What are our rights to something acquired under illegal circumstances?
Written on Friday, July 25th, 2008 at 8:56 am | by benign0AdB’s take on illegal Pinoy aliens in Sabah gleaned from several comments he made on Ding’s post is interesting. It provides a bit of insight on our unique ability to rationalise and — worse — institutionalise extralegality into the very fabric of our society. It aligns with something I highlighted way back in a 2003 article where I observed that:
In the Philippines, expressedly written statements that limit or prescribe individual actions in the interest of the common good — i.e. laws — from the lowliest traffic ordinances to the highest mitigations against economic plunder are routinely and blatantly flouted by Filipinos of all economic class and social status.
In this regard, a culture of crime pervades Philippine society.
AdB makes several comments all of which in essence, say only one thing: Malaysian authorities and law enforcement officers over there are also complicit and embroiled in the whole “sordid” affair which therefore makes this affair more “complex” than what simpletons like me make it out to be.
Ironically, his comments simply futher highlight how SIMPLE it really is.
The very points AdB raised in Ding’s blog post does not in any way change a SIMPLE reality: That Filipino illegal aliens in Sabah operate outside of ANY legal framework whether or not enforcers of the law over there are complicit in that operation. AdB simply widens the net of accountability to include Malaysian officers. But that does not in any way change the illegality of the presence of Pinoy illegal aliens over there, nor does it change the right of the Malaysian Government to evict — or tolerate — them at leisure; whatever option suits their national interest.
Here are some gems I harvested from AdB’s “insight” into the matter:
it is very well known that many of these Malaysian border patrol guards encourage, yes, encourage would be illegal immigrants to cross into Sabah by way of Sandakan because they are a source of additional income, i.e., bribes
To which I say: Then these border guards should be dealt with in accordance to Malaysian law as well — just as illegal aliens are also being dealt with in accordance with other Malaysian laws
and;
One Filipino who was selling fresh water pearls in the Filipino Market there (biggest market in KK and perhaps in the whole of Sabah) told me that he didn’t mind paying that “entry fee” every month because he trades or sells his goods easily, takes stuff that he can sell back home
To which I say: So what? That sounds uncannily similar to the way business is done within the Philippines as well.
So what?
and, interestingly;
I’d say, the authorities know that the majority of the Filipinos who are “building Sabah” are there illegally and tolerate it.
To which I say: Does the person who developed the Nike Air brand while employed by Nike own the Nike Air brand?
You can design and build the most innovative product in the world. But if you build it within the safe premises of your employer using your employer’s money and resources, guess how much of a claim you enjoy to personal rights over said product: ZILCH.
Much less even if you did it as an unauthorised occupant of said premises.
On one hand we can spin it as one where the Malaysians are at fault because they tolerate and profit from the illegal presence of these Pinoy nationals. But it works both ways — we can also say those Pinoy nationals profit and also work the system over there (calling their contributions to said system “fees”).
Either way it does not change the reality that whatever goes on there that involves illegal aliens from the perspective of Malaysian Law is in fact ILLEGAL.
A land owner can tolerate squatters on his land and decide to evict them AT LEISURE. Even the most elaborate shanty mansion built on someone else’s land need not be spared the wrath of a bulldozer.
Similar principles apply in this case.
It’s simple, really.
- “We cannot keep what we cannot defend”
- The Republic of Corluviminbangsavia
- The Philippines: An enduring grotesqueness
- Bayan Muna urges GRP, MILF to resume talks with human rights and humanitarian law as top agenda
- An Elegy To Values
- Pomp and “Circumstance”
- Lunch Coup
- Gunless
- On Whose Side Will The Spear-Carriers Be For?
- House impeachment vote, a go for GMA to lead a failing state
Comments
81 Responses to “What are our rights to something acquired under illegal circumstances?”
Leave a Reply
Current Events, News, and Press
- Manny Villar Resigns, Juan Ponce Enrile is New Senate President
Senator Manny Villar has resigned as Senate President. Immediately, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was nominated then declared New Senate President. Read More...
- The Catholic-Muslim Joint Declaration
Three days of talks at the Vatican that included scholars from The Islamic and Catholic faith, finally concluded with a joint declaration. Here is the full text of The Catholic and Muslim Joint Declaration. Read More...
- Change.gov The Official Website of President-elect Barack Obama
To those who wish to dive deep into what President-elect Barack Obama has in store as his presidency nears, you can go visit Change.gov, his official website introducing the reader to his policies during his presidency. Read More...
- Obama assembles White House team
Barack Obama has started forming his administration by asking Rahm Emanuel, a former adviser to President Clinton, to be his chief-of-staff. Read More...
- Pimentel cautions colleagues against obstructing probe of Bolante
Minority Leader Aquilino Q. Pimentel, (PDP-Laban) today cautioned his colleagues against blocking the reopening of the Senate's investigation into the fertilizer fund scam that could expose them to suspicion that they may be unwittingly covering up the scandal. Read More...
- Full Text of President-Elect Barack Obama Presidential Victory Speech
Here is the full text of President-Elect Barack Obama Presidential Victory Speech. Read More...
- Barack Obama Presidential Victory Speech Video November 5, 2008
This is the full video of President Elect Barack Obama's Presidential Victory Speech. As November 4th gave way to November 5th, America heralded in a historic moment, by electing, for the first time in history, an African-American as President of The United States of America. Read More...
