Sunday, 3 March 2013

North Borneo (Sabah): An annotated timeline 1640s-present

 

North Borneo (Sabah): An annotated timeline 1640s-present


  by
Manuel L. Quezon III

READ HERE FOR MORE


Note from the author: I am sharing a timeline I have compiled of key events and accompanying literature on the North Borneo (Sabah) issue. This timeline is being shared for academic and media research purposes. It is not being published as an official statement of policy in any shape or form, nor does this timeline purport to be representative of the views of the Philippine government.
 
1640s
Spain signed peace treaties with the strongest sultanates, Sulu and Maguindanao, recognizing their de facto independence.[1]
 
1704
Sultan of Sulu became sovereign ruler of most of North Borneo by virtue of a cession from the Sultan of Brunei whom he had helped in suppressing a rebellion.
There is no document stating the grant of North Borneo from Sultan of Brunei to Sultan of Sulu, but it is accepted by all sides.[2]
 
March 17, 1824
Treaty of London signed by the Netherlands and Great Britain
Allocates certain territories in the Malay archipelago to the United Kingdom and the Netherlands (Dutch East Indies).[3]
 
September 23, 1836
Treaty of Peace and Commerce between Spain and Sulu, signed in Sulu
Granting Spanish protection of sultanate, mutual defense, and safe passage for Spanish and Joloan ships between ports of Manila, Zamboanga, and Jolo.[4]
Ortiz: Spain did not claim sovereignty over Sulu, but merely offered “the protection of Her Government and the aid of fleets and soldiers for wars…”[5]
 
1845
Muda Hassim, uncle of the Sultan of Sulu,  publicly announced as successor to the Sultanate of Sulu with the title of Sultan Muda: he was also the leader of the “English party,”(today the term for Crown Prince is Raja Muda)[6]
The British Government appoints James Brooke as a confidential agent in Borneo[7]
The British Government extends help to Sultan Muda to deal with piracy and settle the Government of Borneo[8]
 
April 1846
Sir James Brooke receives intelligence that the Sultan of Sulu ordered the murder of Muda Hassim, and some thirteen Rajas and many of their followers; Muda Hassim kills himself because he found that resistance is useless. [9]
 
July 19, 1846
Admiral Thomas Cochrane, Commander-in-chief of East Indies and China Station of the Royal Navy, issued a Proclamation to cease hostilities (“piracy,” crackdown versus pro-British faction) if the Sultan of Sulu would govern “lawfully” and respect his engagements with the British Government
If the Sultan persisted, the Admiral proclaimed that the squadron would burn down the capital of the sultanate.[10]
 
May 7, 1847
James Brooke is instructed by the British Government to conclude a treaty with the Sultan of Brunei
British occupation of Labuan is confirmed and Sultan concedes that no territorial cession of any portion of his country should ever be made to any foreign power without the sanction of Great Britain[11]
 
May 29, 1849
Convention of Commerce between Britain and the Sultanate of Sulu
Sultan of Sulu will not cede any territory without the consent of the British. [12]
 
April 30, 1851
Treaty signed with Spain by the Sultan of Sulu, Mohammed Pulalun
The Sultanate of Sulu was incorporated into the Spanish Monarchy.[13]

January 17, 1867
Earl of Derby to Lord Odo Russel:
that, whatever Treaty rights Spain may have had to the sovereignty of Sulu and its dependencies, those rights must be considered as having lapsed owing to the complete failure of Spain to attain a de facto control over the territory claimed.
 
May 30, 1877
Protocol of Sulu signed between Spain, Germany, and Great Britain, providing free movement of ships engaged in commerce and direct trading in the Sulu Archipelago
British Ambassadors in Madrid and Berlin were instructed that the protocol implies recognition of Spanish claims over Sulu or its dependencies.
At this point the following western countries have possessions in Southeast Asia:
1. British = Singapore, Malaya, Brunei, Sarawak, and North Borneo
2. Germany = Papua New Guinea
3. Netherlands = Indonesia
4. Spain = Philippines, Guam, Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands
5. France = Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia (French IndoChina)[14]
 
December 1877
Expeditions of Alfred Dent to control north part of Borneo began
Alfred Dent, member of the commercial house of Dent Brothers and Co. of London [15]
 
January 22, 1878
Sir Alfred Dent obtains sovereign control over the northern part of Borneo for 5,300 ringgit ($5,000) from the Sultans of Brunei and Sulu. See contending translations of relevant portions of this document. See also the Spanish translation. See another English translation.
Concessions would later be confirmed by Her Majesty’s Royal Charter in November, 1881 granted to the British North Borneo Co.
The territory of the Sultan of Sulu over 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 and comprising amongst other the States of Paitan, Sugut, Bangaya, Labuk, Sandakan, Kina Batangan, Mumiang, and all the other territories and states to the southward thereof bordering on Darvel Bay and as far as the Sibuco river with all the islands within three marine leagues of the coast. [16]
Sultan of Sulu Mohammed Jamalul Alam appoints Baron de Overbeck as Datu Bendajara and Raja of North Borneo
(Baron de Overbeck, Austrian national heavily connected with the house of Dent and Co. at Hong Kong. Overbeck was sent to Borneo as a representative of Dent and Co. to enter negotiations with Sultans and Chiefs of Brunei and Sulu – Dec 1878 Statement and Application of Debt of Dent and Overbeck to the Marquis of Salisbury)[17]
Sultan of Sulu Mohammed Jamalul Alam (Translation of Deed of 1878 by Prof. Harold Conklin) wrote letters to the Governor of Jolo, Carlos Martinez  and the Captain-General Malcampo to revoke what he termed the lease he granted over North Borneo. [18]
 
July 4, 1878
The Sultan of Sulu Mohammed Jamalul Alam sends a letter to the Captain-General of the Philippines.
According to the letter of the Sultan, Sandakan was not ceded to the United Kingdom but was only leased. The Sultan added that he only did this under the threat of attack from the British[19]
 
July 22, 1878
Bases of Peace and Capitulation signed in Jolo.
Sultan of Sulu, Mohammed Jamalul Alam declared the sovereignty of Spain over the Archipelago of Suluand its dependencies while granting free exercise of religion and customs for his people. [20]
See also letter of July 24, 1878 from the Governor of Sulu to Baron de Overbeck.
British, German, French, Dutch, and the Spaniards agree on their spheres of influence in Southeast Asia.[21]
 
December 2, 1878
Dent and Overbeck apply for a Charter of Incorporation from Queen Victoria[22]
 
April 16, 1879
Acting Governor Treacher writes to the Colonial Office, objecting to hoisting of Spanish flag over North Borneo.

November 5, 1879 
Memorandum by the Duke of Tetuan to the Marquis of Salisbury.

November 1, 1881
Queen Victoria grants Charter of Incorporation to the British North Borneo Company
British North Borneo Company now does actually exist “as a Territorial Power” and not “as a Trading Company”[23]
 
November 16, 1881
Spaniards protest granting of Royal Charter
By virtue of treaties of capitulation of 1836, 1851, and 1878, Spain exercised sovereignty over Sulu and its dependencies including North Borneo; Sultan of Sulu had no right to enter into any treaties or make any cessions whatsoever [24]
 
January 7, 1882
British Foreign Minister Earl Granville’s letter says Crown assumes no dominion or sovereignty over the territories occupied by the Company, nor does it purport to grant to the Company any powers of Government thereover.
Crown merely recognizes the grants of territory and the powers of government made and delegated by the Sultans in whom the sovereignty remains vested. [25]
 
March 7, 1885
Spanish claims to Borneo abandoned by Protocol of Sulu entered into by England, Germany and Spain
Spanish supremacy over the Sulu Archipelago was recognised on condition of their abandoning all claim to the portions of Northern Borneo which are now included in the British North Borneo Company’s concessions[26]
 
May 12, 1888
While civil war was ongoing in Sulu, “State of North Borneo” is made a British protectorate
An agreement between the British North Borneo Company and Great Britain; British Government admits the North Borneo Company derived its rights and powers to govern the territory.[27]
 
June 14, 1888
British Protectorate established over Sarawak[28]
 
September 17, 1888
British Protectorate established over Brunei[29]
 
1892
Jose Rizal proposes to the Spanish government to establish a Filipino colony in Sabah. This plan, however, does not push through.

1896
Federated Malay States
Provinces included: Negeri Sembilan, Pehang, Perak and Selangor[30]
 
1894-1936
Sultan Jamalul Kiram II rules the Sultanate of Sulu

December 10, 1898
Treaty of Paris
Spain cedes the Philippine Islands to the United States of America. The treaty lines did not include North Borneo (Sabah).[31]
 
1899
President Aguinaldo invites the Sultan of Sulu to join the newly-established First Republic of the Philippines.
Malolos Congress appointed representatives for Jolo: Benito Legarda and Victor Papa[32]
 
August 20, 1899
Kiram-Bates Treaty
Treaty acknowledged the “sovereignty of the United States over Jolo and its dependencies”

December 5, 1899
In his State of the Union Message, William McKinley discusses American policy towards the Sultanate of Sulu:
 
The authorities of the Sulu Islands have accepted the succession of the United States to the rights of Spain, and our flag floats over that territory. On the 10th of August, 1899, Brig. Gen. J. C. Bates, United States Volunteers, negotiated an agreement with the Sultan and his principal chiefs, which I transmit herewith. By Article I the sovereignty of the United States over the whole archipelago of Jolo and its dependencies is declared and acknowledged.
 
The United States flag will be used in the archipelago and its dependencies, on land and sea. Piracy is to be suppressed, and the Sultan agrees to co-operate heartily with the United States authorities to that end and to make every possible effort to arrest and bring to justice all persons engaged in piracy. All trade in domestic products of the archipelago of Jolo when carried on with any part of the Philippine Islands and under the American flag shall be free, unlimited, and undutiable. The United States will give full protection to the Sultan in case any foreign nation should attempt to impose upon him. The United States will not sell the island of Jolo or any other island of the Jolo archipelago to any foreign nation without the consent of the Sultan. Salaries for the Sultan and his associates in the administration of the islands have been agreed upon to the amount of $760 monthly.
 
Article X provides that any slave in the archipelago of Jolo shall have the right to purchase freedom by paying to the master the usual market value. The agreement by General Bates was made subject to confirmation by the President and to future modifications by the consent of the parties in interest. I have confirmed said agreement, subject to the action of the Congress, and with the reservation, which I have directed shall be communicated to the Sultan of Jolo, that this agreement is not to be deemed in any way to authorize or give the consent of the United States to the existence of slavery in the Sulu archipelago. I communicate these facts to the Congress for its information and action.
 
February 1, 1900
Kiram-Bates Treaty submitted to the U.S. Senate by William McKinley:
 
In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of January 24, 1900, I transmit herewith a copy of the report and all accompanying papers of Brig-Gen. John C. Bates, in relation to the negotiations of a treaty or agreement made by him with the Sultan of Sulu on the 20th day of August, 1899.
 
I reply to the request and said resolution for further information that the payments of money provided for by the agreement will be made from the revenues of the Philippine Islands, unless Congress shall otherwise direct.
 
Such payments are not for specific services but are a part consideration due to the Sulu tribe or nation under the agreement, and they have been stipulated for subject to the action of Congress in conformity with the practice of this Government from the earliest times in its agreements with the various Indian nations occupying and governing portions of the territory subject to the sovereignty of the United States.
Not ratified by the U.S. Senate, President Theodore Roosevelt abrogates treaty[33]
 
November 7, 1900
Convention of 1900
Consolidate the American possessions in the Sulu archipelago by including the islands of Sibutu and Cagayan, both of which had always formed part of the possessions of the Sulu sultanate.[34]
 
November 7, 1900
British North Borneo Company obtains from Sultan of Sulu even more territory

December 3, 1900
In his State of the Union Message, William McKinley provides details on the Convention of 1900:
 
I feel that we should not suffer to pass any opportunity to reaffirm the cordial ties that existed between us and Spain from the time of our earliest independence, and to enhance the mutual benefits of that commercial intercourse which is natural between the two countries.
 
By the terms of the Treaty of Peace the line bounding the ceded Philippine group in the southwest failed to include several small islands lying westward of the Sulus, which have always been recognized as under Spanish control. The occupation of Sibutd and Cagayan Sulu by our naval forces elicited a claim on the part of Spain, the essential equity of which could not be gainsaid. In order to cure the defect of the treaty by removing all possible ground of future misunderstanding respecting the interpretation of its third article, I directed the negotiation of a supplementary treaty, which will be forthwith laid before the Senate, whereby Spain quits all title and claim of title to the islands named as well as to any and all islands belonging to the Philippine Archipelago lying outside the lines described in said third article, and agrees that all such islands shall be comprehended in the cession of the archipelago as fully as if they had been expressly included within those lines. In consideration of this cession the United States is to pay to Spain the sum of $100,000.
 
A bill is now pending to effect the recommendation made in my last annual message that appropriate legislation be had to carry into execution Article VII of the Treaty of Peace with Spain, by which the United States assumed the payment of certain claims for indemnity of its citizens against Spain. I ask that action be taken to fulfill this obligation.
 
April 22, 1903
Additional $300 a year paid for a Confirmatory Deed stipulating that certain islands not specifically mentioned in the Deed of 1878 had in fact been always understood to be included therein.[35]
 
November 19, 1906
Note of the U.S. Department of State to the British Embassy in Washington, D.C.
…the US Department of State stated that Sabah was not an Imperial possession of the British Crown, that the British North Borneo Company which had leased Sabah from the Sultan of Sulu, did not have a national status, and that the company did not have an administration with the standing of a government…[36]
 
March 22, 1915
Carpenter Agreement:
Governor of Mindanao and Sulu Frank W. Carpenter signs an agreement with the Sultan of Sulu which relinquishes the Sultan’s, and his heirs’, right to temporal sovereignty, tax collection, and arbitration laws. In exchange, the Sultan gets an allowance, a piece of land and recognition as religious leader.[37]
 
May 4, 1920
Temporal Sovereignty and Ecclesiastical Authority of the Sultanate of Sulu
…Gov. Frank W. Carpenter acknowledged the temporal sovereignty and ecclesiastical authority of the Sultanate of Sulu beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the United States government especially with reference to the portion of the Island of Borneo (Sabah) which is a dependency of the Sultan of Sulu.[38]
Governor Frank W. Carpenter in a letter to the Director of Non-Christian Tribes stresses in a letter that the signing of the Agreement meant the “termination of all the rights of temporal sovereignty” which the Sultan had previously exercised in Sulu within American territory without prejudice to North Borneo.
Clarification: without prejudice or effect as to the temporal sovereignty and ecclesiastical authority of the Sultanate beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. Government, especially with reference to that portion of the island of Borneo which, as a dependency of the Sultanate of Sulu is understood to be held under lease by the Chartered Company which is known as the British North Borneo Company.[39]
British North Borneo Company attempts to have Sultan Jamalul Kiram to take up residence in Sandakan to acquire a good title to the ownership of the territories
A palace was offered in Sandakan to place himself under their protection. On two occasions, Gov. Carpenter had to send the Chief of Police of Jolo to bring the Sultan back from Sandakan [40]
 
June 11, 1926
Bacon Bill
Rep. Bacon files bill to separate Mindanao from the Philippines. [41]
 
January 2, 1930
The Boundaries Treaty of 1930
Clarifies which islands in the region belong to U.S. and which belong to the State of North Borneo; delimits the  boundary between the Philippine Archipelago (under U.S. sovereignty) and the State of North Borneo (under British protection) [42]
 
November 15, 1935
Philippine Commonwealth is inaugurated.
1935 Constitution
Article I, National Territory:
The Philippines comprises all the territory ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris concluded between the United States and Spain on the tenth day of December, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, the limits which are set forth in Article III of said treaty, together with all the islands embraced in the treaty concluded at Washington between the United States and Spain on the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred, and the treaty concluded between the United States and Great Britain on the second day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty, and all territory over which the present Government of the Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction.
 
June 11, 1936
Sultan of Sulu (Jamalul Kiram) dies and the question of the perpetuation of the Sultanate is raised. Sultan Muwallil Wasit succeeds his brother but dies before he was crowned.[43]
Brother is the claimant though his niece Dayang-Dayang, married to Datu Ombra, wishes to be Sultana. Quezon considers her to be the ablest of the Moros but Mohameddan law does not permit a woman to be Sultan. Harrison points out large portion of political sovereignty already surrendered to Wood in 1903 and Carpenter in 1915. Quezon to recognize Sultan only as the religious head. British North Borneo Company expressed interest because of the stipend paid by the Company to the Sultan. [44]
 
January 29, 1937
Datu Ombra Amilbangsa is proclaimed Sultan of Sulu
He is the husband of Dayang Dayang Hadji Piandao. His title becomes Sultan Mohammed Amirul Ombra Amilbangsa. His Crown Prince is Esmail Kiram, having given up his own present pretentions to the Sultanate[45]
About the same time, Datu Tambuyong is proclaimed and crowned Sultan.
His title becoming, Sultan Jainal Aberin. He chose Datu Buyungan, his brother and present husband of Tarhata Kiram as Crown Prince.[46]
 
1937-1950
While Esmail Kiram I did not assume the throne, Dayang Dayang makes her husband, Datu Ombra Amilbangsa, sultan. Datu Tambuyong is also crowned sultan but by opposing Moro leaders.
Datu Ombra is named Sultan Amirul Ombra Amilbangsa; Datu Tambuyong is crowned Sultan Jainal Aberin. The two claimed the sultanate from 1937-1950.[47]
 
May 9, 1937
Through the efforts of Dayang Dayang, the British resume payment of lease. [48]
 
September 20, 1937
Memorandum on Administration of Affairs in Mindanao of President Quezon to Secretary Quirino: Titles of Datus and Sultans are recognized but have no Official Rights and Powers[49]
 
October 2, 1937
Representative of Sulu Datu Amilbangsa writes to President Quezon.
Datu Amilbangsa claims that the policy as released covering this subject was most unnecessary, as the non-recognition has already taken effect since the abrogation of the Bates Treaty and the implantation of the Civil Government in the regions referred to. [50]
 
October 8, 1937
Three-point policy for Mindanao and Sulu letter from the Executive Secretary Jorge Vargas to the Representative of Sulu Datu Amilbangsa.
Jorge Vargas communicates President Manuel L. Quezon’s policy to recognize the titles of Datus and Sultans but no official rights and powers.[51]
 
December 18, 1939
High Court of the State of North Borneo hands down decision in Civil Suit No. 169/39 in it, North Borneo Chief Justice C.F.C. Mackaskie stated 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.
In the same decision, Mackaskie renders an obiter dictum opinion or side note, that the Philippine Government is the successor-in-sovereignty to the Sultanate of Sulu.
This obiter dictum however, does not establish a legal precedent, and was furthermore based on a report from the British Consul in Manila, claiming that the Commonwealth Government had abolished the Sultanate of Sulu.
Note: The first to challenge the Maxwell & Gibson translation used by the High Court of the State of North Borneo is Francis Burton Harrison, who pointed out in 1946-47 that Chief Justice Mackaskie used the British translation of the North Borneo agree which stated that the land was ceded; he submits a different translation by Prof. Conklin, obtained through H. Otley Beyer [52]
 
April 4, 1940
Dayang Dayang renounces her claim against the Philippine Government over the Sultanate of Sulu[53]
 
1942-1945
World War II

1946
Malayan Union Created
Provinces included:
Federated Malayan States
Unfederated Malayan States (Johor, Kedah, Kalantan, Perils, Terengganu)
Malacca
Penang[54]
 
June 18, 1946
American attorneys representing the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu denounce British action of annexation of North Borneo calling it an unauthorized act of aggression.[55]
 
June 26, 1946
British North Borneo Company cedes colony to the Crown. Thus, annexing North Borneo to the British Empire.[56]
 
July 4, 1946
Inauguration of the Third Philippine Republic

July 10 (or 16), 1946
British Government annexed the territory of North Borneo as a Crown Colony[57]
 
September 26, 1946
Presidential Adviser on Foreign Affairs, Francis Burton Harrison, writes a recommendation to the Department of Foreign Affairs that the Philippines should launch a protest against Britain’s annexation.
Francis Burton Harrison was former American Governor-General of the Philippines. He became a Filipino Citizen in 1936 and was an advisor on Foreign Affairs to President Manuel Roxas.[58]
 
December 8, 1946
Francis Burton Harrison writes a second memorandum on the government of the Sultanate of Sulu.
In the memorandum, Francis Burton Harrison mentions that he asked a Professor Otley Beyer to translate the original lease of North Borneo. Beyer translates it as the land being Leased and not as ceded.[59]
 
February 27, 1947
Francis Burton Harrison: Recommendation to Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Vice President Elpidio Quirino
 
The action of the British Government in announcing on the 16th of July (1946), just 12 days after the inauguration of the Republic of the Philippines, a step taken by the British Government unilaterally, and without any special notice to the Sultanate of Sulu, nor consideration of their legal rights, was an act of political aggression, which should be promptly repudiated by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. The proposal to lay this case before the United Nations should bring the whole matter before the bar of world opinion.[60]
 
January 31, 1948
The Federation of Malaya was created
Malay States became British Protectorates.
Malacca and Penang remained as British Colonies.[61]
 
1950-1974
Sultan Esmail Kiram assumes the throne until his death in 1974.

