Sabah
The fact that Malaysia
is paying rent to the Filipino sultanate constitutes proof that Malaysia
is not the owner of Sabah . In civil law, possessor may
be different from the owner of a property. In this case, Sabah
is in the possession of Malaysia who uses it under the terms of the old british lease and exercises
sovereignty over it as if it was part of their territory from the time that it was ceded to them by the previous lessee. The Sultanate of Sulu, a Filipino, constituting itself to
be the rightful owner of Sabah, now wants to take
possession in its private capacity. The Philippines
on the other hand is a sovereign nation, who lends itself to be a claimant of Sabah ,
the same being a part of its national territory that includes the Sultanate of Sulu.
In a simple analogy, what we have is a Filipino
citizen’s private property that is situated in Sabah, North Borneo, which the Philippines has a parallel but passive claim being actually occupied, administered and governed
by Malaysia .The Sulu Sultanate is the lessor,
Malaysia is the
lessee, which is also the possessor and governor. The Philippines on the other hand, seemingly, is lost in limbo because of its obscure foreign policy on the matter.
The Philippine’s claim may aptly be
described as a sovereignty claim. While, the Sulu Sultanate’s claim distinctively as a lessor’s
claim that seeks to end an old lease and to take physical possession of the leased property. These two claims necessarily intertwined but have
a different end. Is the lease legal in the first place? I think it is, by ratification of parties through the continuation of lease payment, and its acceptance even after it was ceded. Is the lease payment morally righteous, or even so commensurately fair? the answer is no, such payment are considered by many as more of a token than true compensation considering the nominal amount given to the Sultanate
and nothing to the Government of the Philippines. This is despite of Sabah ’s reported income in billions of dollars annually that goes to Malaysian coffer .
Under normal condition the lease agreement should be re-constituted under
Philippine laws, subject to taxes, fees and other regulatory requirements upon its use by the lessee. But since the Philippines
cannot exercise sovereignty over Sabah and not even a party to the old arrangement, its position appears to be difficult since its claim is pretty much tied up with that of the Sultanate.
The questions now rises; why did the Philippine government allowed itself to remain as a stranger in the lease arrangement for so long? why has it adopted a passive attitude over the years? why did it chooses to condemn the act of the Sultanate and its people when they themselves as elected officials failed to act and do what needs to be done supposedly in consonance with their sworn
duty in the first place. Beyond any compelling reason, the Philippine leadership should have actively asserted the
Philippine sovereignty over Sabah either through or with the Sultanate, by any means, regardless
of consequences. It is unthinkable that it continues to maintain a friendly tie with a country that had robbed its territory and resources. Even the MNLF leadership admitted that Malaysia had trained and supported the secessionist movement in Mindanao which as we all know had brought misery to its inhabitants and resulted to thousands of lives lost apart from a wide economic dislocations. It was an old tactic of divide and conquer; a diversion. One may even wonder on how the Philippines was able to shut its eyes and swallow this kind of treachery.
More than a financial reason, the greatest stake is the dignity of the Filipino as a nation which is being trampled time and again, left and right, not only by the strong but even by a relatively weak nation.
The worst crime that may be committed by a leader of a nation is to breach his constitutional promise to protect the citizens and its territories. More so is to admonish its citizens for asserting their birthright.
More than a financial reason, the greatest stake is the dignity of the Filipino as a nation which is being trampled time and again, left and right, not only by the strong but even by a relatively weak nation.
The worst crime that may be committed by a leader of a nation is to breach his constitutional promise to protect the citizens and its territories. More so is to admonish its citizens for asserting their birthright.
Comments
Post a Comment