- A Global Market Meltdown
The world financial system is teetering on the "brink of systemic meltdown", the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has warned in Washington. Read More...
- Full Draft Copy of The Proposed Bailout Plan
This is the Full Draft Copy of the proposed bailout plan that was struck down just yesterday, and is estimated to cost The United States government, $700 billion or upwards to $1 trillion. Read More...
- Chavit Singson Is New Deputy National Security Adviser
MANILA, Philippines—After a yearlong absence from the political scene, former Ilocos Sur Gov. Luis “Chavit” Singson is back in the corridors of power. Read More...
Archive for Current Events »
- Manny Villar Resigns, Juan Ponce Enrile is New Senate President
-
Subscribe to Filipino Voices!
-
FULL TEXT
adb’s rationalization reminds me of the reason usually used to justify defiance of the government’s ban on working in iraq and other hazardous places where their lives are at risk - that’s where the money is. then, when something bad happens to them, it’s the government’s fault.
If you say so… but just as you have often accused Chuck of being a master at compartmentalising sarcastically (yep, I just read a comment of yours somewhere), I promise you that you yourself are skillful at it.
How so? Well, you oversimplify and “encapsulate” something that cannot be simplified encapsulated with a one liner as when you juxtaposed Sabah ownership, the Filipinos in Sabah, the Philippine dilemma over Sabah, the Malaysians, etc with one tag: ILLEGALITY and linking the word, as if it were the mantra of your existence, to the complexity of the Sabah issue.
To you, Either way it does not change the reality that whatever goes on there that involves illegal aliens from the perspective of Malaysian Law is in fact ILLEGAL.. And this is where your “crystal clear” assumption goes wayward: Malaysian Law is applicable in Malaysia but why should it be applicable in other countries.
You interject: How so? But Sabah is Malaysia’s province?
But not quite my dear lil Benigno! This is exactly the crux of the matter. To me, Sabah “is a province” of Malaysia because the Malaysians want to believe it and are doing their darnest best to convince you, the rest of Filipinohood, Malaysiahood, etc. , yet even the monkeys in the Philippine goverment still have to admit it vigourously, i.e., by withdrawing their claim formally and officially before the UN and proclaiming loud and clear that Sabah indeed should belong to Malaysia.
It’s incomprehensible how a seemingly bright and “positive thinker” like you from Down Under could have been victimised by the he Malaysians too and led you to believe that Sabah is theirs.
I do not like the RP govt today but I must give them credit for something: those surrender monkeys in RP govt HAVE NOT set up a consulate in the province of Sabah precisely because the question of ownership of Sabah is still strongly hanging in the balance.
I suggest you examine the issue more seriously before you pronounce: Either way it does not change the reality that whatever goes on there that involves illegal aliens from the perspective of Malaysian Law is in fact ILLEGAL.
But must yield this to you: I agree! “it does not change the reality that whatever goes on there that involves illegal aliens from the perspective of Malaysian Law is in fact ILLEGAL.” That is a statement that can stand on its own without the peripherals.
But again, why should Filipinos be illegal in a province that rightly belongs to the Philippines?
Now, answer your own question, “What are our rights to something acquired under illegal circumstances?” — Malaysia’s highly irregular and virtually illegal acquisition of Sabah from the Sulatan of Sulu’s British tenants.
But before you do, I suggest you re-read your history.
Lastly, Benigno, it is your right to join Filipinos and Malaysians who are advocating for the legal and formal annexation or surrender of the disputed island of Sabah to Malaysia.
It will be very much in keeping with the Filipino cultural trait of wala naman ng magagawa!” that I once thought you abhor.
Oh yeah, before I forget, the Thais and the Cambodians are on the brink of war as we speak for a miniscule piece of territory — Preah Vihear — because it is replete with history and so, believe they are right to fight for it, but the Philippines and many surrender monkeys in their midst wouldn’t even lift a finger to fight for their nationals who are being inhumanely treated in Sabah by the province’s foreign occupiers, the Malaysians, despite the fact that there is historical, and seemingly legal evidence that Sabah should rightly belong to citizens of the Philippines namely: the heirs to the Sultanate of Sulu.
Way to go, AdB! I wanted to post exactly the same comments as I was reading this post.
The fact that the Malaysians are STILL paying rent to the Sultan of Sulu highlights the fact that the Malaysians are the ones who are squatting in Sabah.
Indeed, the Malaysians themselves know that our claim to the territory is strong. That’s why they have never agreed to put the matter before the ICJ. That’s why they have sowed rebellion in Mindanao by helping the likes of Nur Misuaris. And that’s probably why they are deeple involved in the GRP-MILF peace process.
Realism is at work at Preah Vihear. Both countries are asserting their rights as a state, putting the unity of the ASEAN in the backburner.
That’s exactly the opposite of the Philippines’ Sabah approach. Our presidents have consistently put our rights as a state in the backburner in favor of ASEAN unity.
Because the Philippines wants to be an example of a law-abiding and peace-loving nation?
Is that also the reason why are so devoted to WTO-imposed free trade while those big preachers of free trade- Japan and the USA- and all our neighbors that became well-off are not devoted to it?
Or maybe it’s not because we want to be an example but because we are all cowards who couldn’t stand up to the big powers and even to a not-so strong power called Malaysia?
Look where is the Philippines now compared to the countries who know how to assert their rights.
Still sounds simple to me, AdB.