April 28, 1950
House of Representatives approved Concurrent Resolution No. 42 expressing the “sense of the Congress of the Philippines that North Borneo belongs to the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu and the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines and authorizing the President (Elpidio Quirino) to conduct negotiations for the restoration of such ownership and sovereign jurisdiction over said territory.” The Senate did not approve the Resolution.
Reps. Macapagal (Pampanga), Rasul (Mindanao and Sulu), Escarreal (Samar), Cases (La Union), Tizon (Samar), Tolentino (Manila), and Lacson (Manila) author the Resolution. [62]
 
September 4, 1950
Philippines advised British Government that a dispute regarding ownership and sovereignty over North Borneo existed between the two countries.[63]
 
August 30, 1955
Vice President Carlos P. Garcia and the British Ambassador to Manila signed an agreement that provided for the employment and settlement of 5,000 skilled and unskilled Filipino agriculturists and miners in North Borneo
Agreement not implemented as North Borneo employers feared multiple suits arising from claims of Filipino laborers: they had found a sizable number of Indonesians willing to work on a temporary basis[64]
 
January 1957
Governor of North Borneo visits Manila to implement the 1955 labor treaty.
500-man delegation of Filipino Muslims present resolution to President Ramon Magsaysay calling for direct negotiations with the British to return North Borneo to the Philippines. Magsaysay did not act on the resolution.
British response: United Kingdom High Commissioner for Southeast Asia said it would not take seriously the demands of Moros in the Philippines for certain areas of North Borneo.[65]
 
July 31, 1957
The Federation of Malaya Act was signed.
The Federation of Malaya was established as a sovereign country within the British Commonwealth. [66]
 
November 25, 1957
Muhammad Esmail Kiram, Sultan of Sulu, issued a proclamation declaring the termination of the Overbeck and Dent lease, effective January 22, 1958.
All lands were to be deemed restituted henceforth to the Sultanate of Sulu[67]
1957
“A syndicate headed by Nicasio Osmeña acting as attorney-in-fact for the heirs, attempted without success to negotiate with the British Foreign Office for a lump sum payment of $15 million in full settlement of the lease agreement.”[68]
 
August 31, 1957
Peninsular Malaya granted independence by Britain[69]
 
May 27, 1961
Inclusion of North Borneo (Sabah) in the concept of Malaysia after the UK talks
It was during this time when then President Diosdado Macapagal was forced to initiate the filing of the Philippine claim in North Borneo (Sabah) as it was being considered as a member of the proposed concept of Malaysia broached by Prime Minister Tengku Abduk Rahman in Singapore [70]
 
February 5, 1962
Attorneys of the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu wrote to the Department of Foreign Affairs with the desire to have the territory included as part of the national territory of the Republic of the Philippines;
Ortiz: J.C. Orendain, acting as counsel for the heirs – regain proprietary rights to North Borneo and that sovereignty be turned over to the Philippine Republic[71]
 
April 24, 1962
Heirs of the Sultan of Sulu ceded sovereignty rights over Sabah to the Philippine Government[72]
Resolution No. 321 unanimously adopted by House of Representatives, urging President Macapagal to take the necessary steps for the recovery of North Borneo (Sabah).
Filed by Rep. Godofredo Ramos (Aklan) the resolution read: “It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the claim to North Borneo is legal and valid.”

April 25, 1962
President Macapagal called Sultan Mohammad Esmail Kiram to Malacañan Palace to discuss the Philippine Claim on North Borneo.[73]
Acceptance by the Republic of the Philippines, represented by Acting Secretary of Foreign Affairs Salvador P. Lopez of the cession and transfer of territory of North Borneo[74]
 
April 29, 1962
Ruma Bechara advised Sultan Esmail Kiram to cede to the Republic of the Philippines the territory of North Borneo, and the full sovereignty, title and dominion over the territory, without prejudice to such proprietary rights as the heirs of Sultan Jamalul Kiram may have.[75]
 
May 25, 1962
British Government sends a note to the Philippines asserting its claim on Sabah; says no dispute on sovereignty and ownership of Sabah.
Note is sent by British Ambassador to the Vice President and Secretary of Foreign Affairs Emmanuel Pelaez.[76]
 
June 22, 1962
Acting Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Salvador P. Lopez, handed a note to the British Ambassador to Manila asserting the Philippine claim on North Borneo.
In implementation of House Resolution 321.[77]
 
August 7, 1962
British Government reply to June 22, 1962 note of Philippines again asserting its sovereignty over Sabah
Note is sent by Secretary of State to Philippine Ambassador in London[78]
 
August 29, 1962
Resolution of the Ruma Bechara of Sulu authorizing the Sultan in council to transfer his title and sovereignty over the inhabitants and territory of North Borneo to the Republic of the Philippines

September 11, 1962
President Diosdado Macapagal issues special authorization in favor of Vice President Emmanuel Pelaez to formally accept, on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, the cession or transfer of sovereignty over the territory of North Borneo by Sultan Mohammad Esmail Kiram, Sultan of Sulu.[79]
 
September 12, 1962
Heirs of the Sultan of Sulu cede all rights, proprietary, title, dominion and sovereignty to the Republic of the Philippines
Secretary of Foreign Affairs sends Note to British Ambassador asserting that the Philippine claim subsists despite the London agreements including North Borneo in the Federation of Malaysia[80]
 
September 27, 1962
Vice-President Emmanuel Pelaez addresses the United Nations General Assembly
We stand on what we consider to be valid legal and historical grounds. Our claim has been put forward with sincere assurance of our desire that the issue be settled by peaceful means, and without prejudice to the exercise of the right of self-determination by the inhabitants of North Borneo, preferably under United Nations auspices.[81]
 
December 29, 1962
Joint UK-PHL Statement after consultations.
The Philippine and British Governments being vitally concerned in the security and stability of South East Asia, have decided to hold conversations about questions and problems of mutual interest. The British Government have responded to the Philippine Government’s desire for talks, first expressed in their note of June 22, by inviting the Philippine Government to send a delegation to London for consultations at a mutually convenient date in January, 1963. Recent developments have made such conversations, in the spirit of the Manila Treaty (SEATO) and the Pacific Charter (U.N.), highly desirable.[82]
 
January 26, 1963
Indonesian President Sukarno pledges support to the Philippines[83]

January 28, 1963
President Macapagal restates Philippine position on Sabah in his SONA:
The situation is that the Philippines not only has a valid and historic claim to North Borneo. In addition, the pursuit of the claim is itself vital to our national security.[84]
 
January 28 – February 1, 1963
Talks between British and Philippine Governments held in London. See Opening Statement by Vice-President Pelaez.
Philippines panel composed of Vice President and Foreign Affairs Secretary Pelaez, Usec. Salvador P. Lopez, Defense Secretary Macario Peralta, Justice Secretary Juan Liwag, Senator Raul Manglapus, Rep. Jovito Salonga and Godofredo Ramos, and Amb. Eduardo Quintero.[85]
 
February 1, 1963
Joint Final Communique issued by the Philippines and the United Kingdom stating both their claims[86]
 
March 25, 1963
Senator Sumulong dissented to the filing of the Philippine claim to Sabah. Suggested voluntarily relinquishing whatever claims of sovereignty.
Sumulong says the claim was “tardily presented to the United Nations.” He pointed out that our claim did not specify the particular portion of North Borneo covered by it.[87]
 
March 30, 1963
Rep. Salonga (Rizal) responds to Senator Sumulong
Claim is of the entire Republic based on respect for the rule of law, the sanctity of contractual obligations, the sacredness of facts, and the relentless logic of our situation in this part of the world.[88]
 
June 7 – 11, 1963
Discussion between the foreign affairs secretaries of the Federation of Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines.
The meeting resulted in the drafting of the Manila Accord.[89]
 
July 9, 1963
Malaysia Agreement was signed.
Article I provided for the creation of the Federation of Malaysia which included the colonies of Singapore, North Borneo, and Sarawak.[90]
 
July 30 – August 5, 1963
MAPHILINDO (Malaya, Philippines, Indonesia) is formed, a loose consultative body among the three countries.

July 31, 1963
Manila Accord is signed
Indonesia, the Federation of Malaya, and the Philippines sign a policy statement agreeing to peacefully resolve the issue on North Borneo.
Ministers of the country agree to the creation of Malaysia with the support of the people of North Borneo to be ascertained by an independent body. (UN Secretary General)[91]
 
August 5, 1963
Joint Statement by the Philippines, the Federation of Malaya, and Indonesia
The United Nations Secretary-General or his representative should ascertain prior to the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia the wishes of the people of Sabah (North Borneo) and Sarawak within the context of General Assembly
A joint communiqué was issued by the foreign ministers of Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines stating that the inclusion of North Borneo in the Federation of Malaysia “would not prejudice either the Philippine claim or any right thereunder.”[92]
 
August 5, 1963
Foreign Affairs Secretary Salvador P. Lopez tries to get British Government to enter into a special arrangement to refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice[93]
 
September 9, 1963
British reply, “in view of the July 9 Agreement signed by Britain, Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore concerning establishment of the Federation of Malaysia.”[94]
 
September 16, 1963
Federation of Malaysia came into being as a sovereign state, with North Borneo as one of the component states.
Since the new State of Malaysia succeeded to the interests of the British Crown in Sabah, the Philippine claim had to be pursued against Malaysia.[95]
President Diosdado Macapagal, after conferring with congressional leaders and foreign policy advisers, decided to withhold recognition of the federation until the Philippines gets formal assurances that the new Malaysia would uphold the Manila accord.[96]
 
September 17, 1963
Philippines refused to recognize Malaysia.
Both the Philippines and Indonesia rejected the UN findings and broke off diplomatic relations with Kuala Lumpur.[97]
 
1963
Referendum is conducted in North Borneo. People of North Borneo choose to join Malaysia[98]
 
January 11, 1964
Sukarno-Macapagal Joint Statement[99]
 
February 5 – 10, 1964
Attempts of allies (including the U.S.A.) to mediate among the three MAPHILINDO countries result in a series of talks in Bangkok[100]
 
February 1964
Macapagal and Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Raman met in Phnom Penh. As a result, Tunku agreed to elevate the Sabah dispute to the World Court if he could get the Sabah leaders to go along.[101]
 
March 3-6, 1964
Attempts of allies (including the U.S.A.) to mediate among the three MAPHILINDO countries result in a series of talks in Tokyo[102]
 
May 18, 1964
Establishment of Philippine-Malaysia Diplomatic Relations by the creation of a Consulate in Kuala Lumpur.

November 19, 1964
A proposal was made by the Philippines to submit the dispute to the International Court of Justice as a token of their adherence to the rule of law and the UN Charter.[103]
 
August 9, 1965
Singapore is expelled from the Federation of Malaysia

June 3, 1966
Malaysia reiterates its willingness to abide by the Manila Accord and the Joint Statement of August 5, 1963[104]
 
1967
Plan to destabilize North Borneo (Sabah) was made by President Ferdinand Marcos.

August 8, 1967
Establishment of ASEAN[105]
 
August – December 1967
The Jabidah unit trains for their mission to destabilize North Borneo (Sabah)

December 30, 1967
135 of the 180 trainees of Jabidah are brought to Corregidor for “Special Training”

March 18, 1968
Jabidah Massacre

March 28, 1968
Jabidah Expose in a privilege speech of Senator Benigno S. Aquino Jr.

March 27, 1968
Constancio B. Maglana delivered a privilege speech in the House of Representatives on the Philippine claim on Sabah
Constancio B. Maglana, a member of the House of Representatives published Sabah is Philippines (1969), and in a privilege speech, apart from laying the basis for the Philippine claim, also advocated the prosecution of the claim. [106]
 
March 29,1968
Senate Minority Floor Leader Ambrosio Padilla reveals a document dated February 1, 1968, which was a power of attorney executed by the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu in favor of President Marcos, recognizing the authority and power of the President to represent them in the settlement of their proprietary rights over Sabah.[107]
Press Secretary Jose Aspiras announced that the authority had been given to the President as Chief Executive[108]
Malacañang released another document, also dated February 1, 1968, in which the President Ferdinand Marcos transferred to Foreign Affairs Secretary Narciso Ramos, in his official capacity, the authority conferred by the heirs of the President.[109]
 
June 17, 1968
Talks between the Philippines and Malaysia opened in Bangkok
Philippine panel composition: Ambassador Gauttier Bisnar, Amb. Eduardo Quintero, Dr. Florentino Feliciano,
Amb. Leon Ma. Guerrero and Amb. Mauro Caluigo
(Philippine Ambassador to Malaysia)
Delegation’s Term of Reference: Only one mode of settlement – elevating the dispute to the World Court.[110]
 
July 15, 1968
Malaysia rejects Philippine claim.
 
The position of my Government is that the Philippines has no claim at all, that there is nothing to settle, and that there is nothing more to talk about.[111]
 
July 16, 1968
Amb. Guerrero responds to Malaysian rejection
Says the Malaysian Ambassador’s “unipersonal rejection” has “single-handedly brought our two countries to the most serious crisis in their relations.”[112]
 
July 20, 1968
Upon advice of the Foreign Policy Council, President Ferdinand E. Marcos breaks diplomatic relations with Malaysia[113]
 
July 21, 1968
President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued a policy statements about the Philippine claim
In radio-television chat, a day after the withdrawal of diplomatic corps in Kuala Lumpur, President Ferdinand E. Marcos, reiterated the Philippine government pacific policy in its efforts to pursue the claim and advocated the recourse to filing the case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).[114]
 
August 28, 1968
Congress approves Senate Bill No. 954 that delinates the baselines of the Philippines and provides that “the territory of Sabah, situated in North Borneo, over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty.”
Sent to the President for approval.[115]
Admiral Michael Carver, Commander-in-Chief of the British forces in the Far East said his troops, ships and planes “stand squarely behind Malaysia in the growing crises with the Philippines over Northern Sabah.”[116]
 
September 18, 1968
Upon the recommendation of the Foreign Policy Council, President Marcos signs Senate Bill No. 954. It became Republic Act No. 5446.[117]
US State Department Press Officer Robert J. McCloskey said the U.S. recognized the ownership of Malaysia over Sabah
Reactions:
Senator Roy: “a sneak betrayal of a friend and ally.”
Senator Benigno S. Aquino Jr: disappointment over Washington’s “shabby and painful treatment” of the Philippines.
Senator Ziga: U.S. action would make it lose friends in the Philippines[118]
Marcos called U.S. Ambassador R.G. Mennen Williams and secured assurance that U.S. would abide by her treaty commitment to defend the Philippines in case of British or Malaysian attack.
1,000 students from the University of Malaya invaded the compound of the Philippine embassy in Kuala Lumpur.
They stoned the building, pulled down the Philippine flag from its pole and trampled upon it[119]
 
October 15, 1968
23rd Session of the UN General Assembly, the Philippines and Malaysia tangled in a debate on the North Borneo (Sabah) Issue
PHL policy statement: bring issue up to World Court, consistent with the Manila Accord agreement
Malaysia policy statement: the people of Sabah had shown their desire to be with the Federation of Malaysia; upheld the British title to Sabah based on, “continuous occupation, administration and exercise of sovereignty, which by itself in international law, is sufficient as a good title;” there is no Philippine claim therefore nothing to discuss.[120]
 
December 1968
Malaysia proposed that the Philippines recognize her sovereignty over Sabah as a condition for the normalization of Philippine-Malaysian diplomatic relations, without prejudice to the Philippines pursuing her claim.[121]
 
January 22, 1969
President Ferdinand E. Marcos declares in SONA: Philippine claim to North Borneo is justified based on legal, historical, and moral grounds:
 
We will pursue the claim peacefully in keeping with the spirit of previous understandings with Malaysia and in accordance with the principles of national law. The claim is in the national interest and we intend to pursue it by making use of all available peaceful resources. We are encouraged by the fact that many of our Asian friends are helping in the search for a modus vivendi between the Philippines and Malaysia.
 
December 1969
Diplomatic relations between Malaysia and the Philippines formally resume as a result of a discussion between PM Tunku Abdul Rahman and Secretary of Foreign Affairs Carlos P. Romulo.

September 23, 1972
Martial Law is declared

October 24, 1972
Moro National Liberation Front begins rebellion against the government

1973 Constitution
Article on National Territory reads:
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all the other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic or legal title, including the territorial sea, the air space, the subsoil, the sea-bed, the insular shelves, and the submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, irrespective of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
 
1974-1986
Mahakuttah Kiram becomes Sultan in 1974, after the death of his father, Sultan Esmail Kiram I. He rules until his death in 1986.

May 10, 1974
Memorandum Order No. 427, s. 1974
Creating a committee to handle the confirmation of the Sultan of Sulu by the Ruma Bechara

May 13, 1974
Executive Order No. 429, S. 1974
Creating a Consultative Council on Muslim Affairs

December 23, 1976
Tripoli agreement is signed

August 4, 1977
President Ferdinand E. Marcos gives up claim to Sabah. At this point in Marcos’ Presidency, a legislature has not yet been convened, therefore, President Marcos exercised full authority over Foreign Affairs policy.
In a speech Marcos said:
 
The Philippine government is taking definite steps to eliminate one of the burdens of ASEAN — the Philippine claim to Sabah.[122]
After the statement, Marcos handed draft of the “Border Crossing and Joint Patrol Agreement” to Malaysia. It was not signed.[123]
Malaysians asked two things of the Philippines:
1) 1973 Constitution with its broad definition of our national territory be amended in order to eliminate the clause, “territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title.”
2) That R.A. 5446, particularly Section 2, be repealed.[124]
 
June 25, 1980
At the ASEAN Foreign Ministers Conference in Kuala Lumpur, MP Arturo Tolentino declared that the Philippine claim to Sabah “…is closed. We are not raising it anymore.”[125]
Three rounds of talks between Manila and Kuala Lumpur  break down with Malaysia objecting to quid pro quo approach of the Philippines.
Usec. of Foreign Affairs Pacifico Castro and Tan Sri Zainal meet intermittently in Manila and Kuala Lumpur.[126]
 
1982-1985
Secret talks between Minister Roberto V. Ongpin and Malaysian PM Mahathir.[127]
 
November 1982
Malaysian foreign ministry said, “Just a verbal announcement of the Philippines that it has dropped the claim is not enough. The Philippines has not taken all the necessary steps to delete a clause in its Constitution laying claim to Sabah.”[128]
PM Mahathir reiterated need for PHL to drop claim in a brief interview after speaking before the ASEAN Law Association general assembly at the University of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur.
He said claim  remained a “thorny problem” even though the Philippines is not actively pursuing it.[129]
 
May 1, 1986
Vice President and Minister for Foreign Affairs Salvador H. Laurel meets with PM Mahathir and Foreign Minister Tengku Ahmad Rithauddeen in Kuala Lumpur
Mahatir reiterated commitment to settle proprietary issue of the heirs of the Sultan when they could agree on a single spokesperson with whom the Malaysian government could deal.

June 1986
ASEAN Foreign Ministers meeting in Manila
Usec. of Foreign Affairs Jose D. Ingles and Sec. Gen. of Malaysian Foreign Ministry continue discussion of Sabah question.[130]
 
July 3, 1986
Debates of the Constitutional Commission
Draft proposed by Fr. Joaquin Bernas,S.J., removes “Historical right or legal title” from the National Territory section of the Constitution and replacing it with, “Over which the Government exercises Sovereignty and Jurisdiction”
Commissioner Serafin Guingona objects to this proposal saying it might be interpreted as a dropping of our claim to Sabah.
Bernas says this was in order to adhere to generally accepted principles of international law.

July 7, 1986
Debates of the Constitutional Commission
On second Reading the provision of National Territory which states “Over which the Government exercises Sovereign Jurisdiction” is approved.

July 9, 1986
Debates of the Constitutional Commission
On Third Reading the provision of National Territory which states “Over which the Government exercises Sovereign Jurisdiction” is lost.

July 10, 1986
Debates of the Constitutional Commission
Concepcion objects to the proposed section on National Territory thus bringing it back to Second Reading.
Bernas proposes to change the word Exercises to has.
The Provision is approved.

