Sabah: Part of RP Baselines Law

Force of Law
By Alan F. Paguia
Manila Times

In 1963, Sabah was included as a member of the Federation of Malaysia.

In 1968, it was included as within the territorial baselines of the Republic of the Philippines.

That is the problem.

The law

1. There are three laws dealing with the territorial baselines of the Philippines. These are:

a) Republic Act (RA) No. 3046, entitled:

AN ACT TO DEFINE THE BASELINES OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA OF THE PHILIPPINES, which took effect on June 17, 1961.

b) Republic Act (RA) No. 5446, entitled:

AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION ONE OF RA 3046, which took effect on September 18, 1968.

c) Republic Act (RA) No. 9522, entitled:

AN ACT TO AMEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF RA 3046, AS AMENDED BY RA 5446, TO DEFINE THE ARCHIPELAGIC BASELINE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, which took effect shortly after its approval on March 10, 2009.

2. RA 5446 materially provides that:

“The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Act is without prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea around the territory of Sabah, situated in North Borneo, over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty.” (Sec. 2)

3. RA 9522 materially provides that:

“This Act affirms that the Republic of the Philippines has dominion, sovereignty and jurisdiction over all portions of the national territory as defined in the Constitution and by provisions of applicable laws including, without limitation, Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, as amended.” (Sec. 3)

Comments

4. Under RA 5446:

a) The territorial sea around Sabah is PART of Philippine territory.

b) Hence, Sabah is PART of Philippine territory.

c) However, the ACTUAL DELINEATION is, in the meantime, SUSPENDED.

d) The Philippines has DERIVATIVE SOVEREIGNTY over Sabah.

5. RA 9522 AFFIRMS the foregoing definition of territory under RA 5446.

6. Sec. 2 of RA 5446 – according to Secretary of Foreign Affairs Narciso Ramos in 1968 – was enacted “in order to protect the Philippine claim and avoid the possible charge that the Philippines by law implicitly waived the claim by failing to include Sabah’s waters in the delimitation of the Philippine territorial sea” (The Philippine Claim to a Portion of North Borneo: Materials and Documents; UP Law Center, p. 163; 2003).

7. He reported that during the talks in Bangkok on June 17, 1968, the Malaysian delegation, for several days, asked questions “ostensibly to clarify the Philippine claim. All questions were answered. However, when the Philippine delegates became convinced that enough questions had been asked and sufficient answers had been given, they proposed that the two groups start a discussion on the modes of settlement. The Malaysians refused.” (ibid., p. 162. Emphasis supplied).

8. Later, the Malaysian delegation “announced to the world press that acceding to the Philippine request, they would discuss modes of settlement at the meeting set for 15 July. When the two delegations met on 15 July, the Chairman of the Malaysian panel declared: ‘I reject your claim. As far as Malaysia is concerned, this exercise under the Joint Communiqué is over and done with.’” (id., p. 163).

9. “At the next day’s session, when the Filipinos insisted on discussing the modes of settlement, the Malaysians stalked out of the conference room, thus bringing the talks to an abrupt end. The Malaysians had attempted to play the double role of party litigant and judge at the same time” (id., 9. 162).

10. On 27 September 1968, The New York Times raised in its editorial the following query:

“Could not the Philippines and Malaysia agree to submit the question of Sabah to the World Court or to some other impartial third party, as the Philippine President has proposed? If Malaysia’s case is as sound as Kuala Lumpur insists, the Malaysians have nothing to fear from such a review.” (id., p. 165. Emphasis supplied)

Conclusion

Since the Malaysian government has assiduously REFUSED to refer the Sabah ownership issue to a neutral third party arbiter, it would appear it is MORE AFRAID than CONFIDENT of the merits of its claim over Sabah.

It is about time the Aquino administration opens its eyes to this simple fact and take POSITIVE ACTION accordingly. It must STOP WASTING precious time, and human lives on the side.