It seems, your argument is hinged entirely on the Philippines’ claim to Sabah which is pending with the U.N.
But until that claim is resolved, Sabah is de facto a Malaysian province.
Which makes this question of yours come across as a bit quaint:
Emphasis on “[…] rightly belongs to the Philippines […]”; I say: Who says so? Cite a document that is recognised by the rest of the International Community that says so, please.
A perception of “injustice” remains nothing more than a perception UNTIL an authorised entreatied body makes a ruling.
Yours is the kind of mentality that drives Edsa revolutions and remains addicted to extraconstitutional means to resolve things despite the existence of due process to achieve a similar result.
So, boo hoo, AdB thinks Sabah “rightly belongs to the Philippines”. Why don’t you go sue Malaysia then.
It’s simple, really.
It’s simple really, benign0.
You can’t take a matter to the International Court of Justice unless both parties agree to it. And it is the Malaysians who don’t agree to letting the ICJ decide on the Sabah dispute. This is why AdB can’t sue the Malaysians.
The case, therefore, is not pending in the UN.
And unless the Sabah dispute is resolved, the Malaysian laws imposed in that state (not really province) can be questioned. Hence we have the right to question Malaysian laws there, benign0.
And there is no document recognized by the international community that proves that Sabah is rightfully owned by Malaysia, either.
But there is a document that proves that Sabah belongs to the Philippines. Although that document is not “recognized” by the international community (because it’s not known to them), it is recognized by Malaysia.
http://thephilippineclaimoversabah.blogspot.com/2007_12_01_archive.html#8174831354004571934
Re: “Yours is the kind of mentality that drives Edsa revolutions and remains addicted to extraconstitutional means to resolve things despite the existence of due process to achieve a similar result.”
Well, in the first place, there is anarchy in International Relations as there is no constitution and the frameworks designed to impose international “laws” are superceded by sovereignties of states.
The only due process in a dispute- arbitration by the World Court- is not available because Kuala Lumpur has consistently rejected Manila’s calls to bring the Sabah dispute to the ICJ for arbitration.
Pardon my ignorance but how can the Philippines or Malaysia claim something (the territory of the sultanate of Sulu) that pre-existed both of them? The Sultanate of Sulu does not belong to anybody, IMO. In fact it has a pretty strong case for being its own sovereign territory.
so, it’s a deadlock. since due process is not available, what’s the option left to resolve the dispute, go to war? is it worth it?
At the end of the day, when you look up Sabah in most atlases, what country is it described as belonging to?
Maybe people are just getting property rights and sovereign authority mixed up. The Sultan of Sulu may have property rights over Sabah. But Malaysia retains sovereign rights over it.
J, if that document you point out is not recognised by the international community, what’s the point in citing it?
The Sultan of Sulu may have property rights over Sabah. But Malaysia retains sovereign rights over it.
Why? Because one day they just produced a document or some other saying so? (Backed by weapons of course.) Would you accept that? For example you owned a parcel of land that your family has owned for generations and some schmoe with a document from city hall says it’s his comes (backed by weapons of course) and says, “I have sovereign rights over your a$$.”
Ah, I often wonder what course history could have taken if Operation Merdeka did commence.
However I hate it whenever people proclaim that perceived injustice is in fact a valid excuse to trump and ignore existing laws. And then these same “victims of injustice” will wonder how their government officials can cheat and steal with impunity.
Dura lex sed lex. The law may be hard but it is the law — if we choose to ignore it, we lose our right to question those who do the same.
In fact, Jon, injustice is a valid excuse to trump existing laws. Justice is the eternal principle. Law is just, well, law.
I suppose what we have here is a difference in political philosophy. I think government is evil. A necessary evil perhaps, but evil nevertheless.
The law is not something that is handed down by an all-knowing Diety. Rather, it is a product of an ongoing negotiation, both in its affirmation and denial, by the members of Society who are subjected to it. In a manner of speaking, the tasks of lawmakers is to discover the appropriate law.
In contrast, human rights are inalienable and are in a different league altogether. So to measure rights against the yardstick of the law is to be guilty of improper matching of concepts. The rights of individuals or groups of individuals can only be matched against the rights of other individuals or groups of individuals.
cvj,
Is migrating to a foreign land without legal impediment a basic human right?
Jeg,
Ah, don’t get me wrong, I ALSO believe that the government is evil.
However, I’m a fan of subtler ways of subversion, and of law bending as opposed to explicit law breaking.
cvj, human laws are not “discovered”. they are “made” by competent authority. judges, lawyers and even ordinary laymen are presumed to know the law. unless you are a legal researcher, you don’t stumble upon a law.
human rights are created, enforced and sanctioned by law. in human terms, there is no right if there is no law recognizing it.
benign0: Malaysia’s sovereignty over sabah is being questioned by the Philippines. It follows then that Malaysian laws over Sabah is, by extension, being questioned. Hence, the Filipino workers there are not illegal, coming from this premise.
Malaysia’s sovereignty is questioned by the fact that the Sultanate owns the territory, benign0. In this case, the line between property and soverignty rights is blurred.
The fact that there’s a dispute between Malaysia and the Philippines means the validity of Malaysian law is not yet firm. That is despite the fact that KL occupies the territory. In the same way, Filipino fishermen can fish around Mischief Reef even if the Chinese have effectively occupied and controlled that island simply because the island is still disputed and Chinese laws there aren’t well established yet.
