collated files of opposition for the cdp stand on north borneo

7/28/2019 Collated Files of Opposition for the Cdp Stand on North Borneo

1/3

Opposition/Comments of CDP members on the CDP Stand on the North Borneo Issue,dated as of April 2, 2013.FROM CORABEL DIEL(Cagayan de Oro City, 1st District)

This is the stand of Pontius Pilate when he was asked to make a

judgement of Jesus.

Hi! I believe our Muslim Filipino brothers can now very well defend

North Borneo. I am worried about the Spratley Islands..No way at all

that our poor Christian brothers-fishermen can defend that part of the

word..Oh, well

From ANGEL LIM,JR (Lugait, Misamis Oriental)DEAR CDP PARTYMATES, for your consideration please read my

concerns over the stand based on Strand # 2 on sovereignty issue which

say that "No doubt that the Malaysian Government has actual exercise

of sovereignty over the disputed territory". I am afraid that said stand

come to the brink or is at all ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL, at least

based on our own laws. I understand that probably said stand as

worded was based on the actual political appraisal over the area of

Sabah but then again on the legal perspective that is not in parallel with

our laws and Constitution. it would have been more apt and legal

thereby creating a stronger stance over the issue had it not been

worded in that manner but instead framed in the way with due

consideration of the 1987 Constitution and RA 5446 (1968) which was

not repelled by a later law RA 9522 (2009) and for which our Supreme

Court in 2011, in the case of Magallona vs.Ermita, G.R No. 187167, said

that our claim over Sabah can be pursued. Section 2 of RA 5446, which


2/3

Opposition/Comments of CDP members on the CDP Stand on the North Borneo Issue,dated as of April 2, 2013.RA 9522 did not repeal, keeps open the door for drawing the baselines

of Sabah:

Section 2. 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. (Emphasis supplied).

Take note of the phrase: "over which the Republic of the Philippines has

ACQUIRED dominion and SOVEREIGNTY". Although the 1987 has

silenced the phrase "and all the other territories belonging to thePhilippines by HISTORIC OR LEGAL TITLE" which is found in the 1973

Constitution, but the 1987 Constitution also provides in ARTICLE I

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,xxx take note of the phrase "AND ALL OTHER TERRITORIES

OVER WHICH THE PHILIPPINES HAS SOVEREIGNTY". and what could

be that all other territories over which the Philippines HAS sovereignty?of course it is found in Sec. 2 of RA 5446. According to wikipedia,

sovereignty is of two kinds: De jure and de facto. De jure, or legal,

sovereignty concerns the expressed and institutionally recognised right

to exercise control over a territory. De facto, or actual, sovereignty is

concerned with whether control in fact exists. Cooperation and respect

of the populace; control of resources in, or moved into, an area; means

of enforcement and security; and ability to carry out various functions of

state all represent measures of de facto sovereignty. Our (Philippines) is

a kind of De Jure Sovereignty while that of Malaysia is a DE FACTO

SOVEREIGNTY. By saying that"NO DOUBT that the Malaysian

Government has actual exercise of sovereignty over the disputed

territory" we are in danger of being misquoted as DELIBERATELY

OMITTING that we (Philippines) too has sovereignty over Sabah, albeit

DE JURE. Thus, reconciling these seeming misconceptions and to

prevent misinterpretations by our own people, although I agree that thesovereignty issue be resolved in peaceful manner in accordance to


3/3

Opposition/Comments of CDP members on the CDP Stand on the North Borneo Issue,dated as of April 2, 2013.internationally accepted principles, it would be more apt for us CDP to

have couched STRAND # 2 in this manner "The Philippines has De Jure

Sovereignty over Sabah while Malaysia exercises a De Facto

Sovereignty, but this issue has to be resolved once and for all byexhausting all means, peaceful or belligerent. The difference between

the two is that in the latter strand we put Filipino first and create a

character, a strong one to be exact, while in the former strand, we put

Malaysia first and cast a sense that we are in quandary as to how deep

really is our knowledge of the claim and also unwittingly or inadvertently

projecting an image of being a yellow-tard.

Like Maam Corabel Diel says here that we are acting play-safe mode

llike Pontius Pilate. We cannot stand in duplication with the stand of

Malacanang of keeping on studying the claim until kingdom come but

just the same anyway, Malacanang role is only LESS ACTIVE although it

won't abandon the claim, what a mindless waste of time and effort.

Further, we cannot duplicate Malacanang, because Malacanang knew

that by abandoning the claim over Sabah, the President is in danger ofcommitting a Culpable violation of the Constitution by failing Art. I of the

1987 Constitution, an impeachable offense, thus Malacanang was forced

to act Pontius Pilate (Playsafe). THEREFORE, our stand should be

strong. Alexander the Great once said and I agree "THE FUTURE

FAVORS THE BOLD".

collated files of opposition for the cdp stand on north borneo

Documents