a case concerning sovereignty over Ligitan and Sipadan islands between Indonesia and
Malaysia, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in favour of Malaysia.[56] The two islands are
located in the Celebes Sea off the northeast coast of Borneo. The case was decided based on
Malaysia's effectivités (evidence of possession and use by a particular state that is effective to claim
title) on the two islands as both Indonesia and Malaysia did not possess treaty-based titles on Ligitan
and Sipadan.[57]

The Philippines applied to intervene in the case based on its territorial claim to North Borneo. Indonesia
objected to the application and stated that the "Philippines raises no claim with respect to [the two
islands] and maintains that the legal status of North Borneo is not a matter on which the Court has been
asked to rule". Malaysia further contended that "the issue of sovereignty over Ligitan and Sipadan is
completely independent of that of the status of North Borneo" and that "the territorial titles are
different in the two cases".[57] The application was ultimately rejected by the ICJ because of the non-
existence of an "interest of legal nature" such that the Court did not find how the decision on the case
concerning the two islands would affect the Philippines' territorial claim to North Borneo.[58][59]

2013 Standoff
On 11 February 2013, a group of approximately 100–200 individuals, some of them armed, arrived by
boat in Lahad Datu, Sabah from Simunul island, Tawi-Tawi in the southern Philippines.[60] They were sent
by Jamalul Kiram III, one of the claimants to the throne of the Sultanate of Sulu. Their objective was to
assert their unresolved territorial claim to North Borneo. During the ensuing standoff, 56 of his followers
were killed, along with 6 civilians and 10 Malaysian security forces.[61][62][63][64]
PH, Malaysia put Sabah
dispute on 'back burner'

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and Malaysian Prime Minister Najib

Razak have agreed to set aside the two countries’ dispute over Sabah, said
Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay.
Yasay said the two leaders agreed not to discuss the issue during their
bilateral meeting, saying it was not the proper venue.
Yasay explained, both leaders felt it was not a good idea to tackle the issue at
the bilateral meeting as it would take time to settle the dispute.
He said the two leaders have instead agreed to explore the other aspects of
the two neighbors’ relations.
Before his departure for Malaysia, Duterte said discussing the Sabah dispute
during his two-day Malaysia visit was not his priority.
“Not at this time because my visit is just one day, to focus on what is
happening in the Malacca Strait,” referring to the increasingly frequent
kidnappings of Abu Sayyaf Group of Indonesians, Malaysians, and tourists.
Prior to formally assuming the presidency, then President-elect Duterte said
the Philippines under his administration will pursue its Sabah claim “but only
by peaceful means," since "we don’t have the luxury of getting in trouble, we
cannot afford it.”
The Philippines stakes its claim to Sabah by citing an 1878 land lease
agreement between the Sultanate of Sulu and the British North Borneo
Chartered Co.
The Philippines maintains that the agreement was only for leasing the land
and did not render Sabah part of Malaysia when it was formed into a
federation in 1963. – report from Doris Bigornia, ABS-CBN News

The claim to Sabah: A

historical perspective
MANILA, Philippines -- The issue of who rightfully owns North Borneo, or
Sabah as people has come to know it, stems all the way back to the 1600s,
Presidential Communications Development and Strategic Planning Office
(PCDSPO) Undersecretary Manuel "Manolo" Quezon III said.
Speaking with Mornings@ANC on Thursday, Quezon shared a timeline of key
events that he had compiled on Sabah's history to help shed light on the long-
standing Sabah claim issue.