February 16, 1987
1987 Constitution comes into full force and effect, in fulfilment of the first stipulation of the Malaysians.
National Territory:
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
 
February 20, 1987
Series of meetings between Usec. of Foreign Affairs Jose D. Ingles and Tan Sri Zainal held further talks in Kuala Lumpur
Usec. of Foreign Affairs Jose D. Ingles and Sec. Gen. of Malaysian Foreign Ministry continue discussion of Sabah question.[131]
 
June 27, 1987
Series of meetings between Usec. of Foreign Affairs Jose D. Ingles  and Tan Sri Zainal held further talks in Hong Kong
Usec. of Foreign Affairs Jose D. Ingles and Sec. Gen. of Malaysian Foreign Ministry continue discussion of Sabah question. Philippines agreed to adopt new baseline law: Malaysians proposed agreements on border crossing, extradition, Treaty of Friendship, and establishment of consulates.[132]
 
October 23, 1987
Upon instructions from President Corazon C. Aquino, Secretary of Foreign Affairs Raul S. Manglapus tries to unify the heirs to the sultanate.
Letter of Manglapus to Senator Santanina Rasul:
 
I would like to suggest that the claimants organize themselves so that they may arrive at a common position…. Although yours is a private claim, we have the assurance of the Malaysian government that they are ready and willing to negotiate with the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu in order to settle this matter.
Senator Rasul successfully brings the heirs to Malacañan Palace and appoint representatives. However, talks were stalled when Jamalul III dissented.[133]
 
November 19, 1987
Senator Leticia Ramos-Shahani files Senate Bill no. 206 to repeal R.A. No. 5446. Says a package of bilateral treaties agreements on amity and economic cooperation, extradition, and border-crossing and patrols, are part of a package deal offered in exchange for the dropping of the Sabah claim.
Certified urgent by President Corazon C. Aquino but faced stiff opposition. It was not passed in the 8th Congress.[134]
 
December 4-6, 1987
President Corazon C. Aquino and Secretary Raul S. Manglapus met with the heirs without Jamalul Kiram III
Brief from the meeting:
 
They were of the opinion that Sultan Mohamad Jamalul Kiram III was expressing his own personal views which contravene the consensus reached at the meeting of the heirs with Secretary… Manglapus at the PICC on Friday, December 4 and at the conference of the heirs held with President Corazon C. Aquino at Malacañang on Saturday, December 5.[135]
 
August 28, 1988
Former Senator Arturo Tolentino opposed the Shahani Bill as it would drop Sabah claim.[136]
 
February 12, 1989
Sultan Mohammad Jamalal Kiram III(one of the claimnants to the throne) revoked the resolution of August 1962 regarding the transfer of title and sovereignty to the Republic of the Philippines.[137]
 
January 11, 1993
President Fidel V. Ramos issues Executive Order No. 46 creating the Bipartisan Executive-Legislative Advisory Council on the Sabah Issues

January 27 – 30, 1993
President Fidel V. Ramos state visit to Malaysia.
President Fidel V. Ramos makes proposal, Malaysia agrees to set up a consulate in Sabah and Davao, respectively. Downplays North Borneo issue despite calls from members of Congress to pursue claim
.
February 10, 1993
President Fidel V. Ramos attempts to unify the heirs to the Sultanate.
President Ramos suggested that to the representatives of the heirs that they create a corporation called the Sulu-Sabah Development Corporation. The entity would be the conduit of funds from the settlement of the proprietary claim over Sabah.[138]
 
July 1993
The Philippines and Malaysia sign MOU on Joint Commission on Bilateral Cooperation

December 6-10, 1993
1st PH-Malaysia Joint Commission for Bilateral Cooperation
The Meeting discussed the reciprocal establishment of Consular Offices in the Philippines and Malaysia.
The Philippine delegation stated that the Philippine Government was still considering possible sites for the establishment of a Consulate in East Malaysia
The Malaysian Delegation informed that Malaysia wishes to establish a consulate in southern Philippines. The Philippine Delegation welcomed the Malaysian proposal. The Philippine Delegation indicated that the Philippines is considering possible sites for a consular office in East Malaysia[139]
 
March 26, 1994
President Fidel V. Ramos proposes creation of BIMP-EAGA (Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Philippines-East ASEAN Growth Area)

1995, 10th Congress
HB 2657 – “The Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone Act of 1995”[140]
Introduced by Rep. Manuel B. Villar, Jr.

March 28 – 29, 1995
2nd PH-Malaysia Joint Commission for Bilateral Cooperation
The Malaysian side stated that the Malaysian Government has decided to establish a Consulate General in Davao City. A formal notification would be made to the Philippine Government and plans are for the Consulate to be set up in May/June 1995.”
 
The Philippine side welcomed the decision of the Malaysian Government and assured the Philippine Government’s full cooperation in the establishment of the Malaysian Consulate in Davao City. The Philippine side that the Philippine Government has yet to decide on the location of its Consulate in east Malaysia.[141]
 
1995
Philippine and Malaysian governments agree to setup a consulate in Sabah and Davao, respectively. Malaysia setup a consulate in Davao in December but the Philippines did not push through.[142]
 
May 29 – 31, 1995
3rd PH-Malaysia Joint Commission for Bilateral Cooperation (JCBC)
The Meeting agreed on the need to hold regular informal consultations between the relevant agencies of the two sides to resolve any outstanding problem pertaining to Filipino workers and illegal immigrants[143]
Opening Remarks by Datuk Abdullah Haji Ahmad Badawi, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia for the 3rd PH-Malaysia Joint Commission for Bilateral Cooperation (JCBC)
Regulating the Flow of People and Goods:
 
….The Armed Forces and Police of our respective countries have already concluded a historic joint patrol exercise designed to curb piracy, illegal entry and illegal fishing in the territorial waters of the two countries. A working group between our two countries had recently met in Sabah to deal with border crossing matters. This is an important development which will contribute to facilitating and regulating the flow of people and goods at the border areas of East Malaysia and Southern Philippines…..[144]
 
1996
Princess Denchurain Kiram writes Prime Minister Mahatir of Malaysia asking to increase the rental $1,000,000. She also said that she is willing to renounce the claim if the Malaysian Government provide a fair settlement.
Proposal was refused by the Prime Minister.[145]
 
September 2, 1996
Peace agreement MNLF

December 1996
Border Crossing and Joint Patrol agreements signed by the Philippines and Malaysia.

1998, 11th Congress
HB 2973 – “Archipelagic Baselines Law of the Philippines”
Introduced by Hon. J. Apolinario L. Lozada, Jr.[146]
 
July 5, 1999
Executive Order No. 117 reconstituted  the Bipartisan Executive-Legislative Advisory Council on the Sabah Issues
12th Congress
HB 2031 (HB 2973 re-filed)
Introduced by Hon. J. Apolinario L. Lozada, Jr.[147]
 
March 1-3, 2000
4th Malaysia-PH Joint Commission for Bilateral Cooperation
Establishment of a Consulate in Sabah:
 
The Meeting noted Philippines’ commitment towards the establishment of a Philippine Consulate in Sabah.[148]
 
January 2001
Sultan Esmail Kiram II writes Prime Minister Mahathir, through President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo to increase the lease fee to $855 million per annum[149]
 
February 2001
PHL files for Application to Gain Access to the Pleadings at the International Court of Justice hearing on the Ligitan-Sipadan islands dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia in order “to preserve and safeguard its historical and legal rights arising from its claim to sovereignty and dominion over the territory of North Borneo.”

March 13, 2001
PHL petitions ICJ to intervene in territorial dispute over Sipadan and Ligitan islands between Malaysia and Indonesia

March 14, 2001
Malaysian authorities reportedly expressed willingness to buy Sabah for US $800 M
Deal supposedly initiated by heirs of the Sultan of Sulu through legal counsel Ulka Ulama[150]
 
August 9, 2001
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, upon her return from a state visit to Malaysia, asks Vice President and Foreign Affairs Secretary Teofisto Guingona to set up an economic and cultural office in Sabah.
Office would be similar to Manila Economic and Cultural Office in Taiwan[151]
 
October 24, 2001
ICJ denies application of Philippines for intervention.

November 2001
ARMM Governor Nur Misuari ordered his troops  to wage rebellion. He escapes to Malaysia. Malaysian government extradites him back to the Philippines
Misuari, ARMM Governor since 1996, tried to lobby for an extension of his term set to expire in 2002. Failing, he ordered the Moro National Liberation Front to rebel in Jolo. It is crushed.[152]
 
2002
Some of the heirs meet in Malacañan Palace at the invitation of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
According to the article, Jamalul Kiram III was recognized as the Sultan. President Arroyo sent the letter asking for the adjustment of rent to Sabah to the Malaysian Prime Minister[153]
 
September 6, 2002
Executive Order No. 121 again reconstituted  the Bipartisan Executive-Legislative Advisory Council on the Sabah Issues

September 19, 2002
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo assures heirs of Sultan of Sulu that they are protected.

August 2002
Reports of “heavy-handed” of Filipino deportees spark diplomatic protest from Manila.
Philippine lawmakers support revival of claim.
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo urges officials and the public to separate territorial dispute from issue of Filipino deportees.

13th Congress
HB  1973 – An act defining the archipelagic baselines of the Philippine archipelago to include the Kalayaan Island Group and to conform with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, amending for the purpose Republic Act No. 3046, as amended by Republic Act No. 5446.
 
Introduced by Hon. Antonio V. Cuenco[154]
HB 6087 – An act defining the archipelagic baselines of the Philippine archipelago, amending for the purpose Republic Act No. 3046, as amended by Republic Act No. 5446.
 
Introduced by the Hons. Antonio V. Cuenco, Edgardo M. Chatto, Carmen L. Cari, Jose G. Solis and Roilo S. Golez[155]
 
July 14-16, 2004
JCBC discusses Filipino workers in Sabah and proposes Philippines set up a consulate in Sabah.
The Malaysian side requested the Philippine side to establish a Consulate in Sabah as soon as possible. The Philippine side reiterated the government’s commitment on this matter.[156]
 
September 14, 2004
Executive Order No. 357 The Bipartisan Executive-Legislative Advisory Council on the Sabah Issues was abolished and its functions transferred to DFA

September 2005
Group calling itself the “Royal Sultanate of Sulu Archipelago’s Supreme Council” warned Malaysian government not to entertain claims forwarded to it by so-called Sultan Rodinood Julaspi Kiram regarding the resolution of the North Borneo territorial issue.

April 27-28 2006
Closing Statement of Malaysian Foreign Minister Dato’ Seri Syed Hamid Albar at the 6th Malaysia-PH Joint Commission Meeting
Malaysian Foreign Minister Dato’ Seri Syed Hamid Albar, in his closing statement during the 6th Malaysia-PH Joint Commission Meeting  in Kuala Lumpur, asked Secretary Alberto G. Romulo to jointly “find ways to bring a final conclusion to the long due bilateral matters, namely the displaced people in Sabah and the setting up of the Philippine Consulate General in Kota Kinabalu.”[157]
 
June 3,  2006
Mohammad Fuad Abdulla Kiram I was proclaimed 35th Sultan of the Royal Hashimite Sultanate of Sulu and Sabah with a backing of the Moro National Liberation Front.

May 2007
Jamalul Kiram III runs unsuccessfully for Senator under Partido Demokratikong Sosyalista ng Pilipinas (PDSP), receiving over two million votes. PDSP coalesces with President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s Lakas-CMD and KAMPI to form TEAM Unity. Administration coalition is crushed in the polls with only two of its bets winning, the other 10 seats are won by the opposition.
14th Congress
HB 1202[158]
Introduced by Hon. Antonio V. Cuenco
 
May 29, 2008
Nur Misuari called for the revival of North Borneo claim in Second Mindanao Leadership Summit attended by MNLF combatants
Strong reaction from Datuk Seri Panglima Yong Teck Lee, President of the Sabah Progressive Party urging Malaysia’s Federal Government to bring in military, set up consulates in Mindanao and invite PHL to set up consulate in Sabah

July 9, 2008
“Sultanate of Sulu” reportedly starts issuing birth certificates to Filipinos in Sabah

July 27, 2008
Datu Omar negotiator of Mohammad Jamal Al Alam heirs was quoted “obtained signatures of nine heirs relinquishing claims to Sabah” but these are denied by claimants
Uka Ulama claimed that nobody has the power to drop the claim because there is no more Sultan who reigns and rules over the territory.

August 10, 2008
Sulu provincial government tells Malaysia to Increase annual payment to Jamalul Kiram III to $500M[159]
August 20, 2008
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issues Memorandum Circular No. 162 or “Guidelines on matters pertaining to North Borneo (Sabah)”
No recognition of a foreign state’s sovereignty over North Borneo; any official activity relating to North Borneo carried out only with the clearance of or after consultations with DFA

March 10, 2009
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signs R.A. 9522, amending R.A. 5446
In fulfilment of the second Malaysian stipulation, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo removes mention of Sabah or North Borneo in the Archipelagic Baselines of the Philippines la.

2010
Nur Misuari issued a statement calling the attention of Malaysia to settle the Sabah issue.[160]
 
June 2010
Sulu provincial board passed a resolution supporting the demand of heirs to increase the yearly payment to at least $500 Million. [161]
 
July 16, 2011
Supreme Court decision (GR No. 187167) upholds the baseline law
In its decision, the Supreme Court makes a conclusion of law: that R.A. 9522 did not repeal R.A. 5466, and that therefore, the Philippine claim over Sabah is retained and can be pursued. However, since this is a conclusion of law, the Supreme Court made its conclusion of law without explaining the reasons for its conclusion. It makes the decision, however, binding on the government.

April 24-27, 2012
Visit to the Philippines of Malaysian House Speaker Pandikar Amin Haji Mulia
Malaysian House Speaker Pandikar Amin Haji Mulia raised the matter of the opening of a consulate during his call on President Benigno S. Aquino III, who, in response, instructed the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to study the proposal.[162]

June 5, 2012
Upon returning from a visit to Malaysia, Vice-President Binay says he will recommend to the President the setting up of a Philippine Consulate in Sabah.  (ABS-CBNNews.com)

February 12, 2013
Followers of Jamalul Kiram numbering over 200 men landed in Laha Datu village in Sabah on February 12, 2013.[163]
 REFERENCES


[1]                Abinales, Patricio. “Re-constructing Colonial Philippines: 1900-1910.” 1900-2000: the Philippine Century. Manila: Philippines Free Press, 2001. p. 19. Print.
[2]                Cesar Adib Majul: “Muslims in the Philippines,” 1999 edition
[3]                Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo.Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
[4]                Abinales, Patricio. “Re-constructing Colonial Philippines: 1900-1910.” 1900-2000: the Philippine Century. Manila: Philippines Free Press, 2001. p. 19. Print.
[5]                Abinales, Patricio. “Re-constructing Colonial Philippines: 1900-1910.” 1900-2000: the Philippine Century. Manila: Philippines Free Press, 2001. p. 19. Print.; Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[6]                Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo.Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
[7]                Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo. Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
[8]                Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo.Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
 
[9]                Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo. Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
 
[10]              Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo. Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
 
[11]              Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo. Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
[12]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
 
[13]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
 
[14]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[15]              Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo. Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.; Original Document: December 1878 Statement and Application of Debt of Dent and Overbeck to the Marquis of Salisbury
[16]              Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo. Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.; The Philippine claim to a portion of North Borneo: materials and documents.. Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International Legal Studies, University of the Philippines Law Center, 2003. Print.
[17]              U.P. Law Center – The Philippine Claim to a portion of North Borneo (Sabah): Materials and Documents
[18]              U.P. Law Center - The Philippine Claim to a portion of North Borneo (Sabah): Materials and Documents
[19]              U.P. Law Center - The Philippine Claim to a portion of North Borneo (Sabah): Materials and Documents
[20]              Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print. ; Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo. Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
[21]              Tarling, Nicholas. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia (Volume Two, Part One). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.
[22]              U.P. Law Center – The Philippine Claim to a portion of North Borneo (Sabah): Materials and Documents
[23]              Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo. Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[24]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
 
[25]              The Philippine claim to a portion of North Borneo: materials and documents.. Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International Legal Studies, University of the Philippines Law Center, 2003. Print.
[26]              Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo.Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
 