Regarding maps, well maps don’t determine sovereignties. World maps mark the occupied Palestinian territories as “Israel”. The same with Kuril Islands (”Russia”), Jammu and Kashmir (sometimes marked “India”, sometimes “Pakistan”) and Liancourt Islands (sometimes “Korea”, sometimes “Japan”)
Regarding the document I have linked, well it is recognized by both Malaysia and the Philippines. That, I think, makes it significant enough. It’s not recognized by the international community simply because it is not well-known.
Bottomline: benign0, you can’t say that the Filipinos are illegal there for the simple reason that the issue of sovereignty over Sabah is not yet resolved.
And even if the Pinoy workers there are indeed illegal, they should still be treated with dignity.
So, benign0, do you believe that Sabah rightfully belongs to the Philippines or not? Just curious.
Jeg, the Sultan of Sulu owns Sabah. Malaysia pays rent for Sabah to the Sultan. The Sultan is a Philippine citizen (he even ran in for the Senate). The Sultanate has given the Philippines a special power of attorney to pursue Sabah claim on the Sultan’s behalf.
And no, the Sultanate didn’t just one day produced a document and claimed ownership. The Malaysians, and the British before them, have in fact since the beginning acknowledged the Sultan’s ownership by paying yearly rent.
Jon, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are basic human rights, and these rights are constrained when they encroach on other people’s equivalent rights. Your using the ‘law’ as a constraint is perhaps a mental shortcut but, at some point, the law itself has to be questioned as it cannot be assumed to be Just. That’s part of the discovery process that i referred to.
Benign0 proposes to simplistically constrain rights ‘just because’ it’s the Law which risks separating considerations of Justice from the Law.
Well, it remains to be seen then, WHO between the Philippines and Malaysia gets to determine the fate of those illegal aliens.
And I’m willing to bet that it is not the Philippines that will have the upper hand in this case (and in any further case on the matter in the FORESEEABLE FUTURE).
And THAT is the bottom line.
cvj,
Oooh, so that’s the reason why squatters are not treated as criminals.
It is excusable to steal real estate that is not legally one’s own just as long as the thief is someone who cannot afford decent housing, as the right to shelter is an inviolable right in itself.
Thanks for clearing that up Chuck.
Jon, in the case of squatting, it is a clash between two rights i.e. the right to own property and the right to housing. (Both are in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.) In our Society where there is great inequity in the distribution of property and a lack of affordable housing, we can see how that can be a problem.
Your formulation in your second paragraph above (at 1:57 pm) on why squatters are not treated as criminals is correct. That’s what Hernando de Soto has been saying all along. Unfortunately, people’s position on property rights tends to depend on whether or not they belong to the propertied class.
in our society, property is not “distributed” by some omnipotent ruler. it’s EARNED. if there’s inequity at all, it’s in the individual’s ability to earn what he wants to own - primarily his own responsibility. this extreme libertarian mindset of everything-belongs-to-everybody-so-anything-is-
free-for-the-taking balderdash is a utopian dream that has no more validity among the cave-dwellers before the age of reason than it has in this present civilization, or at any period of history after adam and eve.
“Well, it remains to be seen then, WHO between the Philippines and Malaysia gets to determine the fate of those illegal aliens.
And I’m willing to bet that it is not the Philippines that will have the upper hand in this case (and in any further case on the matter in the FORESEEABLE FUTURE).
And THAT is the bottom line.”
Now, I don’t see this proving that the Pinoy workers in Sabah have no rights. THAT”S the bottomline.
Because upper hand doesn’t translate to legitimacy.
Just because they have the upper hand doesn’t mean the laws they impose there are legitimate.
Therefore, we can’t say that the Pinoys have no rights there because they are there under illegal circumstance.
Illegal circumstance coming from the Malaysian law’s perspective, which isn’t really legitimate yet, because the area is disputed.
It’s simple, really.
Now, benign0, do you believe that Sabah rightfully belongs to the Philipines or not?
j, and who determines “legitimacy”? an alleged “right” is not determined by the party asserting it. if i say “the house you’re living in is mine and i have documents to prove it” doesn’t necessarily make you a squatter. a “dispute” doesn’t change the status quo unless a competent authority finds a reasonable ground to change it. indeed, it’s simple really, if you know what you’re talking about.
No it doesn’t. The Law determines legitimacy. What determines what is right is ethics.
Dude, get your terms and concepts consistent in your mind first before you expect other people to even begin to understand what it is you propose to convey.
The dispute over Sabah is an ethical debate. But when it is a legal debate, Malaysia wins hands down.
When an entity unilaterally decides to overrule the Law (and, presumably, has an ethical interpretation of the circumstance in question that goes outside of the legal framework used to interpret it), it then becomes a question of who has the bigger guns, bigger army, and/or bigger stick.
Which is another version of the bottom line I mentioned earlier. Does the Philippines have the upperhand in the two options that face it — (a) work within the legal framework or (b) work outside of it?
That’s the story of the Philippines (even going back to the whole question about whether the Philippines’ independence day is June 12, 1898 OR July 4, 1946). It’s a debate between the reality of actual outcomes and the FOOLISH SENTIMENTALITY of the what-could-have-beens.
The example of GMA subverting our institutions to cover-up her cheating shows that this is not necessarily the case. The appearance of legality is not enough to confer legitimacy because the latter often involves the political, and not just the legal domain.
