collated files of opposition for the cdp stand on north borneo
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
-
7/28/2019 Collated Files of Opposition for the Cdp Stand on North Borneo
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
-
7/28/2019 Collated Files of Opposition for the Cdp Stand on North Borneo
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".