[27]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
 
[28]              Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo. Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
[29]              Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo.Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
[30]              Tarling, Nicholas. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia (Volume Two, Part One). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.
[31]              Bautista Lowell B. “The Historical Context and Legal Basis of the
Philippine Treaty Limits” Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal. 2008
[32]              Agoncillo, Teodoro A.. Malolos: the crisis of the Republic. Quezon City: University of the Philippines, 1960. Print.
[33]              Bautista Lowell B. “The Historical Context and Legal Basis of the
Philippine Treaty Limits” Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal. 2008
[34]              Bautista Lowell B. “The Historical Context and Legal Basis of the
Philippine Treaty Limits” Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal. 2008
[35]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[36]              Letter of Diosdado Macapagal to Sen. Leticia Ramos-Shahani dated
May 1, 1989
[37]              Harrison, Francis Burton. The Cornerstone of Philippine Independence, A Narrative of Seven Years. 1922. Reprint. Michigan: UMI Books on Demand, 2002. Print
[38]              Letter of Diosdado Macapagal to Sen. Leticia Ramos-Shahani dated
May 1, 1989
[39]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[40]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[41]              Fry, Howard T. “The Bacon Bill of 1926: New Light on an Exercise in Divide-and-Rule” Philippine Studies Journal. 1978; Churchill, Bernardita R. The Philippine Independence Missions to the United States 1919-1934 (1983 NHI)
[42]              Bautista Lowell B. “The Historical Context and Legal Basis of the
Philippine Treaty Limits” Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal. 2008
[43]              The Sunday Times, 9 May 1937 p. 10
[44]              Harrison, Francis Burton. The Cornerstone of Philippine Independence, A Narrative of Seven Years. 1922. Reprint. Michigan: UMI Books on Demand, 2002. Print
[45]              Philippine Magazine Volume XXXIV No.3 (March 1937)
[46]              Philippine Magazine Volume XXXIV No.3 (March 1937)
[47]              Sunday Times,  May 9, 1937
[48]              Sunday Times Article, May 9, 1937
[49]              Memorandum of President Manuel L. Quezon
[50]              Original Document: Letter of Rep. Amilbangsa to President Manuel L. Quezon
[51]              Original Document: Manuel L. Quezon letter to Executive Secretary Jorge Vargas
[52]              Newspaper article: Sydney Morning Herald; Original Document: Harrison letter to Vice President Elpidio Quirino dated February 27, 1947
[53]              United Press Article, 1940
[54]              Tarling, Nicholas. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia (Volume Two, Part Two).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.
[55]              Parpan S.J., Alfredo G. “The Philippine Claim on North Borneo: Another Look” Philippine Studies. (1988) Print.
[56]              Parpan S.J., Alfredo G. “The Philippine Claim on North Borneo: Another Look” Philippine Studies. (1988) Print.; Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[57]              Macapagal, Diosdado. “A Stone for the Edifice, Memoirs of a President” (1968); Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[58]              Original Document: Harrison letter to Vice President Elpidio Quirino dated February 27, 1947
[59]              Original Document: Harrison letter to Vice President Elpidio Quirino dated February 27, 1947
[60]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[61]              Tarling, Nicholas. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia (Volume Two, Part Two).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.
[62]              Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[63]              Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[64]              Milton Walter Mayer. A Diplomatic History of the Philippine Republic: The First Years 1946-1961.
[65]              Milton Walter Mayer. A Diplomatic History of the Philippine Republic: The First Years 1946-1961.
[66]              Original Document: Federation of Malaya Act
[67]              Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[68]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[69]              Original Document: Federation of Malaya Independence Act
[70]              Fernandez, Erwin S., Philippine-Malaysia Dispute over Sabah: A Bibliographic Survey. Department of Filipino and Philippine Literature, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Vol.7 No. 2, December 2007
[71]              Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.; Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[72]              U.P. Law Center – The Philippine Claim to a portion of North Borneo (Sabah): Materials and Documents
[73]              The Philippine claim to a portion of North Borneo: materials and documents.. Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International Legal Studies, University of the Philippines Law Center, 2003. Print.
[74]              The Philippine claim to a portion of North Borneo: materials and documents.. Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International Legal Studies, University of the Philippines Law Center, 2003. Print.; DFA. “A Study on the Claim to North Borneo (Sabah).”
[75]              Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[76]              The Philippine Claim to a portion of North Borneo: Materials and Documents; Macapagal, Diosdado. “A Stone for the Edifice, Memoirs of a President” (1968);
[77]              Macapagal, Diosdado. “A Stone for the Edifice, Memoirs of a President” (1968);Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. (Print.)
[78]              The Philippine Claim to a portion of North Borneo: Materials and Documents
[79]              The Philippine claim to a portion of North Borneo: materials and documents.. Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International Legal Studies, University of the Philippines Law Center, 2003. Print.
[80]              The Philippine claim to a portion of North Borneo: materials and documents.. Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International Legal Studies, University of the Philippines Law Center, 2003. Print.
[81]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[82]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.; The Philippine claim to a portion of North Borneo: materials and documents.. Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International Legal Studies, University of the Philippines Law Center, 2003. Print.
[83]              Macapagal, Diosdado. “A Stone for the Edifice, Memoirs of a President” (1968);
[84]              Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[85]              Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[86]              The Philippine Claim to a portion of North Borneo: Materials and Documents..Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International Legal Studies, University of the Philippines Law Center, 2003. Print.
[87]              Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[88]              Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[89]              Philippine Claim to Sabah (North Borneo) Vol. II
[90]              Original Document: Agreement relating to Malaysia, 1963
[91]              Original Document: Manila Accord sign on July 31, 1963 by President Soekarno, President Macapagal, and Prime Minister Tunku.
[92]              Original Document: Joint Statement of the Philippines, Federation of Malaya, and Indonesia
[93]              Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[94]                            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[95]                            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[96]              Jose, Abueva, and de Guzaman Raul.Foundations and Dynamics of the Filipino Government and Politics. Quezon City: Bookmark, 1969. Print.
[97]              Parpan S.J., Alfredo G. “The Philippine Claim on North Borneo: Another Look” Philippine Studies. (1988) Print.; Jose, Abueva, and de Guzaman Raul.Foundations and Dynamics of the Filipino Government and Politics. Quezon City:
[98]              Severino, Rodolfo. Where in the World Is the Philippines?: Debating Its National Territory(2011); Flores, Jeremia C. et. al. “The Legal Implications of the Unilateral Dropping of the Sabah Claim”Philippine Law Journal. (1982)
[99]              Macapagal, Diosdado. “A Stone for the Edifice, Memoirs of a President” (1968);
[100]            Parpan S.J., Alfredo G. “The Philippine Claim on North Borneo: Another Look” Philippine Studies. (1988) Print.,
[101]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[102]            Parpan S.J., Alfredo G. “The Philippine Claim on North Borneo: Another Look” Philippine Studies. (1988) Print.,
[103]            Parpan S.J., Alfredo G. “The Philippine Claim on North Borneo: Another Look” Philippine Studies. (1988) Print.,
[104]            Flores, Jeremia C. et. al. “The Legal Implications of the Unilateral Dropping of the Sabah Claim” Philippine Law Journal. (1982)
[105]            ASEAN Bangkok Declaration
[106]            Fernandez, Erwin S.,Philippine-Malaysia Dispute over Sabah: A Bibliographic Survey.Department of Filipino and Philippine Literature, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Vol.7 No. 2, December 2007
[107]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[108]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[109]                        Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[110]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.; Parpan S.J., Alfredo G. “The Philippine Claim on North Borneo: Another Look” Philippine Studies. (1988) Print.,
[111]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.; Parpan S.J., Alfredo G. “The Philippine Claim on North Borneo: Another Look” Philippine Studies. (1988) Print.
[112]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.; Parpan S.J., Alfredo G. “The Philippine Claim on North Borneo: Another Look” Philippine Studies. (1988) Print.
[113]                        Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[114]            Fernandez, Erwin S., Philippine-Malaysia Dispute over Sabah: A Bibliographic Survey. Department of Filipino and Philippine Literature, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Vol.7 No. 2, December 2007
[115]                        Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[116]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[117]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[118]                        Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[119]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[120]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[121]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[122]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.; Severino, Rodolfo. Where in the World Is the Philippines?: Debating Its National Territory (2011)
[123]            DFA
[124]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[125]            DFA. “A Study on the Claim to North Borneo (Sabah).”
[126]            DFA. “A Study on the Claim to North Borneo (Sabah).”
[127]            DFA. “A Study on the Claim to North Borneo (Sabah).”
[128]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[129]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[130]            DFA
[131]            DFA. “A Study on the Claim to North Borneo (Sabah).”
[132]            DFA. “A Study on the Claim to North Borneo (Sabah).”
[133]            Rasul, Amina. “The Sabah Standoff” Businessworld. February 21, 2013
[134]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[135]            Rasul, Amina. “The Sabah Standoff” Businessworld. February 21, 2013
[136]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[137]            DFA. “A Study on the Claim to North Borneo (Sabah).”
[138]            Rasul, Amina. “The Sabah Standoff” Businessworld. February 21, 2013
[139]            Agreed Minutes of the 1st PH-Malaysia Joint Commission for Bilateral Cooperation
[140]            The Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as declared under P.D. No. 1599 charts the exclusive economic zone to extend two hundred (200) nautical miles from the baselines which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.
The act is focused more on the economic aspects of setting an exclusive economic zone and not territorial boundaries.
[141]            Agreed Minutes of the 2nd PH-Malaysia Joint Commission for Bilateral Cooperation
[142]            Severino, Rodolfo. Where in the World Is the Philippines?: Debating Its National Territory (2011)
[143]            Agreed Minutes of the 3rd PH-Malaysia Joint Commission for Bilateral Cooperation (JCBC)
[144]            Agreed Minutes of the 3rd PH-Malaysia Joint Commission for Bilateral Cooperation (JCBC)
[145]            Rasul, Amina. “The Sabah Standoff” Businessworld. February 21, 2013
[146]            An act defining the archipelagic baselines of the Philippine archipelago to include the Kalayaan Island Group and to conform with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, amending for the purpose Republic Act No. 3046, as amended by Republic Act No. 5446.
[147]            Bill is exactly the same as HB 2973
[148]            Agreed Minutes of the 4th Malaysia-PH Joint Commission for Bilateral Cooperation
[149]            Rasul, Amina. “The Sabah Standoff” Businessworld. February 21, 2013
[150]            DFA. “A Study on the Claim to North Borneo (Sabah).”
[151]            Tordesillas, Ellen. “Ermita’s Sabah memo.” Malaya September 12, 2008
[152]            Abinales, P. N., and Donna J. Amoroso. State and Society in the Philippines. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005. Print.
[153]            Rasul, Amina. “The Sabah Standoff” Businessworld. February 21, 2013
[154]            Has exactly the same Explanatory Note as Lozada’s HB 2973 and HB 2031.
Section three cites Part IV of the 1982 UNCLO, absent in Lozada’s version.
Lists the geographical coordinates with the location basepoints of the archipelagic baselines of the Philippines with some alterations from Lozada’s version.
Section four cites Article 121 of the 1982 UNCLOS on the territorial sea and contiguous zone of the Scarborough Shoal, otherwise know as Panacot Shoal or Bajo de Masinloc.
Includes “Without Prejudice Clause” (Sec. 5) and tasks the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) to produce and publish charts and maps representing the delineation of maritime zones set forth in the act (Sec. 6).
Substituted by HB 6087
[155]            Notes: Deletes Cuenco insertion in Section three.
Complies with the requirements if the UNCLOS.
Lists the geographical coordinates with the location basepoints of the archipelagic baselines of the Philippines following Cuenco’s HB 1973.
Proposes that the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) be declared Regime of Islands under the UNCLOS and the Scarborough Shoal or Bajo de Masinloc be enclosed within the baselines of the main archipelago.
Provides a “No Prejudice Clause” on any claims to any contested portions of the national territory or maritime zones and jurisdictions of the country.
Provides, likewise, a “Vested Interest Rights Clause” for the recognition of existing and the enforcement of claims by local government unite to an extended continental shelf under the UNCLOS as well as on allotments and shares in the income generated from natural resources within the national territory by virtue of R.A. 7160 (Local Code of 1991, as amended) which are delineated prior to this proposed Act.
Tasks the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) to produce and publish charts and maps representing the delineation of maritime zones set forth in the act (Sec. 8)
[156]            Agreed Minutes of the 5th PH-Malaysia Joint Commission Meeting
[157]            OUSOC Memorandum dated 16 May 2012 on the Establishment of a Consulate in Sabah
[158]            An act defining the archipelagic baselines of the Philippine archipelago, amending for the purpose Republic Act No. 3046, as amended by Republic Act No. 5446.
Note: Seeks to amend R.A. 3046 as amended by R.A. 5446 by drawing straight baselines on the outermost points of Scarborough Shoal and joining them with the baselines defined under R.A. 3046, as amended.
Lists the geographical coordinates with the location basepoints of the archipelagic baselines of the Philippines following HB 6087 (Cuenco, et al).
Includes the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) as regime of islands, with some amendments to conform with the criteria set under Article 47 if the UNCLOS. (Sec. 4)
Seeks to establish new baseline laws of the Philippines to serve as basis from which to draw the 12-mile territorial sea, the 24-mile contiguous zone and the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), as provided under UNCLOS.
Provides “Without Prejudice Clause” (Sec. 5) and “Vested Rights” (Sec. 6).
Tasks the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) to produce and publish charts and maps representing the delineation of maritime zones set forth in the act (Sec. 8).
Seeks appropriations to carry out the provisions of the act, either through a supplemental budget or inclusion in the General Appropriations Act.
Substituted by HB 3216
[159]            DFA
[160]            Rasul, Amina. “The Sabah Standoff” Businessworld. February 21, 2013
[161]            Rasul, Amina. “The Sabah Standoff” Businessworld. February 21, 2013
[162]            ASPAC Memorandum dated May 17, 2012, on the Establishment of a Consulate in Sabah
[163]            Lapeña, Carmela G. “Timeline: The centuries-old tug-of-war over Sabah” GMA. February 18, 2013.
Works Cited
Books
Abinales, P. N., and Donna J. Amoroso. State and Society in the Philippines. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005. Print.
Abinales, Patricio. “Re-constructing Colonial Philippines: 1900-1910.” 1900-2000: the Philippine Century. Manila: Philippines Free Press, 2001. p. 19. Print.
Abueva, Jose, and de Guzman, Raul. Foundations and Dynamics of the Filipino Government and Politics. Quezon City: Bookmark, 1969. Print.
Agoncillo, Teodoro A.. Malolos: the crisis of the Republic. Quezon City: University of the Philippines, 1960. Print.
Aruego, Jose M. . The Framing of the Philippine Constitution. Manila: University Publishing Co., Inc., 1936. Print.
Bernas, Joaquin G.. The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary. 2003 ed. Manila, Philippines: Published & distributed by Rex Book Store, 2003. Print.
Churchill, Bernardita Reyes. The Philippine independence missions to the United States, 1919-1934.Manila, Philippines: National Historical Institute, 1983. Print.
Harrison, Francis Burton . Origins of the Philippine Public: Extracts from the Diaries and Records of Francis Burton Harrison. Michigan: UMI Books on Demand, 2002. Print.
Harrison, Francis Burton. The Cornerstone of Philippine Independence, A Narrative of Seven Years. 1922. Reprint. Michigan: UMI Books on Demand, 2002. Print.
Hayden, Joseph Ralston. The Philippines: a Study in National Development. 1942 ed. New York: Arno Press, 1972. Print.
Institute, Foreign Service . Diplomatic Agenda of Philippine Presidents 1946-1985. Manila: Foreign Service Institute, 1985. Print.
Macapagal, Diosdado. A Stone for the Edifice, Memoirs of a President. Quezon City: Mac Publishing House, 1968. Print.
Majul, Cesar Adib. Muslims in the Philippines. 1973. Reprint. Quezon City: Published for the Asian Center by the University of the Philippines Press, 1999. Print.
McKenna, Thomas M.. Muslim Rulers and Rebels: Everyday Politics and Armed Separatism in the Southern Philippines. 1998. Reprint. Manila: Anvil Publishing, 2002. Print.
Printing, Bureau of. Messages of the President, Volume 2 Part 2. Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1937. Print.
Reynolds, Quentin James, and Geoffrey Bocca. Macapagal, The Incorruptible. New York: D. McKay Co., 1965. Print.
Severino, Rodolfo. Where in the World Is the Philippines?: Debating Its National Territory. Manila: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2011. Print.
Tarling, Nicholas. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia (Volume Two, Part Two). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.
Tarling, Nicholas. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia (Volume Two, Part One). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.
Tarling, Nicholas. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia (Volume One, Part Two). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.
The Philippine claim to a portion of North Borneo: materials and documents. Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International Legal Studies, University of the Philippines Law Center, 2003. Print.
Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo. Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
Journals
Bautista, Lowell. “The Historical Context and Legal Basis of the Philippine Treaty Limits.” Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal 10.no.1 (2008): n. .pag. Social Science Research Network. Web. 21 Feb. 2013.
Fry, Howard T.. “The Bacon Bill of 1926: New Light on an Exercise in Divide-and-Rule.” Philippine Studies26.no.3 (1978). Print.
Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
Flores, Jeremia C., Clarencia S. Reyes, and Rodolfo C. Sabio. “The Legal Implications of the Unilateral Dropping of the Sabah Claim.” Philippine Law Journal 57.1 (1982): 78-103. Print.
Newspapers
Rasul, Amina. “The Sabah Standoff.” Business World [Manila] 21 Feb. 2013: n. pag. Business World Online. Web. 21 Feb. 2013.
Sydney Morning Herald. “Philippines May Lay Claim to British Colony.” Sydney Morning Herald 18 July 1946: 3. Print.
The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser. “Moro Princess Renounces Her Land Claims.” The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser 24 Apr. 1940: 4. Print.
The Sunday Times. “School Teacher Proclaimed Sultan.” The Sunday Times [Singapore] 20 Dec. 1936: p.18. National Library Singapore. Web. 21 Feb. 2013.
ZamboTimes . “Sovereignty over Sabah, the real reigning Sultan: Sultan Rodinood   – ZamboTimes.”ZamboTimes . N.p., 16 Sept. 2009. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. .
Websites
British North Borneo. “British Borneo Treaties.” Lawnet. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2013. .
“Hadji Rodinood M. Sultan Julaspi Kiram – reigning 29th Sultan of Sulu.” Sovereign Sulu. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Feb. 2013. .
“History of the Royal House of Sulu.” Official website of the Royal House of Sulu. N.p., 20 Dec. 1936. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. .
Quezon III, Manuel L.  “Repulsion and Colonization”. Manuel L. Quezon III . N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. .
Quezon III, Manuel L. “The perils of partition .” Manuel L. Quezon III . N.p., 11 Aug. 2008. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. .
Quezon III, Manuel L.”Greater Malaysia.” Manuel L. Quezon III. N.p., 15 Aug. 2008. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. .
Sauler, Erika. “Royal Sultan Sulu & Sabah.” Tropical Paradise of North Borneo Sabah. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. .
Sidayu, Agung. “Governor of Sulu Philippines recognized HM Sultan Fuad A Kiram I | PRLog.” Free Press Release Distribution Service. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. .
“Short History of the Sulu Sultanate.” Sovereign Sulu. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2013. .
Letters/ Memoranda
Quezon, Manuel Luis. Powers of the Commissioner of Mindanao and Sulu. Letter to Hon. Apolonio D. Curato, 28 July 1936.
Quezon, Manuel Luis. Administration of Affairs in Mindanao. Memorandum for the Secretary of the Interior, 20 September 1937.
Vargas, Jorge B. Three-Point Policy for Mindanao and Sulu. Letter to Hon. Ombra Amilbangsa, 8 October 1937.
Macapagal, Diosdado. Letter of Diosdado Macapagal to Sen. Leticia Ramos-Shahani. 1 May 1989.
Speeches
Quezon, Manuel L.“Development of Mindanao.” Visit of the National Assembly to Lanao. Camp Keithley, Lanao. 6 June 1936. Speech.
Ramos, Narciso. “Philippine Policy Statement in the United Nations: Philippines Brings the Sabah Dispute to the U.N.” United Nations General Assembly, 23rd Session. Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines. New York, New York. 15 Oct. 1968. Speech.
Salonga, Jovito R.. “A Point-by-Point Reply to the Sumulong Report on the Philippine Claim to North Borneo.” Anglo-Philippine Talks . Legal Committee of the Philippine Delegation to the Anglo-Philippine Talks. London, London. 30 Mar. 1963. Speech.
Tolentino, Arturo M.. “The Philippines Challenges Malaysia to Bring the Sabah Issue to the World Court.” 23rd Plenary Session of the United Nations General Assembly. Philippine Delegation to the United Nations. New York, New York. 25 Oct. 1968. Speech.
Government Sources
Foreign Service Institute. The North Borneo Claim: Options for the Philippines. Meeting of the Informal Working Group on Sabah: Center for International Relations and Strategic Studies, 2008. Print.
The Republic of the Philippines. A Study on the Claim to North Borneo (Sabah). 20 March 2012. Print.
Maglana, Constancio. Sabah is Philippines. Manila: The Bureau of Printing, 1968. Print.
Medvedev, Datu Sadja Michael Y. . “History of the Royal House of Sulu.” Official website of the Royal House of Sulu. N.p., 20 Dec. 1936. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. .
Printing, Bureau of . Philippine Claim to North Borneo, Volume II. Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1967. Print.
Printing, Bureau of. Philippine Claim to North Borneo. Manila: Bureau of Printing , Volume i, 1963. Print.
- See more at: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/66281/north-borneo-sabah-an-annotated-timeline-1640s-present#sthash.a1SyN6QQ.dpuf

[1]                Abinales, Patricio. “Re-constructing Colonial Philippines: 1900-1910.” 1900-2000: the Philippine Century. Manila: Philippines Free Press, 2001. p. 19. Print.
[2]                Cesar Adib Majul: “Muslims in the Philippines,” 1999 edition
[3]                Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo.Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
[4]                Abinales, Patricio. “Re-constructing Colonial Philippines: 1900-1910.” 1900-2000: the Philippine Century. Manila: Philippines Free Press, 2001. p. 19. Print.
[5]                Abinales, Patricio. “Re-constructing Colonial Philippines: 1900-1910.” 1900-2000: the Philippine Century. Manila: Philippines Free Press, 2001. p. 19. Print.; Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[6]                Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo.Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
[7]                Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo. Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
[8]                Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo.Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
 
[9]                Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo. Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
 
[10]              Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo. Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
 
[11]              Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo. Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
[12]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
 
[13]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
 
[14]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[15]              Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo. Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.; Original Document: December 1878 Statement and Application of Debt of Dent and Overbeck to the Marquis of Salisbury
[16]              Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo. Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.; The Philippine claim to a portion of North Borneo: materials and documents.. Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International Legal Studies, University of the Philippines Law Center, 2003. Print.
[17]              U.P. Law Center – The Philippine Claim to a portion of North Borneo (Sabah): Materials and Documents
[18]              U.P. Law Center - The Philippine Claim to a portion of North Borneo (Sabah): Materials and Documents
[19]              U.P. Law Center - The Philippine Claim to a portion of North Borneo (Sabah): Materials and Documents
[20]              Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print. ; Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo. Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
[21]              Tarling, Nicholas. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia (Volume Two, Part One). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.
[22]              U.P. Law Center – The Philippine Claim to a portion of North Borneo (Sabah): Materials and Documents
[23]              Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo. Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[24]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
 
[25]              The Philippine claim to a portion of North Borneo: materials and documents.. Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International Legal Studies, University of the Philippines Law Center, 2003. Print.
[26]              Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo.Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
 