As i pointed out above (at July 25th, 2008 6:13 pm), you’re the one who has been conflating rights (which you now belatedly accept as belonging to a separate realm i.e. of ethics), with legality. You only have to read the title of your blog post to see who is guilty of mismatching concepts.
The appearance of righteousness does not necessarily confer legitimacy either.
If we are so hung up about GMA’s “legitimacy” NOW then how come this was seemingly overlooked when she siezed power from Erap back in 2001?
Benign0, your statement…
…is an attempt to weasel away from your own flawed position (i.e. legality = legitimacy) without having to defend it. I’m pointing this out so you’ll not labor under the impression that no one has noticed.
Regarding your bringing up EDSA Dos, even if granting, for the sake of discussion, that you’re correct about the lack of legitimacy of Gloria’s taking power via EDSA Dos, this still does not excuse apathy in the case of Gloria’s election cheating in 2004. Two wrongs does not make a right. Is that simple enough for you?
Dude, what “flawed position” are you talking about? As far as I am concerned this is my position (which I mentioned in a previous comment):
The Law determines legitimacy. What determines what is right is ethics.
Stidi ka lang diyan. :p
Here’s how real as it gets folks (note emphasis in boldface is mine):
Read the full article here.
The key word here is appeal. That word as it is used in the above news snippet demonstrates what the pecking order is as far as this situation goes.
The country with the biggest pecker wins.
“j, and who determines “legitimacy”? an alleged “right” is not determined by the party asserting it. if i say “the house you’re living in is mine and i have documents to prove it” doesn’t necessarily make you a squatter. a “dispute” doesn’t change the status quo unless a competent authority finds a reasonable ground to change it. indeed, it’s simple really, if you know what you’re talking about.”
bencard, it’s still simple. Disputes do change the status quo for the reason that in International Relations, there is no authority who “would find reasonable grounds to change it.”
LOL benign0. The Sabah dispute isn’t an ethical debate. It is a legal debate. It’s about who has sovereignty over Sabah under international law.
Law determines legitimacy. But who determines whcih laws are legitimate? Upper hand? Sure, if this is the 2nd century. But we have international law based on treaties now. And coming from the perspective of international law, the Malaysian laws on Sabah might be de facto effective but they are not undiputedly legitimate.
Therefore, no one can strictly say that Pinoys working in Sabah are really illegal.
Therefore, you can not dismiss the treatment of OFWs in Sabah as the sole prerogative of Malaysia.
So again, benign0, do you believe Sabah belongs to the Philippines or not?
Which is exactly my point. They are, as you said, effective, which therefore makes the Malaysia’s soveriegnity over Sabah, legitimate. This is consistent with what I said a while ago that the Law determines legitimacy.
And, yes, I do believe that Sabah belongs to Malaysia. I believe so along with the rest of the international community.
And as to what you say here…
…whatever you say, dude. Which is why I highlight the word appeal in that news snippet I cited in an earlier comment.
Appealing is the only option available to the country with the smaller pecker between the two.
Effectivity doesn’t translate to legitimacy, benign0.
Just because a squatter has effective control over his shanty doesn’t mean he has legitimate control over it. It doesn’t give the squatter the right to kick out of the shanty the children of the owners of the lot.
Malaysian laws are currently in effect, but under international law, it’s legitimacy is questionable. If its legitimacy is questionable, then the “illegal” status of Pinoy workers there is questionable as well.
Therefore, your Nike Air analogy ((Does the person who developed the Nike Air brand while employed by Nike own the Nike Air brand?)) doesn’t apply with the Filipino workers in Sabah. Because in this case, the person developing the Nike Air brand has valid claims to the ownership of the Nike Air brand.
I wonder how extensive your knowledge is regarding the Sabah dispute. I don’t claim to be an expert. But as far as I know the international community recognizes only the status quo: that Malaysia occupies Sabah. It doesn’t recognize Malaysia’s rightful ownership of Sabah. Not that the international community recognizes the Philippines’ rightful ownership, though. But because there IS a dispute, the international community don’t recognize neither country’s rightful ownership.
It’s wrong for you to say that the international community believes that Sabah belongs to the Malaysia. They don’t. They merely acknowledge that Malaysia has the upper hand. And that fact doesn’t translate to the Malaysian’s rightful ownership over Sabah, because the dispute is not yet resolved under international law.
In international law, your argument that upper hand translates to legitimacy happens only if the “smaller pecker” country openly accepts- or do something to that effect- the sovereignty of the “larger pecker” country. In Sabah’s case, the Philippines is yet to drop its claim.
Just because Noli d Castro appealed, therefore, does not mean that the Philippines had to appeal.
Fundamentally, no one can say that Filipinos working in Sabah have no rights, that they were there under illegal circumstances, and that the Malaysians have the legal right to evict them whenever they want.
At the end of the day, Ana de Brux’s insights don’t really institutionalize extra-legality in the fabric of Philippine society.
j, as i said, disputes don’t change the status quo, more so in international relations unless both parties agree on binding arbitration. any attempt to change that status quo in any other way could inevitably lead to a shooting war. but believe you me, it is not as “simple, really” as you think.
There is no point arguing about this. That Filipinos can’t follow simple rules is a fact. Laws are mere suggestions to many.
