Malaysia Peace Talks Pullout Linked to Sabah Claim?

Malaysia Peace Talks Pullout Linked to Sabah Claim?

Originally posted at wordpress.com by midfield

Is the reported Malaysian decision to “quit” the Mindanao peace talks and pull out its 41 peace keepers talks linked to the issue of the Philippine’s’ long-standing claim to North Borneo, known as the Malaysian State of Sabah?

We cannot help but raise this question, given that the Sultanate of Sulu and Sabah has now launched a website asserting its claim, http://www.royalsulu.com/issues.html. There is also a revealing report made by Al Jazeera television that “as many as eight people are claiming to be the “legitimate” Sultan of Sulu and Sabah. Here’s the YouTube link to the report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVwErDFfRno”

Former U. P. College of Law dean Merlin Magallona reports that “The present Baseline Law, Republic Act No. 3046 of 1961, was amended by Republic Act No. 5446 of 1968. Section 2 of the present Baseline Law provides that “The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Act [Rep. Act No. 5446] 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. (Emphasis added).

But despite this clear mandate of the law ,Dean Magallona notes that “House Bill No. 3216 (with Congressman Antonio V. Cuenco as principal author) and its counterpart in the Senate (S. No. 1467, with Senator Trillanes as principal author) has deliberately eliminated Section 2 of Rep. Act. No. 5446 in reference to Philippine sovereignty over Sabah, as shown in the deliberations of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on 20 November 2007.”

The eminent professor, and acknowledged expert on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) warns that “in effect, if the Cuenco bill would be enacted into law, it would operate as repeal of the Sabah provision of the present Baseline Law. It would easily be interpreted as an abdication of Sabah as part of Philippine territory.”

Magallona goes on to reveal that “In place of the Sabah provision, the Cuenco Bill contains a “without prejudice clause” which provides: “The delineation of baselines as provided in this Act shall be without prejudice to any claims to any contested portions of the national territory or maritime zones and jurisdictions of the Philippines in accordance with international law and under appropriate international dispute resolution mechanisms.” (Emphasis added)

According to Dean Magallona “the clear and disastrous implication of the Cuenco bill is that it radically changed the status of Sabah in reference to the interest of the Republic from the unequivocal affirmation of Philippine sovereignty and dominion over Sabah under the present Baseline La wto a mere statement of claim to a contested portion of the national territory to be settled by some international dispute resolution mechanism under the Cuenco bill, resulting in the derogation of Philippine sovereignty over Sabah.”

Magallona, a former undersecretary in the Dept. of Foreign Affairs, “the present Baseline Law is the only articulation of Philippine sovereignty over Sabah by legislative will.”
“It is the only authoritative pronouncement of territorial sovereignty of the Philippines with respect to Sabah, “ Magallogna points out

“So much so that when the Philippines presented oral arguments before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its Application for Permission to Intervene in the Case Concerning Sovereignty Over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan between Malaya and Indonesia in 2001, it relied crucially on Section 2 of Republic Act No. 5446, as quoted above.”

“Even as the Philippines did not succeed in its intervention, the ICJ made it clear in its judgment that “it remains cognizant of the position stated by … the Philippines in the present proceedings,” according the the international law expert.

For the first time ever, on account of this intervention case, “the Philippine sovereignty over Sabah was demonstrated in the proceedings of the highest tribunal of the international community based inter alia on the strength of legislative proclamation of the Republic’s sovereignty over Sabah as provided in the present Baseline Law, which the Cuenco Bill now seeks to repudiate.”

It is a historical fact that North Borneo had been ‘leased in perpetuity’ by the Sultanate of Sulu to the British East India Company which then turned over the territory when the Federation of Malaya was formed in 1963. Such action has been described by the heirs of Sultan Jamalul Kiram as a blatant violation of the terms of the lease.

While Malaysian has effectively retained full control over Sabah, it is also on record that as recent as 2003 it has been paying “cession” fees to the Sultanate, based on notices transmitted by the Malaysian embassy in Manila. It is also asserted that under international law that the term ‘perpetuity’ is reckoned legally as lasting a period of 99 years. If this is so, then simple arithmetic would indicate that the lease has, in fact, expired. (At least one account on the Internet indicates the lease is 130 years past due.)

The website of the Sultanate of Sulu and Sabah asserts that at the very least, with Malaysia supposedly earning up to 100 billion dollars per year from the exploitation of the area’s rich natural resources (this figure is unverified), the sultanate would, by its own estimates, be entitled to a share of some 10 billion dollars, a huge amount the the sultanate says could go to uplifting the lives of the people of Sulu.

Draw your conclusions.