[27]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
 
[28]              Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo. Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
[29]              Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo.Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
[30]              Tarling, Nicholas. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia (Volume Two, Part One). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.
[31]              Bautista Lowell B. “The Historical Context and Legal Basis of the
Philippine Treaty Limits” Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal. 2008
[32]              Agoncillo, Teodoro A.. Malolos: the crisis of the Republic. Quezon City: University of the Philippines, 1960. Print.
[33]              Bautista Lowell B. “The Historical Context and Legal Basis of the
Philippine Treaty Limits” Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal. 2008
[34]              Bautista Lowell B. “The Historical Context and Legal Basis of the
Philippine Treaty Limits” Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal. 2008
[35]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[36]              Letter of Diosdado Macapagal to Sen. Leticia Ramos-Shahani dated
May 1, 1989
[37]              Harrison, Francis Burton. The Cornerstone of Philippine Independence, A Narrative of Seven Years. 1922. Reprint. Michigan: UMI Books on Demand, 2002. Print
[38]              Letter of Diosdado Macapagal to Sen. Leticia Ramos-Shahani dated
May 1, 1989
[39]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[40]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[41]              Fry, Howard T. “The Bacon Bill of 1926: New Light on an Exercise in Divide-and-Rule” Philippine Studies Journal. 1978; Churchill, Bernardita R. The Philippine Independence Missions to the United States 1919-1934 (1983 NHI)
[42]              Bautista Lowell B. “The Historical Context and Legal Basis of the
Philippine Treaty Limits” Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal. 2008
[43]              The Sunday Times, 9 May 1937 p. 10
[44]              Harrison, Francis Burton. The Cornerstone of Philippine Independence, A Narrative of Seven Years. 1922. Reprint. Michigan: UMI Books on Demand, 2002. Print
[45]              Philippine Magazine Volume XXXIV No.3 (March 1937)
[46]              Philippine Magazine Volume XXXIV No.3 (March 1937)
[47]              Sunday Times,  May 9, 1937
[48]              Sunday Times Article, May 9, 1937
[49]              Memorandum of President Manuel L. Quezon
[50]              Original Document: Letter of Rep. Amilbangsa to President Manuel L. Quezon
[51]              Original Document: Manuel L. Quezon letter to Executive Secretary Jorge Vargas
[52]              Newspaper article: Sydney Morning Herald; Original Document: Harrison letter to Vice President Elpidio Quirino dated February 27, 1947
[53]              United Press Article, 1940
[54]              Tarling, Nicholas. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia (Volume Two, Part Two).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.
[55]              Parpan S.J., Alfredo G. “The Philippine Claim on North Borneo: Another Look” Philippine Studies. (1988) Print.
[56]              Parpan S.J., Alfredo G. “The Philippine Claim on North Borneo: Another Look” Philippine Studies. (1988) Print.; Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[57]              Macapagal, Diosdado. “A Stone for the Edifice, Memoirs of a President” (1968); Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[58]              Original Document: Harrison letter to Vice President Elpidio Quirino dated February 27, 1947
[59]              Original Document: Harrison letter to Vice President Elpidio Quirino dated February 27, 1947
[60]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[61]              Tarling, Nicholas. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia (Volume Two, Part Two).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.
[62]              Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[63]              Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[64]              Milton Walter Mayer. A Diplomatic History of the Philippine Republic: The First Years 1946-1961.
[65]              Milton Walter Mayer. A Diplomatic History of the Philippine Republic: The First Years 1946-1961.
[66]              Original Document: Federation of Malaya Act
[67]              Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[68]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[69]              Original Document: Federation of Malaya Independence Act
[70]              Fernandez, Erwin S., Philippine-Malaysia Dispute over Sabah: A Bibliographic Survey. Department of Filipino and Philippine Literature, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Vol.7 No. 2, December 2007
[71]              Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.; Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[72]              U.P. Law Center – The Philippine Claim to a portion of North Borneo (Sabah): Materials and Documents
[73]              The Philippine claim to a portion of North Borneo: materials and documents.. Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International Legal Studies, University of the Philippines Law Center, 2003. Print.
[74]              The Philippine claim to a portion of North Borneo: materials and documents.. Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International Legal Studies, University of the Philippines Law Center, 2003. Print.; DFA. “A Study on the Claim to North Borneo (Sabah).”
[75]              Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[76]              The Philippine Claim to a portion of North Borneo: Materials and Documents; Macapagal, Diosdado. “A Stone for the Edifice, Memoirs of a President” (1968);
[77]              Macapagal, Diosdado. “A Stone for the Edifice, Memoirs of a President” (1968);Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. (Print.)
[78]              The Philippine Claim to a portion of North Borneo: Materials and Documents
[79]              The Philippine claim to a portion of North Borneo: materials and documents.. Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International Legal Studies, University of the Philippines Law Center, 2003. Print.
[80]              The Philippine claim to a portion of North Borneo: materials and documents.. Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International Legal Studies, University of the Philippines Law Center, 2003. Print.
[81]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
[82]              Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies. 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.; The Philippine claim to a portion of North Borneo: materials and documents.. Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International Legal Studies, University of the Philippines Law Center, 2003. Print.
[83]              Macapagal, Diosdado. “A Stone for the Edifice, Memoirs of a President” (1968);
[84]              Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[85]              Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[86]              The Philippine Claim to a portion of North Borneo: Materials and Documents..Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International Legal Studies, University of the Philippines Law Center, 2003. Print.
[87]              Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[88]              Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[89]              Philippine Claim to Sabah (North Borneo) Vol. II
[90]              Original Document: Agreement relating to Malaysia, 1963
[91]              Original Document: Manila Accord sign on July 31, 1963 by President Soekarno, President Macapagal, and Prime Minister Tunku.
[92]              Original Document: Joint Statement of the Philippines, Federation of Malaya, and Indonesia
[93]              Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[94]                            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[95]                            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[96]              Jose, Abueva, and de Guzaman Raul.Foundations and Dynamics of the Filipino Government and Politics. Quezon City: Bookmark, 1969. Print.
[97]              Parpan S.J., Alfredo G. “The Philippine Claim on North Borneo: Another Look” Philippine Studies. (1988) Print.; Jose, Abueva, and de Guzaman Raul.Foundations and Dynamics of the Filipino Government and Politics. Quezon City:
[98]              Severino, Rodolfo. Where in the World Is the Philippines?: Debating Its National Territory(2011); Flores, Jeremia C. et. al. “The Legal Implications of the Unilateral Dropping of the Sabah Claim”Philippine Law Journal. (1982)
[99]              Macapagal, Diosdado. “A Stone for the Edifice, Memoirs of a President” (1968);
[100]            Parpan S.J., Alfredo G. “The Philippine Claim on North Borneo: Another Look” Philippine Studies. (1988) Print.,
[101]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[102]            Parpan S.J., Alfredo G. “The Philippine Claim on North Borneo: Another Look” Philippine Studies. (1988) Print.,
[103]            Parpan S.J., Alfredo G. “The Philippine Claim on North Borneo: Another Look” Philippine Studies. (1988) Print.,
[104]            Flores, Jeremia C. et. al. “The Legal Implications of the Unilateral Dropping of the Sabah Claim” Philippine Law Journal. (1982)
[105]            ASEAN Bangkok Declaration
[106]            Fernandez, Erwin S.,Philippine-Malaysia Dispute over Sabah: A Bibliographic Survey.Department of Filipino and Philippine Literature, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Vol.7 No. 2, December 2007
[107]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[108]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[109]                        Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[110]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.; Parpan S.J., Alfredo G. “The Philippine Claim on North Borneo: Another Look” Philippine Studies. (1988) Print.,
[111]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.; Parpan S.J., Alfredo G. “The Philippine Claim on North Borneo: Another Look” Philippine Studies. (1988) Print.
[112]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.; Parpan S.J., Alfredo G. “The Philippine Claim on North Borneo: Another Look” Philippine Studies. (1988) Print.
[113]                        Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[114]            Fernandez, Erwin S., Philippine-Malaysia Dispute over Sabah: A Bibliographic Survey. Department of Filipino and Philippine Literature, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Vol.7 No. 2, December 2007
[115]                        Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[116]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[117]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[118]                        Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[119]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[120]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[121]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[122]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.; Severino, Rodolfo. Where in the World Is the Philippines?: Debating Its National Territory (2011)
[123]            DFA
[124]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[125]            DFA. “A Study on the Claim to North Borneo (Sabah).”
[126]            DFA. “A Study on the Claim to North Borneo (Sabah).”
[127]            DFA. “A Study on the Claim to North Borneo (Sabah).”
[128]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[129]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[130]            DFA
[131]            DFA. “A Study on the Claim to North Borneo (Sabah).”
[132]            DFA. “A Study on the Claim to North Borneo (Sabah).”
[133]            Rasul, Amina. “The Sabah Standoff” Businessworld. February 21, 2013
[134]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[135]            Rasul, Amina. “The Sabah Standoff” Businessworld. February 21, 2013
[136]            Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
[137]            DFA. “A Study on the Claim to North Borneo (Sabah).”
[138]            Rasul, Amina. “The Sabah Standoff” Businessworld. February 21, 2013
[139]            Agreed Minutes of the 1st PH-Malaysia Joint Commission for Bilateral Cooperation
[140]            The Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as declared under P.D. No. 1599 charts the exclusive economic zone to extend two hundred (200) nautical miles from the baselines which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.
The act is focused more on the economic aspects of setting an exclusive economic zone and not territorial boundaries.
[141]            Agreed Minutes of the 2nd PH-Malaysia Joint Commission for Bilateral Cooperation
[142]            Severino, Rodolfo. Where in the World Is the Philippines?: Debating Its National Territory (2011)
[143]            Agreed Minutes of the 3rd PH-Malaysia Joint Commission for Bilateral Cooperation (JCBC)
[144]            Agreed Minutes of the 3rd PH-Malaysia Joint Commission for Bilateral Cooperation (JCBC)
[145]            Rasul, Amina. “The Sabah Standoff” Businessworld. February 21, 2013
[146]            An act defining the archipelagic baselines of the Philippine archipelago to include the Kalayaan Island Group and to conform with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, amending for the purpose Republic Act No. 3046, as amended by Republic Act No. 5446.
[147]            Bill is exactly the same as HB 2973
[148]            Agreed Minutes of the 4th Malaysia-PH Joint Commission for Bilateral Cooperation
[149]            Rasul, Amina. “The Sabah Standoff” Businessworld. February 21, 2013
[150]            DFA. “A Study on the Claim to North Borneo (Sabah).”
[151]            Tordesillas, Ellen. “Ermita’s Sabah memo.” Malaya September 12, 2008
[152]            Abinales, P. N., and Donna J. Amoroso. State and Society in the Philippines. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005. Print.
[153]            Rasul, Amina. “The Sabah Standoff” Businessworld. February 21, 2013
[154]            Has exactly the same Explanatory Note as Lozada’s HB 2973 and HB 2031.
Section three cites Part IV of the 1982 UNCLO, absent in Lozada’s version.
Lists the geographical coordinates with the location basepoints of the archipelagic baselines of the Philippines with some alterations from Lozada’s version.
Section four cites Article 121 of the 1982 UNCLOS on the territorial sea and contiguous zone of the Scarborough Shoal, otherwise know as Panacot Shoal or Bajo de Masinloc.
Includes “Without Prejudice Clause” (Sec. 5) and tasks the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) to produce and publish charts and maps representing the delineation of maritime zones set forth in the act (Sec. 6).
Substituted by HB 6087
[155]            Notes: Deletes Cuenco insertion in Section three.
Complies with the requirements if the UNCLOS.
Lists the geographical coordinates with the location basepoints of the archipelagic baselines of the Philippines following Cuenco’s HB 1973.
Proposes that the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) be declared Regime of Islands under the UNCLOS and the Scarborough Shoal or Bajo de Masinloc be enclosed within the baselines of the main archipelago.
Provides a “No Prejudice Clause” on any claims to any contested portions of the national territory or maritime zones and jurisdictions of the country.
Provides, likewise, a “Vested Interest Rights Clause” for the recognition of existing and the enforcement of claims by local government unite to an extended continental shelf under the UNCLOS as well as on allotments and shares in the income generated from natural resources within the national territory by virtue of R.A. 7160 (Local Code of 1991, as amended) which are delineated prior to this proposed Act.
Tasks the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) to produce and publish charts and maps representing the delineation of maritime zones set forth in the act (Sec. 8)
[156]            Agreed Minutes of the 5th PH-Malaysia Joint Commission Meeting
[157]            OUSOC Memorandum dated 16 May 2012 on the Establishment of a Consulate in Sabah
[158]            An act defining the archipelagic baselines of the Philippine archipelago, amending for the purpose Republic Act No. 3046, as amended by Republic Act No. 5446.
Note: Seeks to amend R.A. 3046 as amended by R.A. 5446 by drawing straight baselines on the outermost points of Scarborough Shoal and joining them with the baselines defined under R.A. 3046, as amended.
Lists the geographical coordinates with the location basepoints of the archipelagic baselines of the Philippines following HB 6087 (Cuenco, et al).
Includes the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) as regime of islands, with some amendments to conform with the criteria set under Article 47 if the UNCLOS. (Sec. 4)
Seeks to establish new baseline laws of the Philippines to serve as basis from which to draw the 12-mile territorial sea, the 24-mile contiguous zone and the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), as provided under UNCLOS.
Provides “Without Prejudice Clause” (Sec. 5) and “Vested Rights” (Sec. 6).
Tasks the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) to produce and publish charts and maps representing the delineation of maritime zones set forth in the act (Sec. 8).
Seeks appropriations to carry out the provisions of the act, either through a supplemental budget or inclusion in the General Appropriations Act.
Substituted by HB 3216
[159]            DFA
[160]            Rasul, Amina. “The Sabah Standoff” Businessworld. February 21, 2013
[161]            Rasul, Amina. “The Sabah Standoff” Businessworld. February 21, 2013
[162]            ASPAC Memorandum dated May 17, 2012, on the Establishment of a Consulate in Sabah
[163]            Lapeña, Carmela G. “Timeline: The centuries-old tug-of-war over Sabah” GMA. February 18, 2013.
Works Cited
Books
Abinales, P. N., and Donna J. Amoroso. State and Society in the Philippines. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005. Print.
Abinales, Patricio. “Re-constructing Colonial Philippines: 1900-1910.” 1900-2000: the Philippine Century. Manila: Philippines Free Press, 2001. p. 19. Print.
Abueva, Jose, and de Guzman, Raul. Foundations and Dynamics of the Filipino Government and Politics. Quezon City: Bookmark, 1969. Print.
Agoncillo, Teodoro A.. Malolos: the crisis of the Republic. Quezon City: University of the Philippines, 1960. Print.
Aruego, Jose M. . The Framing of the Philippine Constitution. Manila: University Publishing Co., Inc., 1936. Print.
Bernas, Joaquin G.. The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary. 2003 ed. Manila, Philippines: Published & distributed by Rex Book Store, 2003. Print.
Churchill, Bernardita Reyes. The Philippine independence missions to the United States, 1919-1934.Manila, Philippines: National Historical Institute, 1983. Print.
Harrison, Francis Burton . Origins of the Philippine Public: Extracts from the Diaries and Records of Francis Burton Harrison. Michigan: UMI Books on Demand, 2002. Print.
Harrison, Francis Burton. The Cornerstone of Philippine Independence, A Narrative of Seven Years. 1922. Reprint. Michigan: UMI Books on Demand, 2002. Print.
Hayden, Joseph Ralston. The Philippines: a Study in National Development. 1942 ed. New York: Arno Press, 1972. Print.
Institute, Foreign Service . Diplomatic Agenda of Philippine Presidents 1946-1985. Manila: Foreign Service Institute, 1985. Print.
Macapagal, Diosdado. A Stone for the Edifice, Memoirs of a President. Quezon City: Mac Publishing House, 1968. Print.
Majul, Cesar Adib. Muslims in the Philippines. 1973. Reprint. Quezon City: Published for the Asian Center by the University of the Philippines Press, 1999. Print.
McKenna, Thomas M.. Muslim Rulers and Rebels: Everyday Politics and Armed Separatism in the Southern Philippines. 1998. Reprint. Manila: Anvil Publishing, 2002. Print.
Printing, Bureau of. Messages of the President, Volume 2 Part 2. Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1937. Print.
Reynolds, Quentin James, and Geoffrey Bocca. Macapagal, The Incorruptible. New York: D. McKay Co., 1965. Print.
Severino, Rodolfo. Where in the World Is the Philippines?: Debating Its National Territory. Manila: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2011. Print.
Tarling, Nicholas. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia (Volume Two, Part Two). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.
Tarling, Nicholas. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia (Volume Two, Part One). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.
Tarling, Nicholas. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia (Volume One, Part Two). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.
The Philippine claim to a portion of North Borneo: materials and documents. Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of International Legal Studies, University of the Philippines Law Center, 2003. Print.
Tolentino, Arturo M. Voice of Dissent. Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, 1990. Print.
Treacher, W.H. . British Borneo: Sketches of Brunai, Sarawak, Labuan, and North Borneo. Singapore: Government Printing Department, 1891. Print.
Journals
Bautista, Lowell. “The Historical Context and Legal Basis of the Philippine Treaty Limits.” Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal 10.no.1 (2008): n. .pag. Social Science Research Network. Web. 21 Feb. 2013.
Fry, Howard T.. “The Bacon Bill of 1926: New Light on an Exercise in Divide-and-Rule.” Philippine Studies26.no.3 (1978). Print.
Ortiz, Pacifico . “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question.” Philippine Studies 11.1 (1963): 18-64. Print.
Flores, Jeremia C., Clarencia S. Reyes, and Rodolfo C. Sabio. “The Legal Implications of the Unilateral Dropping of the Sabah Claim.” Philippine Law Journal 57.1 (1982): 78-103. Print.
Newspapers
Rasul, Amina. “The Sabah Standoff.” Business World [Manila] 21 Feb. 2013: n. pag. Business World Online. Web. 21 Feb. 2013.
Sydney Morning Herald. “Philippines May Lay Claim to British Colony.” Sydney Morning Herald 18 July 1946: 3. Print.
The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser. “Moro Princess Renounces Her Land Claims.” The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser 24 Apr. 1940: 4. Print.
The Sunday Times. “School Teacher Proclaimed Sultan.” The Sunday Times [Singapore] 20 Dec. 1936: p.18. National Library Singapore. Web. 21 Feb. 2013.
ZamboTimes . “Sovereignty over Sabah, the real reigning Sultan: Sultan Rodinood   – ZamboTimes.”ZamboTimes . N.p., 16 Sept. 2009. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. .
Websites
British North Borneo. “British Borneo Treaties.” Lawnet. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2013. .
“Hadji Rodinood M. Sultan Julaspi Kiram – reigning 29th Sultan of Sulu.” Sovereign Sulu. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Feb. 2013. .
“History of the Royal House of Sulu.” Official website of the Royal House of Sulu. N.p., 20 Dec. 1936. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. .
Quezon III, Manuel L.  “Repulsion and Colonization”. Manuel L. Quezon III . N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. .
Quezon III, Manuel L. “The perils of partition .” Manuel L. Quezon III . N.p., 11 Aug. 2008. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. .
Quezon III, Manuel L.”Greater Malaysia.” Manuel L. Quezon III. N.p., 15 Aug. 2008. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. .
Sauler, Erika. “Royal Sultan Sulu & Sabah.” Tropical Paradise of North Borneo Sabah. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. .
Sidayu, Agung. “Governor of Sulu Philippines recognized HM Sultan Fuad A Kiram I | PRLog.” Free Press Release Distribution Service. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. .
“Short History of the Sulu Sultanate.” Sovereign Sulu. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2013. .
Letters/ Memoranda
Quezon, Manuel Luis. Powers of the Commissioner of Mindanao and Sulu. Letter to Hon. Apolonio D. Curato, 28 July 1936.
Quezon, Manuel Luis. Administration of Affairs in Mindanao. Memorandum for the Secretary of the Interior, 20 September 1937.
Vargas, Jorge B. Three-Point Policy for Mindanao and Sulu. Letter to Hon. Ombra Amilbangsa, 8 October 1937.
Macapagal, Diosdado. Letter of Diosdado Macapagal to Sen. Leticia Ramos-Shahani. 1 May 1989.
Speeches
Quezon, Manuel L.“Development of Mindanao.” Visit of the National Assembly to Lanao. Camp Keithley, Lanao. 6 June 1936. Speech.
Ramos, Narciso. “Philippine Policy Statement in the United Nations: Philippines Brings the Sabah Dispute to the U.N.” United Nations General Assembly, 23rd Session. Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines. New York, New York. 15 Oct. 1968. Speech.
Salonga, Jovito R.. “A Point-by-Point Reply to the Sumulong Report on the Philippine Claim to North Borneo.” Anglo-Philippine Talks . Legal Committee of the Philippine Delegation to the Anglo-Philippine Talks. London, London. 30 Mar. 1963. Speech.
Tolentino, Arturo M.. “The Philippines Challenges Malaysia to Bring the Sabah Issue to the World Court.” 23rd Plenary Session of the United Nations General Assembly. Philippine Delegation to the United Nations. New York, New York. 25 Oct. 1968. Speech.
Government Sources
Foreign Service Institute. The North Borneo Claim: Options for the Philippines. Meeting of the Informal Working Group on Sabah: Center for International Relations and Strategic Studies, 2008. Print.
The Republic of the Philippines. A Study on the Claim to North Borneo (Sabah). 20 March 2012. Print.
Maglana, Constancio. Sabah is Philippines. Manila: The Bureau of Printing, 1968. Print.
Medvedev, Datu Sadja Michael Y. . “History of the Royal House of Sulu.” Official website of the Royal House of Sulu. N.p., 20 Dec. 1936. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. .
Printing, Bureau of . Philippine Claim to North Borneo, Volume II. Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1967. Print.
Printing, Bureau of. Philippine Claim to North Borneo. Manila: Bureau of Printing , Volume i, 1963. Print.