Sabah is owned by the Sultan of Sulu, its a fact… The Philippine gov’t don’t have the guts to fight for it so now it is ruled by Malaysia. They would not want to meet in International court so nothing to do right. The MNLF has expressed that they would continue its claim because of the current mass deportation. But what can they do? Unless everyone gets united on the matter it will stay under Malaysia’s rule. Wish Macoy went on with his plan to invade it long ago. But we were too busy getting our democracy fun… so now we gets deported from our own backyard… SAD but true
bencard, it’s still simple. Disputes means that there’s a question of ownership. Therefore, it means that the legality of one’s occupation of a territory and the legitimacy of the laws he imposes on that territory becomes questionable when there’s a dispute.
If the dispute comes after the occupation, then the dispute changes the status quo of the legitimacy of that occupation. I.e. where before the legitimacy of the occupation’s laws were firmly established, the dispute makes the legitimacy questionable.
This is simple, really.
benign0 is the one guilty of oversimplification by condemning Ana de Brux’s– and by extension those who want to assert support our OFWs in Sabah’s– as a manifestation of the Pinoy’s so-called institutionalization of extra-legality.
Had this been a case of Mexicans crossing the US border, benign0 could have been right. But we are talking here of citizens of a country that has a rightful claim to a territory its citizens. effectively build and from which they are being expelled.
In a way, benign0 is saying that we have no rights to demand something for our OFWs in Sabah simply because they are there under legally questionable circumstances, from the perspective of Malaysian laws.
But he dismisses the fact that the Malaysians and their laws are in Sabah under legally questionable circumstance, from the perspective of international law.
j, standing by an argument could be a good thing if you were on the right side of it. otherwise you can wallow in your ignorance and it won’t change a thing. let me tell you something about law, on which i have been making a living for many years. the status of legality or illegitimacy is not changed simply by disputing it. you cannot refute this truism by fancy declarations or stubborn argument. if you are not a lawyer,
try consulting with a trained professional familiar with property law and maybe we can continue this debate.
Bencard, in a domestic setting, there’s such a thing as government arbitration and both parties are subject to the authority of the arbiter. This is why legality is not changed simply by disputing it. The legality is changed only by the arbiter.
In international law, there’s no arbiter that has absolute authority. Hence, mere dispute put question on the legality and legitimacy of things like occupation of a territory. That’s because there’s no one to say that the one disputing the occupation is wrong and vice versa.
I’m sorry if I’m not a lawyer. But don’t you think it’s better for you to make me understand why my fancy declarations and stubborn arguments are wrong instead of bragging your being a lawyer?
i’m not bragging. i am what i am, which you admit you are not. don’t be so presumptuous to know something you don’t. you cannot argue law by simple play of words, and i’m not about to give you legal education just to prove you are wrong. you get some points from me for your nerve, though.
Here it is again in all its simple glory, dude:
(1) We are in no position to DEMAND anything from Malaysia as far as these ILLEGAL visitors are concerned; and,
(2) What we do have is the option to APPEAL.
It’s simple, really.
“Attorney” bencard: look who’s arguing by play of words. You never responded my arguments. You dismissed all of them by saying I’m ignorant without saying how so.
But I accept your challenge of consulting an expert on international law. If he says I’m wrong, I’ll gladly admit it.
benign0, we are in the position to demand because we have a rightful claim to Sabah. This is something you keep on dismissing. This issue can’t be oversimplified as a matter of illegal immigration like that of Mexicans crossing in the USA.
And so the bottom line is, you are wrong in saying that AdB’s comments promotes institutionalization of extra-legality and, by extension, a culture of crime.
Let me rephrase then. We are in a position to demand in principle but not as a matter of practicality.
benigno, anyone can make a “demand”. but no one can expect compliance with that demand. i can send you ten thousand demand letters to “pay” an alleged debt but unless and until i’m able to get a court order for your to pay, those demands remain inutile.
I don’t know guys, J has been trying to make his point come across, seems like he’s being dismissed, without actually giving a clear counterargument on his statements.. his arguments are quite compelling… Yet, you attack him because he’s not a lawyer.
As of present time, there has been no response to his statement,
Care to respond Bencard? I’d like to know your view on this specific statement by J…
benign0: therefore, AdB is not promoting extra-legality by pushing for the government to demand, because, as you said, we are in the position to demand in principle.
I think that’s the bottom line of this discussion.
Atty. Bencard: but in international law, there’s no court to order a state to abide by international law. Even the ICJ can’t force its rulings.
Nick: Thanks.
Exactly. In principle. In principle is different from in effect. And the laws or globally-recognised CONVENTIONS in effect whether “in effect” means recognised by an international body, recognised by consensus, or recognised by published geographical data (say, in Atlases and Google Maps).
Let me introduce yet another guiding phrase in this discussion:
Tough luck.
If the Philippines truly believed in its claim on Sabah, then it wouldn’t have allowed 50 years to pass while Malaysia steadily built up a comprehensive governance infrastructure in this “disputed” territory which today pretty much secures it as a de facto province of Malaysia.
Let me put it in plain Tagalog: Ngayon pa tayo umangal.
