property

to the British North Borneo Company, which in turn ceded its

Understanding the leasehold rights to Malaysia. Up to now, rentals for the property are paid the
sultan.

Sabah dispute
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
By: Artemio V. Panganiban - @inquirerdotnet
of property rights.
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 11:58 PM March 02, 2013

Obviously, then, the sultan’s claim is subject to the sovereign power of
To understand (1) the claim of the Sultan of Sulu over Sabah, (2) the standoff
Malaysia and Malaysian laws. The stealthy entry of the sultan’s followers into
in Lahad Datu town in Sabah, (3) the stand-down admonition of President
Sabah violated Malaysian immigration and other laws; hence, they could be
Aquino directing the followers of Sultan Jamalul Kiram III led by his brother
held accountable by Malaysian authorities. Even assuming that as proof of
Datu Raja Muda Agbimuddin Kiram to withdraw and return peacefully to the
ownership, rentals are being paid in perpetuity, the sultan, as lessor, cannot
Philippines, and (4) the enforcement actions of the Malaysian authorities that
deprive Malaysia, as lessee, of its possessory rights by force and illegal entry.
sadly resulted in death and injury, I think it is best to begin by discussing the
concepts of sovereignty and ownership.
Since the sultan and his followers are Filipino citizens, the Philippines started
diplomatic initiatives with Malaysia to secure their safety and wellbeing, and
Sovereignty is the perpetual and absolute power of a state (not of an
individual) to command obedience within its territory. This power is to enable them to leave Sabah voluntarily and peacefully.
manifested through the state’s constitution and laws, and is enforced by
governmental agencies and officials. When needed, the state’s military and However, as such citizens, they may be held answerable, after the observance
police forces can be called to back this enforcement. 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
ADVERTISEMENT
crimes.
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 If, say, a Malaysian sultan is granted ownership rights by a past colonizer of
within its borders and to govern both citizens (at home and abroad) and the Philippines (like Spain) over a vast tract of land in Mindanao, the armed
aliens staying in its territory. In the exercise of internal sovereignty, it followers of that Malaysian sultan cannot just cross Philippine borders and
maintains peace and order, fixes the relationships of people, and governs the occupy such property without the permission of the Philippines, regardless of
rights to own properties situated within its borders. 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
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, actions.
disposition and recovery. Ownership rights, especially over land and natural
resources, are controlled and regulated by the state. 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.
Sultan’s claim. In brief, the Sultan of Sulu claims ownership, not sovereignty,
Since then, however, the claim has largely remained dormant.
over a huge tract of land called Sabah. He alleges that his forebears leased the
1
 ADVERTISEMENT
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.

* * *