US Ambassador to Malaysia on UMNO-BN Govt's Smear Campaign Against Anwar in the US Media

 'Malaysian Govt financed smear campaign in the US  on Anwar Ibrahim and the Opposition '

 by

John R Mallot
( JOHN R MALOTT was the US Ambassador to Malaysia, 1995-1998, and continues to follow developments in that country closely.)

Mar 3, 2013
 
 The suspicions were always there. But thanks to a disclosure form filed on January 24 with the US Department of Justice by Joshua Trevino, a conservative American political consultant and blogger, we now know that the Malaysian government was behind the most recent effort to smear the political opposition and its leadership.

The campaign, which involved payments of nearly US$400,000 to Trevino and over US$130,000 to ten right-wing American bloggers, was conducted on behalf of Apco and later FBC Media.

Josh TrevinoIn his official filing, Trevino (right) wrote that Apco and FBC Media received their funding from "the government of Malaysia, the ruling party, or interests closely aligned with either."

We know from Apco's filings with the Justice Department that the funding came from the government. Other sources, particularly the investigative work of Sarawak Report, indicate the same for FBC Media. The Malaysian government paid for both of them.

It is not unusual for foreign governments to use lobbyists and public relations firms to promote a positive image overseas.

But there are three things that were very different about this effort.

First, the work that Apco, FBC Media, and Trevino did require that the government's hand should not be revealed.

The funding for blog postings and articles in the United States and for BBC programs in England was never identified as coming from the Malaysian government.

The financing and authorship of Trevino's websites, Malaysia Matters and Malaysia Watcher, were hidden. Welcome to 007 land.

NONESecond, the effort was not just to promote the image of the government and its prime minister. The hidden part of the effort targeted the opposition and its leaders, and in particular Anwar Ibrahim (left).

Stated another way, government funds were used secretly to smear the duly-elected and official leader of the Opposition.

Third, Trevino wrote that the "explicit intent" of the campaign was to "affect domestic public opinion within Malaysia proper.

"While there was likely to be some effect on US public opinion because the articles appeared in US outlets, he said that "was neither by design nor intent."

That explains why blog postings in obscure American websites were immediately "discovered" and trumpeted back to Malaysia within 24 hours, via Bernama, RTM, and the ruling coalition's newspapers.

The posts in America were created to try and influence public views in Malaysia. Indeed, according to one participant in the effort who spoke to me, the talking points and background information papers were first prepared in Malaysia and then sent on to the "independent writers" by Apco and later FBC.

"I don't know a lot about Malaysia," the person told me. "But even I could see that some of what they were sending to us was laughable, so I threw it in the trash."

Abramoff affair

The Trevino-Apco-FBC affair is only the latest chapter in a sordid effort that dates back over a decade.

jack abramoffTwelve years ago, the notorious super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff (right) and others were hired to lead a multi-million dollar effort to influence US public opinion about Malaysia.

The US Senate held hearings on the matter, and Mahathir himself later admitted that the effort existed.

Others besides Abramoff and his fellow lobbyists were involved. Ed Feulner, the head of the Heritage Foundation, a major US think tank, accepted significant payments from Malaysian corporations to Belle Haven, his private consulting firm in Hong Kong.

The Malaysian companies could claim them as business expenses. But according to US Senate records, Belle Haven in turn transferred $1.3 million over five years to US firms that lobbied on behalf of Malaysia.

The Malaysian Embassy in Washington, then headed by Dato Ghazzali Sheik Khalid, made illegal payments through American banks on more than one occasion to a bogus think tank located in a Delaware beach house on the Atlantic Ocean.

After that, the money was "laundered" and transferred to Abramoff for the lobbying effort, with Ghazzali's full knowledge.

Found guilty

Where are the participants in that earlier effort today? Abramoff was convicted and spent 43 months in jail; 21 of his associates either pled guilty or were found guilty.

Although the Washington Post said that Feulner's actions jeopardised the Heritage Foundation's tax-free status, he survived and recently retired.

Ambassador Ghazzali was "promoted" to Tan Sri and is now senior advisor to Bowers Group Asia, a consulting firm headed by Ernest Bowers, who also heads the CSIS Southeast Asia program, a programme that is widely seen in Washington as a ready-made forum for Malaysian government speakers.

What will happen to those involved in the latest Trevino-Apco-FBC effort? For Trevino and his associates, there might be some embarrassment, and their business interests might suffer. But conservative circles in America have a habit of taking care of each other.

Legal action is unlikely. Although Trevino belatedly reported his Malaysia connection to the Justice Department, his work on behalf of Malaysia and that of his associates was not aimed at lobbying the US government per se.
It exists in a grey area of the law; they were not paid directly by any foreign government. They were contractors and "worker bees" paid by others.

Apco lost its contract with Malaysia long ago. But in the worst tradition of Washington DC lobbyists, it no doubt will continue to work for whoever pays it.

As for FBC Media, it is now in what the British politely call "administration" - bankruptcy.

NONEOne key player in this effort, according to Sarawak Report, still sits next to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak (right). He is a British subject, Paul Stadlen. First he worked for Apco in Malaysia, and then reportedly for FBC Media.
Today he works directly in Najib's office as an "international affairs advisor."

A few years ago, I wrote a 2-part article for Malaysiakini about the Abramoff affair. (Read Part 1 here and Part 2 here.)
One of the points I made was that people who run countries with a controlled press seem to think that the rest of the world acts the same way.

They think they have the ability to influence what other people read and think.

And when they realise that those countries don't work the same way, they then believe what the lobbyists and PR firms in those countries tell them - just pay me millions, and I can make things happen for you. It seems to make sense.
After all, in Malaysia and some other countries, if you pay millions, people will do what you want.

But I wrote in Malaysiakini that in a democracy like America, anyone can write and get articles published.
We have access to government officials and can speak at public events. We don't have to pay for that, and no one has to pay us to do it.

So years ago, Abramoff and others made - and wasted - millions. But no one had to pay me a penny. (For the record, in the 15 years since I left Malaysia, no one has paid me a ringgit for anything I have said or done.)

In the end, all of the money spent on Abramoff and the others was wasted. He went to jail - and the clandestine effort was exposed, to Malaysia's embarrassment.
Suspect right from the start
What about this time?

At least in the Abramoff days, the government hid its hand successfully, at least for a few years. This time around, it was not so. From the beginning, there was something very suspicious.

NONEFor all the money they took from the Malaysian taxpayers, Apco and FBC Media should have been a lot smarter.
Millions of dollars should have bought more "brain power" than what we have seen from Apco and FBC and Stadlen.

The way they went about this threw off so many clues from the start:

- Why did all these people - all right wing, conservative bloggers, with no knowledge of Malaysia and no history of writing about foreign affairs - suddenly start writing about Malaysia?

- Why did they all sing a common tune? Why was there so little variation in what they had to say?

- Why did their articles and postings appear only on right-wing, conservative newspapers and websites?

- And why were all of their articles and blogs linked to each other?

From the very beginning, it was clear that "something was up." Everyone suspected the government's hand -- and now Joshua Trevino has confirmed it.

And once again, millions of the taxpayers' money have been wasted on a failed effort.

Trevino says the goal was to influence Malaysian opinion, not American.

Clearly, that has failed. Because millions of dollars later, despite all the effort and all the smears, there is a real chance that Anwar and the opposition might come to power.

If we have learned anything from this, it is that the Malaysian government should stop wasting the taxpayers' money on schemes pitched to it by foreign PR firms.

And to learn that in the end, it is what you do - as a government - that has the greatest influence on world opinion - and Malaysian domestic opinion.

Friday, 1 March 2013

WHO OWNS SABAH ? - COMPLICATING THE QUESTION

 

 WHO OWNS SABAH  Complicating the Question (1)

I. The Question

 When we started writing this piece in the afternoon of February 25, the followers of Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III were still in their refuge in Tanduo (not “Tanduao” as used in Philippine media), Lahad Datu in the eastern side of Sabah.

The Malaysian Security Force had not enforced its new Sunday deadline for the Sultan’s followers under his brother Raja Muda Agbimuddin to leave without a shot. A second deadline had been set for midnight of February 26.

As of this morning, media reports from Manila and Sabah indicated no change in the standoff. Agbimuddin had repeated his brother’s “do-or-die” stand. The Sultan, through his spokesman, told the Philippine Daily Inquirer that his men would stay put in Tanduo until ordered otherwise by him despite President Aquino III’s stern warning of possible arrest.

From Sabah, Wikisabah reported security forces were ready to move in.

 Evidently, Kuala Lumpur, ignoring the calls of the political oppositions in Sabah for the military and police to use force, is making good its option to avoid bloodshed through diplomacy.

As Manila has sent a ship to bring home the Sultan’s followers, the two countries obviously want to simplify the solution: Go home in peace; we’ll talk later. Avoiding the spilling of blood is in the conscience and hands of Sultan Jamalul Kiram III and his brothers.

Clarifying the Question

Unless consumed by pride or markabat (also: maratabat), leaving Tanduo in peace is simple. But talking later will involve the simple question, “Who owns Sabah?”, that events and circumstances of three centuries and a half have complicated. Will leaving Tanduo peacefully and talking later happen?

Let’s clarify the question. “Sabah” is the eastern part, less than half, of the present Sabah state as delineated in legal documents; “Who” refers to the Sultanate of Sulu or the Sultan and his heirs, Malaysia, the Philippines and the Sabahans; and “owns” denotes possession of a territory with sovereignty – not just possession or ownership of any piece of property with mere proprietary rights alone.

In the first case, “possession of a territory with sovereignty”, proprietary (territorial) and sovereignty rights are inseparable; the possessor must be a sovereign state or a political entity vested with sovereignty.

In the second case, the possessor, limited to a private individual or group, is entitled to proprietary but not sovereignty right.

History of the Question

Let’s trace the history of the question. When the Sultan of Brunei awarded North Borneo to the Sultan of Sulu in 1658, the act was the transfer of a territory from one sovereign state to another, by one sovereign to another. The Sultanate of Sulu owned Sabah. Since during that era of monarchy, the sovereign state is identified with the sovereign, the Sultan of Sulu owned Sabah.

In 1761 when the Sultan of Sulu, by an agreement, allowed the British East India Company to set up trading posts in North Borneo and in 1878 leased North Borneo to the British North Borneo Company, the Sultanate of Sulu still owned North Borneo. The agreements, according to legal experts, were not treaties as private companies could not enter into treaties; the Sultan of Sulu did not give away any part of his dominion or his sovereignty.

In 1881, the British North Borneo Company was chartered by the King. It was tasked to administer North Borneo which in 1888 became a protectorate of the Great Britain. To clarify, as gleaned from various sources, the protectorate did not just consist of that part of North Borneo under lease by the Company from the Sultanate of Sulu but included the other part ceded by the Sultan of Brunei to Britain in 1846.

When the Company was dissolved in 1946, North Borneo became a British Colony and the Great Britain assumed the lease in spite of a stipulation prohibiting of its transfer to a third party without the consent of the Sultan of Sulu. In 1963, when the Federation of Malaysia was formed, Great Britain turned over North Borneo, together with Sarawak, to the Federation. Malaysia assumed the lease
.
As a federal state, North Borneo is now Sabah. As stated earlier, as delineated in legal documents, the claim of the Sultan of Sulu covers less than half of Sabah, only the eastern part.

Two Analyses

Sen. Jovito Salonga, while a congressman in 1962, analyzed the Sabah question in an article, “The Philippine Claim to North Borneo: A Statement of Facts”, published in the Manila Times, Manila Chronicle and Philippine Free Press in May, 1962. In that year, President Diosdado Macapagal initiated the Philippine claim to North Borneo and in the following year, he picked Salonga to lead a delegation to London to pursue the claim. North Borneo was then a colony of Great Britain.

By his analysis of the facts, he concluded that “the Philippine Government should now, in the light of all relevant evidence, institute the claim and initiate the necessary steps toward the peaceful settlement of the North Borneo question”. Great Britain did not own North Borneo. [The article was republished in Manila newspapers on September 1, 2011 obviously in support of a move urging President Aquino III to revive the claim.] 

Vidal Yudin Weil, a Sabahan noted writer and blogger, when asked for his views on the standoff, wrote “To whom does Sabah belong?” that was published in Free Malaysia Today (February 22, 2013) and in Wikisabah (February 23, 2013). He analyzed documents starting with the1878 lease agreement, events and circumstances related to the Sabah question.

Concluding with a critical comment on the relinquishment to Malaysia by Great Britain of her sovereignty over North Borneo as provided in Article IV of the “Malaysia Agreement of 1963”, he wrote:

“Because it was stated that one part of Sabah** belonged to the Brunei Sultanate and the other part to the Sulu Sultanate, and while Brunei had ceded her part of Sabah’s sovereignty, Sulu (now part of the Philippines) only leased her part of Sabah, does Her Britannic Majesty had (sic) sovereignty over the whole or only one part of Sabah?

“It is obvious that the answer is only one part of Sabah, therefore Article IV is null and void thereby rendering the entire Malaysia Agreement of 1963 illegal and of no effect…!

“There is a legal maxim ‘nemodat quod non habet’ which means ‘you cannot give what you do not have’.”

Great Britain did not own that part of Sabah leased to British North Borneo; she has no sovereignty over it. She cannot relinquish sovereignty that she did not have. Malaysia does not own that part of Sabah claimed by the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu.

By Salonga’s and Weil’s analyses, does it mean that the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu, and by extension the Philippines, own the Sabah in question?

(To Be Concluded: Complicated)

(“Comment” is Mr. Patricio P. Diaz’ column for MindaViews, the opinion section of MindaNews. The Titus Brandsma Media Awards recently honored Mr. Diaz with a “Lifetime Achievement Award” for his “commitment to education and public information to Mindanawons as Journalist, Educator and Peace Advocate.” You can reach him at patpdiazgsc@yahoo.com.)

Wednesday, 27 February 2013

The Sulu Sultanate and the Sabah Claim: Historical Background

 Read here for more
 

COMMENTARY: The Sabah standoff



 N ANOTHER David and Goliath move, a hundred armed Tausugs, led by Rajah Mudah (crown prince) Agbimuddin Kiram are in Lahad Datu, Sabah and have captured the attention of the world to the sovereign and proprietary claims of the Sulu sultanate over Sabah. Datu Agbimuddin and the brother of the Sulu sultan, Jamalul Kiram III, have stated that they are in Lahad Datu on a visit of their “homeland.” Since the sultanate is now part of the Philippines, the sovereign rights over Sabah have therefore been assumed by the Philippine government.

Left unresolved, the standoff in Sabah can escalate into an international incident that could create tension between Malaysia and the Philippines. Worse, there may be vested interests that will fuel an escalation into conflict. For instance, how true are the rumors from Malaysia that this incident may be driven by local politicians out to destabilize the ruling party, UMNO, by creating fear among the Sabahans? After all, the Malaysian government, under UMNO leaders, have been fully supporting the peace process with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. News reports from Malaysia surmise that although Prime Minister Najib Razak is popular, the UMNO may be losing support. If this trend continues, then the opposition led by Datuk Anwar Ibrahim may have a stronger hand in challenging the UMNO in the June elections.

The Moro National Liberation Front, under chairman Nur Misuari, has been meeting in Zamboanga City since Wednesday about the situation. I have been informed that the discussions, which involve Muslim religious leaders from the islands, have leaders demanding support for the followers of the Sultan while calling for a peaceful resolution of the impasse.

With the Philippine government engaged in finalizing the peace agreement with the MILF, supported by the Malaysian government as facilitator, the impasse needs to be resolved peacefully. It is unfortunate that the government, under then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, did not consider the Sabah claim as a major issue that could undermine the effectiveness of Malaysia as facilitator. This, in spite of statements issued by Moro leaders in 2001 that questioned the choice of Malaysia as facilitator amid the Sabah claim.

However, the Malaysian government has been effective in facilitating the GPH-MILF peace process since 2001 as well as an ally for security and development. It is therefore in the interest of all concerned that the Sabah stalemate be quickly and peacefully resolved. This close to the last stage of the peace process, we cannot afford a conflagration that could bring us all back to square 1.

Allow me to provide a background on the Sabah issue so that readers may understand the complexity of the situation. The government has been pursuing its claim over Sabah since the administration of President Diosdado Macapagal. The claim emanates from the Sulu sultanate’s sovereign rights over Sabah, which was turned over to the (Philippine) government. The proprietary claim of the heirs to Sabah, however, originates from the decision of a British court when Malaysia was still under British rule.

THE SULU SULTANATE ACQUIRES SABAH

The Genealogy of the Sulu Royal Families, written by Sururul-Ain Ututalum (descendant of Dayang-Dayang Hadja Piandao and, therefore, an heir to Sabah) and Abdul-Karim Hedjazi, traced the close relationship between the royals of Brunei and Sulu.

In the 1500s, Brunei Sultan Bolkiah was married to Sulu Princess Putri Laila, granddaughter of Shariful Hashim, first Sultan of Sulu. In the late 1600s, when Sultan Muaddin of Brunei was threatened by rebellion, he turned to his kin in Sulu for help. The rebellion was quelled.

 As a reward, the Brunei sultan gave resource-rich Sabah to the Sultan of Sulu. The property includes 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 and comprising amongst other the States of Paitan, Sugut, Bangaya, Labuk, Sandakan, Kina Batangan, Mumiang, and all the other territories and states to the southward thereof bordering on Darvel Bay and as far as the Sibuco river with all the islands within three marine leagues of the coast.”

The territory is defined in the agreement. (http://www.lawnet.sabah.gov.my/Lawnet/SabahLaws/Treaties/GrantBySultanOfSuluOfTerritoriesAndLandsOnTheMainlandOfTheIslandOfBorneo.pdf.)

SABAH BECOMES PART OF MALAYSIA
In 1763, Sultan Azimuddin signed a treaty allowing the British East Indies Co. to use Sabah and other territories. Tensions later developed between the sultan and the company, which prevented the effective implementation of the treaty until 1878. At this time, Baron Von Overbeck of the British East India Trading Co. entered into a lease agreement or padjak with Sultan Jamalul Alam. This company was later absorbed by the British North Borneo Co. which, in 1946, transferred sovereign rights over Sabah to Britain. When the Federation of Malaya was granted its independence from Britain in 1963, Sabah was one of the territories turned over to the newly established Malaysia.

SOURCE OF DISPUTE
The dispute revolves around the meaning of the term padjak. The Tausug padjak means lease whereas the British version used the term to mean “grant” or “cede.” Thus, the sultan’s heirs maintain that Sabah was merely leased to the company while Malaysia states that the Philippines has no claim because Sabah had been sold to British East India Trading.

The Malaysian government continues to pay lease money owed by British North Borneo to the descendants of the sultan to this day. The Malaysian government pays RM5,300 per year as rental for Sabah to the heirs since the formation of the Malaysian federation in 1963.

Today, the sum of RM5,300 — less than ₱75,000 — as annual rental barely covers the monthly rent of a house in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The heirs, on their own, have attempted to renegotiate the terms of the padjak with the Malaysian government.

In 1996, Princess Denchurai Kiram, daughter of Princess Tarhata Kiram and administrator of her estate, wrote then Prime Minister Mahathir to raise the rental to $1,000,000. She also stated that she and the other heirs were willing to renounce the claim if Kuala Lumpurt will provide a fair settlement. The letter was ignored by Mr. Mahathir.

In June 2010, the Sulu provincial board passed a resolution supporting the demand of the heirs to increase the yearly payment to at least $500 million.

Weeks earlier, Mr. Misuari issued a statement calling the attention of Malaysia to settle the Sabah issue. Misuari’s first wife, the late Desdemona Tan, and present wife Ruayda, are heirs to Sabah since they are descendants of Dayang-Dayang (Queen) Hadja Piandao, who was acknowledged to have 3/8 share of Sabah.

In January 2001, Sultan Esmail Kiram II, the brother of Jamalul III, also wrote Mr. Mahathir, this time through President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Princess Denchurain’s daughter, Princess Tajmahal, was a co-signatory. According to reports, their demand was for $855 million.

SOVEREIGN RIGHTS
The late Ambassador Abraham Rasul, wazir or prime minister to Sultan Esmail Kiram (and later wazir to Sultan Mahakuttah, son of Esmail), had been authorized by the sultan to discuss the pursuit of the Sabah claim with Mr. Macapagal and, later, President Ferdinand Marcos. (Ambassador Rasul succeeded his father, the first Muslim senator, Hadji Butu, who was wazir to three sultans.)

Esmail Kiram officially transferred the sultanate’s authority and sovereignty to the Philippines on Sept. 12, 1962 through a written instrument signed by himself and Foreign Affairs Secretary Emmanuel Pelaez. The transfer was authorized by a resolution passed by the Ruma Bechara (literally “House of Talk,” equivalent to council of advisers/Cabinet). He thus gave up the Sulu sultanate’s sovereign rights to Sabah to the government, but retained proprietary rights over the same.