In this, as in most things that have to do with Da Pinoy Plight, the Perennial Chump, and the Regional Basket Case, the simple phrase applies:
Tough luck.
fine, mike. i’ll humor you. your friend asserts @11:45 pm “if the dispute comes after the occupation, then the dispute changes the status quo of the legitimacy of that ocupation, i.e., where before the legitimacy of the occupation laws (sic) were firmly established, the dispute makes the legitimacy questionable.” this is apparently to refute my comment @ 3:04 a.m. where i said “a dispute doesn’t change the status quo unless a competent authority finds reasonable ground to change it.”
to give you a familiar hypothetical: palawan has been occupied by the philippines since time immemorial as part of its territory. there’s no question that the philippines’ title to it is legitimate. if, all of a sudden, china makes a “historical” claim to it presenting ancient documents to support that claim, does the resulting dispute renders the philippine title illegitimate, as your friend insist? to say that it does is absurd.
the fact that the ICJ cannot render a binding order without the prior agreement of the parties is irrelevant. the status quo, i.e., the philippine occupation and ownership, remain undisturbed. china doesn’t gain anything simply by DISPUTING the philippine title.
btw, whether it is in a domestic or international setting is irrelevant. the same principle applies.
if the above doesn’t settle the issue in your and your friend’s mind, i give up.
who’s mike?
“mike” is supposed to be nick. he knows who he is.
“Attorner” Bencard: Yes, if China does that in Palawan, then the legitimacy of the Philippines’ sovereignty over Palawan gets questioned. The status quo changes.
And the hypothetical scenario you just gave is very different from our Sabah claim simply because the Malaysians acknowledge the Sulu Sultan’s ownership of Sabah by paying yearly rent to him.
The difference between international law and domestic law is highly relevant, Atty. bencard. Because, as I said, in domestic law, the legitimacy of one’s occupation of a property is not changed by a mere dispute. It is changed only after the government makes a ruling. In international law, there is no government to make a ruling, hence a mere dispute does change the status of legitimacy of one’s occupation.
By the way, Attorney, I have, as promised, consulted this matter not just with a summa cum laude lawyer who graduated from UP but with two of the country’s senior career diplomats- whose stellar track-record in the foreign service speaks for their expertise in international law- as well.
Attorney Ruby Sakkam, Ambassador Rey O. Arcilla (who served as governor of IAEA and member of the 5-man Commitee of Experts appointed by the Security Council to give recommendations with regars to the Taliban) and Ambassador Josue L. Villa basically agreed that:
1. In international law, occupation and effective control doesn’t legitimize a country’s sovereignty over a territory if there’s one party who has a strong claim over that territory.
2. In Sabah’s case, the international community recognizes, for practical reasons, only the status quo of Malaysia’s effective occupation of Sabah, but not its legality.
3. Given these premise, the Philippines has the right- if it chooses to- not to recognize Malaysian laws in Sabah until the claim is resolved.
Ambassador Villa told me that you don’t need to be a lawyer to understand these. All you need is common sense.
If you want to confirm that these experts really said these, I can email you their email addresses and you can ask them.
benign0:
If, as you conceded, we have the legal right, even just in principle, not to recognize Malaysian laws over Sabah by virtue of our claim, then where are you coming from when you said that doing so promotes extra-legality? I mean, it’s legal, right?
It’s simple, really. Your de facto de jure difference now contradicts the oversimplifications you did in this post. And it renders your arguments againts AdB’s comments invalid.
And please, benign0, study your history. We didn’t just sit idly by as the Malaysians built up their effective occupation of Sabah. We have put the claim in the backburner- for the sake of ASEAN unity- only after the Malaysians have built up its “comprehensive governance infrastructure” there.
Ever heard of Operation Merdeka?
suit yourself. tell your consultants that they can call malaysia’s possession of sabah “illegitimate” or “illegal” till they are blue on the face, but do you think malaysia would care? and why should they?
btw, philippine non-recognition of malaysian law in sabah doesn’t save the filipino “illegals” there from jail or deportation.
Gentlemen, may I interject that one point being missed is how our political leaders, past and present have, in both the Sabah and Spratlys issues, simply displayed lack of will, commitment and resolve to uphold Philippine interests.
Witness simply how the baselines law and its revision have been frozen simply because of Miriam Santiago’s all-consuming ambition to be elected to the International Court of Justice.
Do we even think for a moment that should Maid Miriam take the seat to be vacated by Jordan that the Philippines will suddenly ‘discover’ its sovereign duty to fight for those disputed territories much less look after the Filipino TNTs in North Borneo?
One can easily say that.
But then, the results speak otherwise whatever we did, or said we did.
Just like losers say they did their best and yet failed to achieve the desired outcome.
Which brings me to one of my favourite quotes from the movie The Rock (spoken by Sean Connery’s brilliant character):
Losers whine about doing their best;
Winners go home and fuck the Prom Queen.
Which brings us to this gem of yours:
To which I say, by all means, invoke this “right” not to recognise Malaysian Law. Time will tell who the loser will be if this option is invoked.
At least Argentina had the pair to ACT on its claim on the Falkland Islands back in 1982, standing up to no less than Great Britain, which for its part also ACTED to enforce its own claim. Of course the Brits beat the shit out of them, but at least one can’t call the Argentinians a bunch of spineless whiners.
That’s what REAL countries do (in contrast with certain countries that merely whine about “disputes”).
Which reminds me also of another one of our quintessentially spineless approaches to conducting ourselves in the international theatre. Back in 2004 we pulled out our military personnel from Iraq in another act of populist pandering, and here is what I thought:
Read the full article, “The lack of substance of Filipino society“. Click here.
