Category Archives: Self-determination

The deplorable Philippine government response to the Sabah standoff

Statement of the Concerned Citizens Movement (CCM)sabah
Let’s not even talk of the Philippine title to Sabah which the P-Noy administration is apparently still studying. Let’s just talk about basic obligations, and not just privileges of states.

As early as 1928 in the Las Palmas case where we lost title over the island of Las Palmas, international law has always recognized that states have concomitant obligations with their rights as sovereign. As held by the lone arbitrator Max Huber: “Territorial sovereignty, as has already been said, involves the exclusive right to display the activities of a State.  This right has a corollary, a duty: the obligation to protect within the territory the rights of other States, in particular their right to integrity and inviolability in peace and in war, together with the rights which each State may claim for its nationals in foreign territory”.
The right of a state to claim rights for its nationals abroad is referred to as “diplomatic protection”. Here, the duty of the state is to ensure that states treat their nationals abroad in a manner that complies with human standards recognized under the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights, among others documents.
In connection with the current stand-off in Sabah, this should mean that the primary obligation of the Philippine government is to ensure the safety of the 200 or so followers of the Sultanate of Sulu, as well as to ensure that Malaysia should comply with its duty to protect and promote their human rights which should include the right to life, and the right to due process of law.
Stripped of legal legalese, the Philippine government owes the Filipinos holed up in Sabah the duty to ensure that they do not become victims to extralegal killings. There is an extralegal killing when the taking of life is without due process of law. This means that before Malaysians could shoot at our countrymen, they should apprehend, prosecute and find them guilty of violating Malaysian domestic law before they are meted the penalty of death.
Government response to the stand-off has however been deplorable. Instead of taking steps to espouse the human rights of our fellowmen in Sabah, they have openly sided with Malaysian authorities and have all but warned them that their massacre is inevitable. Worse, government appeared to have ordered them to return so that they can be prosecuted criminally in the Philippines for rebellion and other crimes. With this kind of conduct by the Philippine government, who needs government to give this kind of protection?
The P-Noy administration instead should make the safety of our nationals non-negotiable. If we could plead with leaders of the world to spare convicted drug mules from being meted the death penalty, why should we not plead likewise of 200 or so our countrymen who are in Sabah to seek redress for their grievances as those with title to the island of Sabah.
 It does not help any that Philippine authorities appear ignorant of the Sabah claim despite the fact that it has been constitutionalized in article 1 of both the 1935 and 1987 Constitution. Governments’ initiatives to still study the Sabah claim brings to mind the legal saying that “ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith”. In this regard, Philippine authorities should blame themselves for their ignorance of the Sabah claim. They should certainly not be negligent in their obligation to provide protection to Filipinos overseas because of their own ignorance.
CCM, as a civil society organization that has been consistently in the forefront of the fight against the evil GMA regime, condemns and deplores the government of P-Noy for its obvious dereliction of its duty to exercise diplomatic protection to our countrymen from Sulu in Sabah. While CCM does not regret having opposed the GMA administration, for its corrupt ways,  the organization  now wonders how competent the P-Noy administration is in discharging its basic obligations such as protecting its nationals.

1 Comment

Filed under Decolonization, Human Rights, Sabah claim, Self-determination, Sultanate of Sulu

Initial thoughts on the Sabah standoff

For background on the current Sabah standoff, click here.

My initial thoughts:

sabahWhat the Philippines must effectively address in its claims to historic title over Sabah: the right to self-determination, which is customary and is subject of both erga omnes partes and erga omnes omnium obligations.

In his separate opinion to the Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia) case before the ICJ in 2002, ad hoc judge Thomas Franck had this to say, in his rejection of the Philippine intervention:

“13. The independence of North Borneo was brought about as the result of the expressed wish of the majority of the people of the territory in a 1963 election. The Secretary-General of the United Nations was entrusted under the Manila Accord of 3 1 July 1963 with the task of ascertaining the wishes of the people of North Borneo, and reported that the majority of the peoples of North Borneo had given serious and thoughtful consideration to their future and: “[had] concluded that they wish to bring their dependent status to an end and to realize their independence through freely chosen association with other peoples in their region with whom they feel ties of ethnic association, heritage, language, religion, culture, economic relationship, and ideals and objectives” (quoted by the Representative of Malaysia to the General Assembly, 1219th meeting, 27 September 1963, Official Records of the General Assembly, Eigteenth Session, UN doc. No. AIPV. 121 9).

14. In 1963, Britain filed its last report to the United Nations on North Borneo as an Article 73 je) Non-Self-Governing Territory (Note by the Secretary-General, Political ancl Consfitutionak Information on Asian Territories under United Kingdom Administration, UN doc. NO. Al54021 Add.4 (4 April 1963)). Thereafter, the United Nations removed North Borneo from the list of colonial territories under its decolonization juris- diction (see Yearbook of the United Nations 1964, pp. 41 1-435, which omits North Borneo from the Cornmittee’s list of territories), thereby accepting that the process of decolonization had been completed by a valid exercise of self-determination.

15. Accordingly, in light of the clear exercise by the people of North Borneo of their right to self-determination, it cannot matter whether this Court, in any interpretation it might give to any historic instrument or efficacy, sustains or not the Philippines claim to historic title. Modern international law does not recognize the survival of a right of sovereignty based solely on historic title; not, in any event, after an exercise of self- determination conducted in accordance with the requisites of international law, the bona fides of which has received international recognition by the political organs of the United Nations. Against this, historic
claims and feudal pre-colonial titles are mere relics of another international legal era, one that ended with the setting of the sun on the age of colonial imperium.”

Click here for the link to the full text of Judge Franck’s separate opinion.

I am not saying the Philippine case is hopeless. I am just saying there’s a very big legal hurdle to its claim to sovereignty over Sabah that needs serious consideration.


Filed under Decolonization, Malaysia, Philippines, Sabah, Self-determination, Sultanate of Sulu