He, however, clarified that the timeline, which starts at the 1640s, is not an
official position paper of the Philippine government.
Quezon said historical documents show that the Sultanate of Sulu, which
controlled the Sulu islands in the Muslim southern Philippines, indeed owned
a part of Borneo, including Sabah.
During the 1700s, the Sultan of Brunei transferred a piece of its land under the
control of the Sulu sultanate. Around 1800 to 1850, the Sultan of Sulu then
gave a part of its land to another sultan who gave it away to the Dutch.
Indonesia, as a successor to the Dutch, later owned the land.
The Sulu sultanate then "lost" its remaining land, which was later named
Sabah, during the period of European colonialism in 1878 after it was either
leased or sold to a British trading company, which remains a controversy up to
now.
He clarified, however, that under the current arrangement, the heirs of the
Sultanate still receive annual payments from Malaysia.
"This was all property of the Sultan of Brunei and at a certain point, he gave a
big chunk of what he owned in his part of Borneo to the Sultan of Sulu. The
Sultan of Sulu, in turn...sort of put a chunk under the control of another sultan
who promptly gave it away to the Dutch," he said.
He added: "Then again in 1878, he had the remaining chunk and the whole
controversy is whether he leased it or sold it to a company called the British
North Borneo Company (BNBC)... This is what we know as Sabah basically."
End to the existence of Sulu sultanate as a country
Quezon said when the United States of America took over the Philippines, the
Sultanate of Sulu, under The Carpenter Treaty, agreed to give up its
sovereign rights over Sulu provided that the sultan would still be recognized
as the "spiritual leader" of the Muslims.
"In the end, the Americans took over the Philippines and in 1915, there was
an agreement that put an end to the existence of the Sultanate of Sulu as a
country."
"Basically, what the Sultan of Sulu accepted...was 'I recognize the sovereignty
of the United States and in exchange, I get some property, an allowance and I
am recognized as the spiritual leader of the Muslims in my old territories,'" he
said.
Quezon said the Sabah controversy this time emerged anew as the sultan
only mentioned giving up his sovereign rights over Sulu.
"What about his claim on [Sabah] by which at this time was under the control
of the British?"
He noted that in 1888, Britain declared BNBC as a protectorate and later
handed it over to the new nation of Malaysia in 1963.
Title of Sultan of Sulu disputed among heirs
Quezon also noted that another problem arose when Sultan Jamalul Kiram II,
"the last uncontested sultan," died in 1936. He said the title of Sultan of Sulu
was disputed among the heirs for over 10 years.
"The heirs were fighting among themselves and couldn't agree on who will be
the actual sultan," he said.
The dispute was only settled in 1950 when Esmail Kiram was crowned Sultan
of Sulu.
In 1962, Sultan Esmail then asserted their ownership of Sabah and decided to
give up their sovereign rights to the Philippines but reserved to the heirs of the
Sultanate their rights over income from lease payments, which at that time
was coming from the Malaysian government.
In 1963, the Philippine government, under then President Diosdado
Macapagal started laying out its claim over Sabah.
Constitution, Baseline Law
In 1968, Republic Act 5446 was signed into law. The Baseline Law includes
"the territory of Sabah, situated in North Borneo, over which the Republic of
the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty."
The 1973 Philippine Constitution also defined the country's territory to include
"all the other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic or legal title."
In 1977, the Malaysian government asked the Philippines, under then
President Ferdinand Marcos, to give up its claim on Sabah. The Malaysia
wanted the Philippine government to eliminate the clause on "historic title" in
its constitution and repeal RA 5446.
The 1987 Constitution then defined the Philippine territory to include "all the
other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction."
Quezon said that while the Philippines did take out the "historical title" phrase,
it was unclear whether the government had already given up its claim on the
disputed territory.
RA 5446 (Baselines Law) was also amended in 2009, but a Supreme Court
decision said Republic 9522 or The Baselines Law still did not relinquish the
Philippine claim to Sabah,
Title of Sultan of Sulu disputed anew
When the last acknowledged Sultan Mahakutta Kiram, who reigned after his
father Esmail's death in 1974, died in 1986, the title of Sultan of Sulu was
again disputed among heirs.
Quezon said with many of the heirs claiming to be the rightful Sultan of Sulu,
the Philippine government was left in a "quandary".
"Until it can be resolved among themselves, it leaves the government in a
quandary," he said.
Quezon noted that in traditional cultures, the saying that "majority rules" does
not apply. "The elders must have a unified voice. That is how you maintain
both the prestige and authority."
"You need to have an understanding among everyone involved. If one or two
or a group say no, then you're back to square one... That is the whole basis of
you don't elect them, they don't run for office. It has to be the semblance of
unity of the elders is maintained," he added.
He said Jamalul Kiram III, whose followers have been engaged in a standoff
with Malaysian authorities for over three weeks now, is only one among the
claimants of the title of Sultan of Sulu. Jamalul's brother, cousin, and nephew
are also claimants to the sultan title.
Some 180 members of the Sulu royal army, led by Jamalul's brother, entered
Lahad Datu town last February 12 to insist on the Philippines’ proprietary and
sovereign rights over Sabah. As of posting, Malaysian security forces were
still hunting them down. Eight Malaysian police and at least 50 of Jamalul's
followers have been killed in clashes which began Friday last week.