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

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 the Philippines 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 the sovereignty issue be resolved in peaceful manner in accordance to

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 by exhausting 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 of committing 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".