However, there was a provision in the Ruma Bechara resolution that in the event the government fails or refuses to protect its claim, the Sultanate of Sulu reserves the right to prosecute its claim over Sabah, in whatever manner it can think of. The Kiram family lawyer, Ulka Ulama, and former Senator Santanina Rasul have documents that bear this out. (As a UP political science student, Senator Rasul wrote an award-winning essay on the claim, which was published in the UP Law Journal.)

If the sovereign claim over Sabah is dropped, do we lose all rights? Even if we lose sovereign rights over Sabah, we still have proprietary rights, through the heirs of the Sultan, who personally owned Sabah.

THE HEIRS
The legally recognized owners — members of Sulu royalty and nobility — were identified in the 1939 ruling of Chief Justice C. F. C. Macaskie of the High Court of North Borneo: Dayang-Dayang (Princess) Hadji Piandao was acknowledged as the major share-holder with 3/8 share. Princess Tarhata Kiram and Princess Sakinur-In Kiram were to each have a 3/16 share. The six other heirs who went to Macaskie’s court were awarded 1/24 share apiece: Mora Napsa, Sultan Esmail Kiram, Datu Punjungan, Sitti Mariam, Sitti Jahara and Sitti Rada.

Princess Denchurain acknowledged the nine heirs specified in the Macaskie decision as the true heirs of Sabah.

All the principal heirs have died. As of today, there are probably a thousand heirs of the heirs. Dayang-Dayang Hadji Piandao Kiram, an only child, was childless. Therefore her cousins, nieces and nephews will divide her 3/8 share. Among her cousins was my grandmother, Hadja Salma, wife of Sen. Hadji Butu. Thus, my father, the late Ambassador Rasul, and his siblings and cousins are heirs. Misuari’s wives (Desdemona and Ruayda), are heirs. Jamalul III and Esmail are the children of Datu Punjungan.

MOVES TO RESOLVE CLAIM
During the term of President Macapagal, the government in 1962 filed a claim over Sabah with the United Nations. A Sabah Division was created in the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Marcos had other plans. Parallel to legal maneuverings, he had young Muslims trained in Corregidor to “destabilize” Sabah. The scenario: the Philippines could then come in and take Sabah by force, to “protect” the thousands of Tausugs who lived there or incite them to secede and join the Philippines. The plan went awry, resulting in the massacre of the Muslim trainees. Except for one lone survivor, Jibin Arula. Away from the barracks when he heard gunfire, Arula claimed he saw his comrades mowed down by their military trainors. He ran to the mountains, went over the cliff and into the sea. He was rescued the next day by Cavite fishermen. Somehow, he was brought to then Cavite Gov. Delfin Montano. The governor brought Arula to Senator Benigno Aquino who then exposed the infamous “Jabidah Massacre” of March 18, 1968. Malaysia severed diplomatic ties with the Philippines after the expose. It took the combined efforts of Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand to resolve the situation.

President Corazon C. Aquino wanted to resolve the claim during her term. It seems that Malaysia would only agree to negotiate if all the heirs spoke as one. In 1987, she instructed Foreign Affairs Secretary Raul Manglapus to bring all the heirs together.

On Oct. 23, 1987, Mr. Manglapus wrote Ambassador Rasul: “I would like to suggest that the claimants organize themselves so that they may arrive at a common position…. Although yours is a private claim, we have the assurance of the Malaysian government that they are ready and willing to negotiate with the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu in order to settle this matter.”

Then Sen. Santanina Rasul was requested to coordinate the unification of the heirs. As her chief of staff, I was tasked to implement the assignment. We managed to bring them all to Malacañang. After hours of deliberation, the heirs appointed their representatives, led by Sec. Manglapus, to negotiate with Malaysia. Unfortunately, the meeting came to a standstill when Jamalul III dissented.

Afterward, the heirs of Dayang-Dayang Hadji Piandao Kiram, Sultan Esmail Kiram, Princesses Tarhata, Sakinur-in and Sitti Mariam sought a meeting with Sec. Manglapus.

 A brief from that meeting held on Dec. 6, 1987, stated: “They were of the opinion that Sultan Mohamad Jamalul Kiram III was expressing his own personal views which contravene the consensus reached at the meeting of the heirs with Secretary… Manglapus at the PICC on Friday, December 4 and at the conference of the heirs held with President Corazon C. Aquino at Malacañang on Saturday, December 5.”

President Fidel V. Ramos pursued the attempt to unite the heirs. Upon his suggestion, the representatives of the heirs met on Feb. 10, 1993 to discuss their establishment of the Sulu-Sabah Development Corp., which would be responsible for the economic development and sociocultural advancement of Sulu. It was understood that this entity would be the conduit of the funds from the settlement of the proprietary claim over Sabah. Former Presidential Legal Counsel (now Supreme Court Justice) Antonio Carpio drafted the terms. This corporation would have been powerful if the idea had prospered.

Why then did the attempts fizzle? During the Ramos years, the heirs still could not unite. By then, the idea to establish the Brunei-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area had prospered. Rich Malaysia was employing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos as well as investing in Mindanao. Terrorism was sprouting and borders had to be secured. The Sabah claim moved to the back burner. This situation continued through the short-lived Estrada presidency.

The Arroyo administration renewed interest in settling the claim. Some of the heirs were feted at Malacañang in 2002 and Jamalul III was hailed as Sultan of Sulu. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo even gave the letter of Sultan Jamalul and Princess Tajmahal, asking for an adjustment of the rentals, to then Prime Minister Mahathir. The Arroyo administration, however, did not unite all the heirs, as the preceding administrations had done.

THE SULTAN OF SULU
The Sultanate of Sulu has had a tradition of being governed by one Sultan, supported and acknowledged by the citizens of the sultanate. The last to be so proclaimed was Sultan Mahakuttah Kiram, the son of Esmail Kiram. Mahakuttah, was recognized by Mr. Marcos, while his father was recognized by Messrs. Macapagal and Marcos. Jamalul III was recognized by Mrs. Arroyo, and was even included in the administration senatorial slate in 2004. He has been the most forceful and visible sultan.

It is unfortunate that today there are over 10 who are claiming the Sultanship. Among them are Sultan Jamalul III and his brother Sultan Esmail. Jamalul is the eldest son of Datu Punjungan Kiram. Initially, Datu Punjungan was the raja muda or crown prince of Sultan Esmail Kiram. But after Datu Punjungan left the Philippines to reside in Sabah, Sultan Esmail was fearful that Datu Punjungan might sign a quitclaim in favor of Malaysia, so he changed his crown prince, with the consent and authority of his Ruma Bechara. Esmail named his eldest son, Mahakuttah Kiram, as his crown prince. When Esmail passed away, Mahakuttah succeeded and his coronation was ordered by Mr. Marcos to safeguard the Sabah claim. Mahakuttah had anointed his son, Muedzul-Lail as the raja muda. At the time, Muedzul-Lail was in grade school.

RECOMMENDATIONS
• The Sabah impasse needs to be resolved peacefully. It is to the interest of the government to ensure that the MNLF, the dominant Moro liberation front in Sulu, supports a peaceful resolution of the situation. Misuari can play a role to de-escalate tensions. Not only is he Tausug and therefore supportive of the sultanate, his late wife Desdemona and present wife Ruayda are heirs. However, Misuari is aggrieved that the MNLF and he himself have been sidelined in the peace process with the MILF. Further, the Arroyo administration had been instrumental in supporting the Council of 15, which removed Misuari from the leadership of the MNLF. He was also incarcerated for over seven years and later released for lack of evidence. Misuari, who is still recognized by the Organization of the Islamic Conference as the chairman of the MNLF, is therefore a key player. Misuari yesterday convened a meeting of the MNLF and island leaders in Zamboanga City on the situation in Sabah and the claim. A statement will be issued calling for support for the Sabah claim.

• The national government should encourage and assist the leading members of the Kirams and the datus of Sulu to come together and choose one Sultan. This will not only re-establish the tradition of one Sultan leading the Sulu sultanate; it will provide a focal point for the nobility and traditional leaders of Sulu to lead in peace and development. At this point, Sultan Jamalul Kiram III has established his dominance in the field, particularly after the Lahad Datu incident. Most of the leaders in the island-provinces of Sulu, Tawi-Tawi and Basilan — domain of the Sulu sultanate — have applauded his action.

As many elected leaders in the island-provinces have not been successful in forging a strong foundation of governance and peace, perhaps strengthening the institution of the sultanate will provide Sulu, Tawi-Tawi and Basilan with an institution that can help unite the population behind peace and development, as the sultans of Malaysia are doing.

• The Benigno Aquino administration should follow the initiative began by Presidents Corazon Aquino and Ramos to unite the Sabah heirs and pursue the peaceful and just resolution of the Sabah claim.

-Amina Rasul

Saturday, 23 February 2013

The Heirs of the Sultan of Sulu and Their Claims on Sabah

 photo heirs-of-the-sultan-of-sulu_zpsc1268528.jpg 

 READ HERE FOR  MORE

In 1939, a decision issued by the high court of North Borneo named the nine principal heirs of the last sultan of Sulu, whose descendants had been pressing their claim to Sabah.

Known as the 1939 Macaskie Judgment, the nine principal heirs of Sultan Jamalul Kiram II were

1.  Datu Punjungan Kiram,
2.Datu Esmail Kiram,
3. Dayang Dayang Piandao Kiram,
4.Dayang Dayang Sitti Rada Kiram,
5. Princess Tarhata Kiram,
6. Princess Sakinur-In Kiram,
7. Dayang Dayang Putli Jahara Kiram,
8. Dayang Dayang Sitti Mariam Kiram and
9. Mora Napsa.

Jamalul II’s father, Sultan Jamalul Ahlam, leased Sabah in 1878 to British North Borneo Co. Under the agreement, the company would pay 5,300 Mexican gold pieces a year to the Kingdom of Sulu. It continued to do so until 1936, when Jamalul II died.

According to Ahlam’s descendants, Sabah (formerly North Borneo) was ceded in 1704 to the sultan of Sulu by the sultan of Brunei, after the sultan of Sulu helped quell a rebellion against the sultan of Brunei.
After Jamalul II’s death, the British consul in Manila recommended the suspension of payments because President Manuel L. Quezon did not recognize Jamalul II’s successor.

Sultan Punjungan Kiram, crown prince of the sultanate at the time of Jamalul II’s death, went to the British consulate in Manila to demand the resumption of payments.

P77,000 rent
 
After the court decision, British North Borneo Co. complied for several years. It stopped paying when its rights to Sabah were transferred to the newly established Federation of Malaysia in 1963. The new government assumed the payment but in ringgit.

Every year, the Malaysian Embassy in the Philippines issues a check in the amount of 5,300 ringgit (about P77,000) to the legal counsel of Jamalul Ahlam’s descendants. Malaysia considers the amount an annual “cession” payment for the disputed state, while the sultan’s descendants consider it “rent.”

According to Abraham Julpa Idjirani, secretary general and spokesperson of the sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo, the direct descendants and heirs of the sultan of Sulu and North Borneo at present are:

1. Sultan Jamalul Kiram III,
2.Sultan Bantilan Esmail Kiram III,
3. Datu Alianapia Kiram,
4. Datu Phugdal Kiram,
5. Datu Baduruddin Kiram and
6. the crown prince, Agbimuddin Kiram, official administrator of Sabah and son of Datu Punjungan.

Lies
 
In July 2008, there were reports that Jamalul II’s heirs had “dropped” their Sabah claim, but these were dismissed as untrue by the heirs. In the reports, Malaysian Datu Omar Ali Datu Backtiyal told a local newspaper in Malaysia that he had obtained the signatures of the nine heirs for the relinquishment of their claim to Sabah. The heirs dismissed the reports as “lies.”

 No reply to letters

Over the years, Jamalul II’s heirs have tried to get the attention of authorities by writing to them, but to no avail.

In February 1999, the late Princess Denchurain Kiram, daughter of Princess Tarhata, wrote then Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad through former President Joseph Estrada to request for an increase in the annual rental. She died in September 2000 without receiving a reply.



In January 2001, Sultan Esmail Kiram II and Princess Taj Mahal Kiram Tarsum-Nuqui, daughter of Princess Denchurain, wrote a similar letter to Mahathir through former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
In August 2003, the heirs sent Arroyo another letter asking for help in requesting the Malaysian government to increase the rent, but nothing happened.

In February 2005 the heirs wrote another letter to Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, but were likewise ignored.

Inquirer Research
Source: Inquirer Archives

 

Wednesday, 20 February 2013

Sunday, 17 February 2013

Heirs of Sultan of Sulu pursue Sabah claim on their own


 READ HERE FOR MORE
 

Heirs of Sultan of Sulu pursue Sabah claim on their own

By


 
  
BIZARRE BORDER DRAMA Heavily armed Malaysian policemen stand guard at a roadblock in Bakapit, about 50 kilometers from Lahad Datu in Sabah where some 100 reportedly armed Filipinos, later identified as descendants and the security forces of the Sultan of Sulu, have landed. Malaysia’s authorities say their security forces have surrounded the Sulu group. Photo courtesy of Malaysia’s The Star/ASIA NEWS NETWORK

Feeling betrayed and left out in the peace process between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu have decided to press their claim to the eastern Malaysian state of Sabah on their own.

Crown Prince Rajah Mudah Agbimuddin Kiram said in an interview with the Inquirer that the government appeared to have neglected the heirs and ignored their stand that their claim to Sabah was an “integral and essential” aspect of any peace agreement with any armed group in Mindanao.

Abraham Julpa Idjirani, secretary general and spokesperson of the Sultanate of Sulu, said the decision to show not just physical presence but actual occupation of Sabah came late last year, shortly after the Aquino administration signed a Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro with the MILF.

The standoff continued yesterday with Rajah Mudah’s claim to be under the protection of the security forces of the Sultanate of Sulu adding more mystery to the bizarre border drama.

Departure on Feb. 11
HOMECOMING Members of the Royal Security Force of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo who have traveled with Crown Prince Rajah Mudah Agbimuddin Kiram in what the descendants of the Sultan of Sulu describe as not an act of aggression against Sabah but a journey back to their homeland. Malaysian police and special forces surround the “royal army,” asking them to return home. CONTRIBUTED PHOTO

“They are not interested, this government and the previous governments, so we decided to act on our own,” Rajah Mudah said.

Early on Feb. 11, Rajah Mudah and about 1,000 of his followers, including armed men from what he called “Royal Security Forces of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo” left Simunul Island in Tawi-Tawi in speedboats and headed for Sabah.

Rajah Mudah described his action as not an act of aggression but a journey back home.

“We came here in peace. We are not here to wage war. The armed men who are with me are the Royal Security Forces of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo. We will never bring war to our own territory, much less to our own people,” Rajah Mudah said.

His group landed in the village of Tunduao in Lahad Datu town in Sabah.

Surrounded
 
What happened after the landing is unclear, but reports from Kuala Lumpur on Thursday said Malaysian security forces had surrounded the Filipinos, whom they believed were a faction of Muslim rebels unhappy with a peace deal with the administration of President Aquino.

Rajah Mudah said he and his group were not arrested. He said he was communicating with Gen. Zul Kipli, head of the Special Branch of Sabah, the equivalent of the top intelligence officer in the Philippines.

He admitted, however, that he and his group were surrounded by Malaysian police and special forces.
The standoff between the Malaysian authorities and Rajah Mudah’s group has sparked one of the biggest security scares in recent years in Sabah, which is less than an hour by speedboat from the southernmost Philippine province of Tawi-Tawi.

To ascertain facts
 
Malacañang was reluctant to meddle in the reported incursion into Sabah by “100 armed Filipinos” claiming to be descendants of the Sultan of Sulu.

Deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte indicated in a briefing for reporters in the Palace yesterday that the government was not sure about what was going on in Sabah.

THE ONCE FEUDING ROYALS UNITE The heirs of the Sultan of Sulu: (seated from left) Rajah Mudah Agbimuddin Kiram, Sultan Jamalul Kiram III, Sultan Bantilan Esmail Kiram II and (standing from left) Datu Alianapia Kiram, Datu Phugdal Kiram and Datu Baduruddin Kiram. CONTRIBUTED PHOTO

She said the Philippine Embassy in Kuala Lumpur had sent a police attaché to Sabah to ascertain “what’s really happening.”

Valte said the government would provide assistance “to any Filipino abroad,” but added that on the Sabah standoff, “we would like to ascertain the facts first.”

Unaware of the situation in Lahad Datu, Philippine officials said the Filipinos were unarmed civilians who had been promised land.

Citing information from Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin, Valte told reporters yesterday that the Filipinos were unarmed.

But Rajah Mudah’s claim that he was surrounded by his own security forces indicated the dearth of information in the government about the move taken by the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu.

Negotiations
 
In a statement released yesterday, the Department of Foreign Affairs said Malaysian Foreign Minister Anifa Aman had spoken to Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario and assured him that the Malaysians would respect the rights of the Filipinos in the Sabah standoff.

The statement said the Malaysian government had resorted to “negotiations to encourage” the Filipinos “to leave peacefully.”

Both the Philippine military and the Malaysian military had established that the Filipinos’ activity in Sabah had no approval from the Philippine government, the DFA said.

“In this regard, we therefore urge these concerned individuals to return to their homes and families,” the DFA said.

Pretended consultation
 
Idjirani said that before the signing of the agreement, the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (Opapp) invited the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu to what was supposed to be a consultation on a peace deal with the MILF.

He said he was asked to give a lecture on the stand of the Sultanate of Sulu at a forum held at the University of the Philippines College of Law.

“We thought finally the government of President Aquino wanted a complete and comprehensive resolution management to the peace, security and economic problems of territories in Mindanao by consulting with us. But it was just talk,”

Idjirani said in English and Filipino.

“The framework agreement was finished without even the shadow of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo. They just pretended to consult us,” he said.

He said the government encouraged the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu to lead “peace caravans” and they complied. He showed pictures of such a caravan taken in Tawi-Tawi last year. The pictures showed members of the Kiram royal family and their followers participating in the caravan.
 
Sultanate not mentioned
 
But the next thing the heirs knew, he said, the framework agreement had been signed without any mention of the “historic and sovereign rights” of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo to territories included in the agreement.

“Until the government includes the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo, no lasting and significant peace will come to Mindanao,” Idjirani said.

“They should have seen that in the failure of the peace agreement with the Moro National Liberation Front of Nur Misuari,” he said.

“We thought the administration of President Aquino gave weight to ancestral and historic agreements. We were clearly wrong,” he added.

He said the sultanate’s “desire and intention” to be part of the peace process initiated by the government was expressed in a letter to former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo dated April 13, 2009.

In that letter signed by Sultan Jamalul Kiram III, he said, the government was acknowledged and referred to only as an ally in the sultanate’s ancestral and historic rights over the Sulu archipelago, which includes territories covered in the preliminary peace talks between the government and the MILF.

But Arroyo’s term ended in June 2010 with no agreement being reached with the MILF.

It was the Aquino administration that would clinch a preliminary peace deal with the MILF.

Heirs united
 
Idjirani said the signing of the framework agreement with the MILF led to the unification of the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu and their decision to proceed with claiming Sabah on their own.

Idjirani said the reported differences among the heirs were never personal but involved only policy and direction.

He said the direct descendants and heirs of the Sultan of Sulu and North Borneo were Sultan Jamalul Kiram III, Sultan Bantilan Esmail Kiram III, Datu Alianapia Kiram, Datu Phugdal Kiram, Datu Baduruddin Kiram and Rajah Mudah Agbimuddin Kiram, the crown prince who was tasked to lead the 1,000-strong civilian and military force to Sabah.

The “meeting of the minds” of the Kirams happened on Nov. 11 last year in a relative’s house, Idjirani said. It was during that meeting that Sultan Jamalul issued the royal decree that authorized Rajah Mudah’s journey to Sabah.  

With reports from Michael Lim Ubac, Jerome Aning, AFP and The Star-Asia News Network

SULTAN OF SULU: "Sabah is OUR Homeland, WE''ll Exercise Our Historic, Ancestral and Sovereign Right over Sabah"

Read here for more

SABAH CLAIM:  SULTAN OF SULU WON'T BUDGE

 by

 By



Undaunted amidst mounting pressure from both the Philippine and Malaysian governments, Sultan Jamalul Kiram III, the acknowledged leader of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo insisted that his royal decree that authorized the presence of  his younger brother, crown prince Rajah Mudah Agbimuddin Kiram and the combined civilian and armed followers in Lahad Datu, Sabah, Malaysia, stays.

“My decree is not about war. We are not waging war. I sent my brother in Sabah in the name of peace and in exercise of our historic, ancestral and sovereign right over Sabah,” Jamalul told the INQUIRER in a phone interview facilitated through members of his family who were beside him as he was resting after undergoing his regular dialysis treatment.

Jamalul is in Metro Manila and is guarded by family and close relatives.

Asked as to until when his decree stays? Jamalul said, “For as long as necessary. Sabah is our homeland and the international community acknowledges this. If we have to go to the United Nations we will do so. It is upon us, the leaders of Sulu to claim back what is ours,” the sultan added.

Does he have any message for the Philippine government?

“Everything I want to tell the President, I already told him in a letter sent to him, shortly after he assumed the presidency in 2010. I told him in that letter that it is the noble dream of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo to achieve unity, peaceful survival and economic prosperity and to be able to achieve that, the Sabah issue cannot be ignored,” Jamalul said.

Jamalul is 74 years old, the eldest among the Kiram brothers who are direct descendants of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo. He ran and lost for senator in the 2007 National Elections under the Team Unity of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Abraham Julpa Idjirani, secretary general and spokesperson for the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo said, Jamalul was supposed to meet on Saturday afternoon with some officials of the Aquino administration but was not able to do so because of the dialysis treatment.


 Jamalul’s wife Fatima Celia told the INQUIRER that her husband has been undergoing dialysis treatment for more than a year now.



Open to talks with Palace
 

Idjirani said, they are open to talks with any official sent by Malacañang as he was already contacted by several officials of the Aquino administration since the standoff in Lahad Datu, Malaysia, was reported in the media. He did not identify the officers who got in touch with him but mentioned the agencies these officials are attached to. “Magpahinga lang si Sultan Jamalul, at pag naka-pahinga na siya, puwede na naming harapin ang sinumang opisyal na gustong makipag-usap sa kanya (After resting, Sultan Jamalul can face any official who wants to talk to him),” Idjirani said.

The INQUIRER also learned from another independent source who wished not to be identified that President Benigno Aquino III was informed of the presence of civilian and armed supporters of the Sultanate of Sulu in Lahad Datu, Malaysia, as early as the morning of Feb. 11 through one of his Cabinet members. “But at that time, the report was still sketchy and we had no idea who the group was. But the President was alerted about this on Day 1 of their landing in Sabah,” the source said.

The Office of the Presidential Adviser in the Peace Process had no comment on Saturday on the Kirams’ claim that they were taking back Sabah.

In Lahad Datu in Sabah, Agbimuddin told the Inquirer that he only follows and receives order from Jamalul and no one else. No one can force us to leave. Even if I, as crown prince of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo is guarded by armed men belonging to our royal security forces, we will never provoke any encounter,” Agbimuddin said.

Assorted arms
 
Members of the royal security force are armed with assorted long firearms,  Agbimuddin said. “M-14, M-16, M203, Baby Armalite, basta assorted ang dala namin (we have all kinds),” he explained when asked what type of firearms they were carrying.

The active recruitment for members of the royal security force of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo, according to Agbimuddin, began in 1999 but training only began in 2001 in Simunol, Tawi-Tawi, Isabela, Basilan and even in mainland Zamboanga. “Sa Grand Stand pa nga kami ng Zamboanga nag-physical fitness exercise at alam ng Southcom ’yan (We do our physical fitness exercises at the Zamboanga grand stand, and the Southcom knew it),” Agbimuddin added.

The Southcom he is referring to is the Southern Command of the Armed Forces of the Philippines based in Zamboanga City and the Grand Stand is the one near Cawa-Cawa Boulevard.

Relatives on board
 
Who takes care of their logistics? Like food and other basic necessities since their landing in Lahad Datu?
Agbimuddin said, most of the residents of Tanduao, Lahad Datu, are Tausugs and relatives of the ones who went with him on board a motorboat from Tawi-Tawi. “Hindi kami magugutom dito at ang mga babae na kasama namin, sila ang nagluluto para sa amin (The women who are with us are doing the cooking).”
Will other groups with the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo follow him in Lahad Datu?

More coming
 
Agbimuddin answered that was his understanding, but he said he didn’t know when. There might even be more, he said.

Another source from Sulu told the Inquirer that a group identified with a local political clan with a stronghold in one municipality there is reportedly getting ready to follow Agbimuddin in Sabah.

 The source identified the political leader as a relative of the Kirams and also a former mayor and a former member of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) known then as the “Tiger of the MNLF.”

“The mayor is getting ready and waiting for the order from Sultan Kiram III to proceed [to Sabah],” the source said in Filipino, adding that the influential leader in Sulu, now in his early 60s, command a force of more than 200 men.

Thursday, 14 February 2013

UMNO Leaders Plundering The Country's Wealth

Open letter to Tun Mahathir  from Deepak Jaikishan
13/02/2013

Dear Tun,

I refer to your statement "Ignore Deepak" as your advice to DS Najib & DS Rosmah, I also take heed of your advice to me to seek the courts involvement and not use political channels to claim my rights and remedies.

Tun,

For your kind information, this is exactly what I have been doing the last 2 years from 2010 till to date and the courts have been fair and granted Judgment in my favor, however Najib's administration is "ignoring" these Judgments and evidence produced in Courts and almost all the Government Institutions have either swept DS Rosmah dirt under the carpet or just not replying to our various written testimonies and Courts Judgment; as such I would like to seek Tun's advice. What would Tun do in my place? Being of similar paternal ancestral background I am sure what I put forward in this letter would be exactly what Tun would have done in my situation or already done under different circumstances when Tun wrote the "historic 17th.June 1969" open Letter to Tunku Abdul Rahman.

Tun,

I was raided by Bank Negara Malaysia in 2010 for foreign currency exchange through money changers amounting to substantial amount of Singapore Dollars and US Dollars. The investigation was for a period of six (6) weeks and we divulged that the foreign currency was delivered to DS Najib & DS Rosmah as payments for various deals that I had acted on as their conduit including Bangunan Angkasa Raya, Bukit Raja Land and Glomac Tower (Now known as Wisma Prestige).The matter was not pursued any further.

I was also asked to be part of an investigation by MACC into the sale of an office Building at KLCC to an International Islamic Bank, we had proved through payment slips, video statements and written testimony that I was merely acting as a conduit for DS Najib and DS Rosmah and monies were given by hand to both of them in various occasions over a period of two (2) years, Dato' Jamidan a senior Director of MACC who was also involved in the Sime Darby case.

Now why it is after such clear incriminating evidence till to date there has been no investigation on DS Rosmah, DS Najib or D.Nazim? This takes selective prosecution  to an entirely different level doesn't it? How does Tun suggest I seek duress then? Let's talk about my Court experience now.

Tun,

I had bought a 200 acres piece of land from Raja Ropiah in 2007 who is now UMNO Selangor Wanita Chief and BN Wanita Chief. We paid her cash RM 13,000,000.00 and issued a Land Bond (Bank Guarantee) of RM 72,500,000.00 to complete the purchase consideration. Raja Ropiah after collecting the money, purposely delayed the issuance of the Land Title to us by completely neglecting her responsibilities to deliver this Land Title and in the sly by committing CBT sold the land to another company at a higher price and also collecting close to RM 90,000,000.00 in cash and Bank Guarantees from them, this too while our "Land Bond" was still valid and collecting Rm 13,000,000.00 from us in cash. We also paid as disclosed in open court RM 8,000,000.00 to DS Najib family. I have lodged police reports and to date zero action has been taken on Raja Ropiah and the other "R"

Instead I had to go through a harrowing experience of receiving a Foreclosure notice called a "16 D" by non other that DS Najib brother's; D Johari Razak law firm Shearn Delamore exactly 24 hours after my press conference informing the media of the corruption and malpractice of this couple. Tun, pray advice me which bank does a foreclosure without even going through the legal process involved?

Anyway by sheer "coincidence" their foreclosure was for RM 30,000,000.00 and Boustead Holding suddenly appears out of nowhere to agree to Purchase our Company that owns this 200 Acre letter under the name of Asta Canggih Sdn Bhd for the same RM 30,000,000.00 !! Wonders of Wonders right ? The best part is Boustead also paid us in "advance" before signing the Agreement on condition that we withdraw the case from the courts immediately as the open court  date was in the same week, Now Tun, please advice me what you would have done in this circumstances?? The best part is that Raja Ropiah was paid a further RM 29,000,000.00 as her “sentence” for the CBT.

Tun,

We had sold a building to a subsidiary of an International Islamic Bank in 2008 and they defaulted in the payment to us in 2010 when the new shareholders came in, now we won this landmark case in court via a Judgment on 07th November 2012 and the Court Judgment found that an International Islamic Bank;-

a)  used unlawful means to conspire against us with the predominant purpose of injuring us

b)  Committed breach of the Letter of Undertaking they issued to us

c)  Involved in the issuance & release of fraudulent letters to injure us and our business

The bank was also exposed in open court of:-

i) Cheating its Depositors by purchasing Assets using an "associate" company where they initially claimed ownership of 19% but in actual fact owned 100% through A  "Declaration of Trust Deed" which they later were forced to admit in open Court upon the presentation of the "Declaration of Trust Deed"

ii) Cheating the various statutory bodies like Bank Negara Malaysia, SC, FIC and ROC by using these Malaysian nominees’ shareholders to circumvent foreign ownership declarations and Approvals required.

iii) Cheat Bank Negara Malaysia, by showing loans exceeding its own Paid up Capital at the material time as loans to third party Companies when in fact it was loans to its own subsidiary.

Tun,

We had written to Bank Negara Malaysia to take necessary action against this International Islamic Bank as per the Banking Laws:-

a) Removing the CEO immediately

b) Limiting or revoking the Bank's License to prevent the Bank from taking Depositors

c) Having the Bank announce this unlawful conspiracy and breach to depositors and share holders in Malaysia & the middle east where it is a Public Listed Company and  also Governed by a Board of Trustees.

Tun,

My numerous letters to Tan Sri Zeti and the Board of Directors of Bank Negara Malaysia till to date have remained unreplied, why? Because Bank Negara knows that D Rosmah and D Nazim was involved in the Building sale, why? Because our written and video testimony to MACC in 2011 has confirmed the involvement of both D Rosmah and D Nazim in the transcript including evidence of payments made.

Hence, Tun, having a court Judgment is not enough today in Malaysia where even our most sacred Institution Bank Negara Malaysia sings to the tune of D Rosmah and no longer "I did it my way" anymore.

May I ask Tun, do you want to see Barisan Nasional and Malaysia destroyed by these blatantly corrupt couple, I seek your advice, What do I do after going to Court and winning the case? All the institution is under the control of this Bonnie & Clyde couple? Where do we go from here? The International Court of Justice? The Media? Or The Opposition? Please advice me through your Wisdom Tun as I am both perplexed and disgusted with what has happened to Malaysia the last 11 years through the paralysis of our Government

I am sadly disappointed with Tun’s press statement asking that I be ignored, how can I be ignored when we are defending the same country’s dignity and integrity. Maybe Tun is listening to the wrong people who tell Tun that I am working with the opposition to topple the Government, Tun I am a nationalist, I won’t help anyone topple my country’s dignity, No ONE.

Tun, you yourself have said that Najib is very weak, which is a reality, the Chinese know the level of corruption is not going to end and the Malays know that only a handful of “elite” Malays get very rich and the rest rely on scholarship, KR1M, BR1M and DR1M, eventually we all will become beggars or maids at the rate things are going where our debt will hit RM 1 Trillion by 2014. Everyone knows that Najib is Santa Claus PM giving “cash” to everybody to win by BRIBING THE NATION!! Everyone knows the real PM is Rosmah and Najib is just the happy Santa Claus PM.

My concern is not only about the country going into riots during or after election but also if the military takes control in all the chaos that will precede a dirty election. With the risk of facing the severe consequences of my words, I ask that Tun M propose that Najib be asked to resign and his deputy to lead a refreshed BN into the election mode which must happen in the next 60 days.

Tun,

I hope that my letter is accepted by Tun in as sincere a manner that it is written for and that no matter how bitter the truth is, it will still remain the truth and will always prevail over the lies and denials of Plunderers and Murderers.

Yours Sincerely,

DEEPAK J TEKWANI

 http://bm.harakahdaily.net/index.php/berita-utama/16676--deepak-buat-surat-terbuka-untuk-dr-mahathir

Saturday, 12 January 2013

12 JANUARY - STADIUM MERDEKA

#KL 112 RALLY 12 JAN 2013

http://www.malaysiakini.com/


1.57pm: Outside Stadium Merdeka (main gate) - An estimated 20,000 people begin to move into the stadium.
Leaders of rally co-organisers - Solidariti Anak Muda Malaysia (SAMM), Felda Anak and Royalti - were seen on top a jeep leading the crowd.
NONE2pm: Stadium Merdeka - Overall, the marches to the stadium has been mostly smooth, with the police helping to control traffic.
There are impromptu marches all over downtown Kuala Lumpur and more of this can be expected because some groups, such as one currently in Masjid Negara, will only march after zohor prayers, which means they will march only after the rally is officially underway.
2.10pm: Stadium Merdeka - The rally kicks off with the singing of the national anthem as thousands of participants still making their the way into the stadium.

There are loudspeakers mounted outside the stadium for the benefit of those still queuing to go in.
DAP Rasah MP Anthony Loke starts the rally inside the stadium speaking in Chinese and Malay. He calls on the people to vote out the BN government.

“Najib is only gathered at Semenyih Tesco. We are at Stadium Merdeka and we rise to oppose BN,” he says.

Spotted in the stadium is Parti Ikatan president and former Umno minister Kadir Sheikh Fadzir.

2.20pm: Stadium Merdeka - An estimated 70,000 are in and outside stadium. The weather is cloudy but the earlier drizzler has stopped. A police helicopter is seen hovering above the city.

pkr johor skudai dinner 150912 anwar2.29pm: Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim, who is scheduled to address the rally later today, issues a statement to Malaysians and supporters abroad asking them to provide support to their fellow citizens in the country by spreading information about today's rally.

“Keep tweeting and posting all day, keep talking, keep sharing, every voice matters, every effort adds on to building a flood of hope, and by the day dwarfing the dam of intolerance and aloofness built by those who rule today. 

“That one day, the dam will break and sunlight will shine again in our lives,” he said in the statement.
2.08pm: Stadium Merdeka - PAS Johor rep Suhaizan Kaiat speaks on issues concerning Pulau Batu Putih and the Iskandar project in Johor.

PAS chief Abdul Hadi Awang and secretary-general Mustapha Ali arrive in the stadium.

Shortly after, Tijah representing the Peninsular Orang Asli addresses the rally on indigenous rights and alleges that much of Orang Asli land has been robbed from them.

He says today should be remembered in history and that Orang Asli rights should not be denied, and for them to be treated fairly and equally.

NONEBersih co-chairperson Ambiga Sreenevaasan and PKR veep N Surendran are seen in the stadium.
2.20pm: Stadium Merdeka gate - Despite police warning to participants not to bring children, a family has ignored the order.

Suzilawani Mohd, 32, says she didn’t feel scared to bring her children to the rally because she expects that the government will not take a tough stand.

“Last time, I might be afraid because of the tear gas and water cannons,” she says, with her husband Naveed Ghalam Rasool beside her.

Asked about her reasons for taking part, she says she wants to experience the feeling of a rally before the election.
2.25pm: New groups of rally participants, with some of them wearing the iconic Bersih yellow T-shirts and holding PAS flags, start to march from the National Mosque to Stadium Merdeka.

The 3,000-strong crowd shouting 'Reformasi' completely floods the road leading to Stadium Merdeka.

Among them is Mohamad Yusof, a disabled on wheelchair, who came from Ijok, Selangor, to join the rally.

NONE2.30pm: Jalan Imbi, Hang Tuah LRT Station - Despite the rally having begun half an hour ago, there are still many participants on the way to the stadium.

Many protesters dressed in yellow and green are spotted at the Hang Tuah LRT station. In addition, many Muslim participants have just started to walk towards the stadium after their prayers at the Albukhary mosque.

The stadium is about 1km from both the LRT station and the mosque.

2.40pm: Stadium Merdeka - DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang dan national chairperson Karpal Singh who is on wheelchair, arrive and entere the stadium.

2.50pm: It’s drizzling in the stadium. Bersih co-chairperson S Ambiga is giving speech. She reiterates that Bersih is a non-partisan NGO fighting for the people.

The electoral reform coalition, she says, is to safeguard the people's rights in the coming general election.

NONE“We are not favouring any political party. We fight for the rakyat. I hope you all will come out and vote in the 13th general election.”

2.53pm: It is Himpunan Hijau chairperson Wong Tack's turn to give speech.

Without wasting any time, he urged the people to rise up and change the government come the next general elections.

"God gives us a wonderful and beautiful land, why do we want to destroy it?"

"Enough is enough, the people must rise up. This corrupt regime must be dropped. We must remove the corrupt government!"
2.51pm: According to a Twitter update from the police, the stadium has been filled with about 80,000 people as at 2.45pm.
NONE2.55pm: A lot of people can't get into the stadium and are hanging around the carpark.
The stadium is filled to the rafters. Many resort to climbing on the ticket stands, fence and walls to witness the proceedings.

2.55pm: Jalan Maharajalela – Participants outside the stadium are having a carnival playing on their vuvuzuela trumpets while the cars passing by honk to show support.

3pm: Anak's Mazlan Aliman takes the stage. He starts his speech with a loud shout of “Undur Isa Samad!” (step down Isa Samad)

“Today Felda settlers have risen to make changes.

“All this time BN has been in power due to strong support (from Felda settlers). God willing this time Felda folks will rise and march to Putrajaya.”

3.04pm:
The first part programme of the rally has ended. Popular singer Ito from the rock group Blues Gang sings a song called ‘Ubah ini kali lah’ (Let's change this time), followed by a poetry reading by national laureate A Samad Said.

He jokes that he had never expected his poetry could be used as a weapon in this country.

“Even poems have become weapons,” he says in a short speech before reciting his poem ‘On the field of history’.

He adds that he has always wanted to witness a ‘sea of humanity’.

“In my life... I am already 80, I have always dreamed of witnessing a sea of souls. This is it. Change now,” he said.
Pakatan leaders will then take their turn to speak.

3.22pm: Mohamad Sabu, better known as Mat Sabu, takes his turn to speak.
As rally secretariat chairperson, he thanks all quarters for making the rally a success, including the police department.

He called the rally today a step towards Putrajaya.

“This is our last rally before heading to Putrajaya,” he said to a roar from the crowd.

NONEHe says Malaysians are holding concurrent rallies in Jordan, London and Auckland.

Mat Sabu then tells the crowd about the SMS (right) that Malaysiakini had reported offering participants money to participate in the rally.

The fake message told participants that their payment for taking part in the rally was ready for collection at PKR headquarters.

“Did anyone pay you RM150?” he asks the crowd, who respond “No!”

“I do not intend to pay your RM150, but I would like to ask funds from you, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to ask donations,” he says.
With that, the organisers begin collecting donations from the crowd.
3.30pm: Outside the stadium, some participants are seen shaking hands with the police in appreciation of their service. One attendee from Sungai Petani is spotted thanking the police before rushing off to take a bus home. The police replies with a warm smile.

“The police were good today. They did not disrupt our rally compared to the past,” he says.
3.35pm: After Samad Said's poem, singer Ito returns to the stage and perform another song, which touch on the unity of all the races.

While enjoying his performance, the 100,000-strong crowd also perform the "wave" around the stadium a number of times.

3.38pm: The police revises one of its earlier Twitter postings, clarifying that the estimation of 80,000 crowd in the stadium at 2.45pm was a “technical mistake”.

“The real number will be announced by the Kuala Lumpur police chief or district police chief,” read the latest message.
3.52pm: Earlier at about 12pm, Mohamad Sabu who is the rally's secretariat chairperson told Malaysiakini that the organiser will not entertain controversial carpet dealer Deepak's request to speak in the stadium.

"No, we already have many NGOs want to speak in the rally, no more space," said the PAS deputy president.
NONE
3.58pm: Jordan - Malaysians in the Middle East nation report that after Friday prayers, the undergraduates from Mu’tah Jordan have gathered at the snow-covered Tarawneh Square in 4 degrees celcius weather.

NONE“Although it is cold, we are filled with the spirit of the rally as a sign of concern for Malaysia,” said Suhaila Lukman in an email statement.

She says although they are unable to be in Kuala Lumpur, they are there in spirit and prayer, and share the youth’s aspirations for change.

“Our rally lasted around 30 minutes accompanied by speeches from the student representatives, followed by prayers and shouts of ‘Takbir’,” she