Tough luck, J, as I will continue to maintain:
It’s simple, really. :p
bencard: yes, Malaysia does enforce its laws on Sabah and only war can change that. That’s concedable. What I was trying to point out is the fact that, unlik what you were saying all along, Malaysia’s effective occupation doesn’t translate to legitimacy. Hence, the Philippines has the right to question the laws if it chooses to.
benign0, the problem with you is you oversimplify things. We did try to get Sabah through the foiled Operation Merdeka. And we did exhaust all efforts to get it back. We just didn’t result to war, like the Argentines did, because our constitution prohibits the use o war as an instrument of national policy.
But I’ll give you that. I concede that the Philippines was/is indeed ineffective with regards to the Sabah claim. But that doesn’t change the fact that we have legal, historic title to the territory and we have the right not to recognize their laws on Sabah and that Malaysia’s hold on Sabah, by virtue of the dispute, is legally questionable.
So don’t go off topic. The bottomline of this discussion is that you were wrong by asserting that standing up for the OFWs, which was AdB (and my) view, is tantamount to institutionalizing extra-legality and, by extension, the culture of crime.
bencard, I don’t care if Malaysia would care or not. That’s not what we were arguing. What I was arguing was Malaysia’s legitimacy over Sabah, which you tried to rebut just by saying you’re a lawyer and I’m not.
j, read our whole exchange. i did not rebut you by saying i’m a lawyer. you were not paying attention to what i was saying, and you were stubbornly repeating your kakamamie “doctrine” over and over again. read and keep reading until you have an accurate discernment of what you and i have written.
you can fool yourself, but you cannot fool everybody in this blog.
Then following your logic, dude, it is only “legally questionable” to the party disputing said legality. But to the rest of the world, including those who are in the business of publishing geographical data, who do not question Malaysia’s sovereignity over Sabah (nor care about the whining of some obscure island nation named after an otherwise noteworthy Spanish king), it is a done deal (sealed by the spinelessness and inaction of that whiney nation I mention).
Deal with it in all its simple glory, dude.
Is there anyone who can help me about the acquisition and lease of Sabah ?
benign0, let me repeat to you again:
Those people recognize the status quo- that Malaysia occupies Sabah- but not the legality of the occupation.
But still, even if I concede that they do recognize the legality of Malaysia’s occupation, it doesn’t change the fact that we it is legal for the Philippines not to recognize the legality of Malaysia’s law over Sabah.
Which is the bottomline of this whole discussion. That, I repeat, you were wrong in saying that AdB’s comments institutionalizes extra-legality and, by extension, the culture of crime.
Deal with THAT simple glory.
bencard, the only discussion I had with you is on the issue of whether or not Malaysian laws imposed on Sabah is not undisputedly legitimate, and that it’s the Philippines has the option not to recognize it. And these sums it up:
I said:
“bencard, it’s still simple. Disputes means that there’s a question of ownership. Therefore, it means that the legality of one’s occupation of a territory and the legitimacy of the laws he imposes on that territory becomes questionable when there’s a dispute.
If the dispute comes after the occupation, then the dispute changes the status quo of the legitimacy of that occupation. I.e. where before the legitimacy of the occupation’s laws were firmly established, the dispute makes the legitimacy questionable.
This is simple, really.
benign0 is the one guilty of oversimplification by condemning Ana de Brux’s– and by extension those who want to assert support our OFWs in Sabah’s– as a manifestation of the Pinoy’s so-called institutionalization of extra-legality.
Had this been a case of Mexicans crossing the US border, benign0 could have been right. But we are talking here of citizens of a country that has a rightful claim to a territory its citizens. effectively build and from which they are being expelled.”
You said:
“j, standing by an argument could be a good thing if you were on the right side of it. otherwise you can wallow in your ignorance and it won’t change a thing. let me tell you something about law, on which i have been making a living for many years. the status of legality or illegitimacy is not changed simply by disputing it. you cannot refute this truism by fancy declarations or stubborn argument. if you are not a lawyer,
try consulting with a trained professional familiar with property law and maybe we can continue this debate.”
I said:
”
Bencard, in a domestic setting, there’s such a thing as government arbitration and both parties are subject to the authority of the arbiter. This is why legality is not changed simply by disputing it. The legality is changed only by the arbiter.
In international law, there’s no arbiter that has absolute authority. Hence, mere dispute put question on the legality and legitimacy of things like occupation of a territory. That’s because there’s no one to say that the one disputing the occupation is wrong and vice versa.
I’m sorry if I’m not a lawyer. But don’t you think it’s better for you to make me understand why my fancy declarations and stubborn arguments are wrong instead of bragging your being a lawyer?”
You said:
“i’m not bragging. i am what i am, which you admit you are not. don’t be so presumptuous to know something you don’t. you cannot argue law by simple play of words, and i’m not about to give you legal education just to prove you are wrong. you get some points from me for your nerve, though.”
I said:
““Attorney” bencard: look who’s arguing by play of words. You never responded my arguments. You dismissed all of them by saying I’m ignorant without saying how so.
But I accept your challenge of consulting an expert on international law. If he says I’m wrong, I’ll gladly admit it. ”
And, finally:
”
“Attorner” Bencard: Yes, if China does that in Palawan, then the legitimacy of the Philippines’ sovereignty over Palawan gets questioned. The status quo changes.
And the hypothetical scenario you just gave is very different from our Sabah claim simply because the Malaysians acknowledge the Sulu Sultan’s ownership of Sabah by paying yearly rent to him.
The difference between international law and domestic law is highly relevant, Atty. bencard. Because, as I said, in domestic law, the legitimacy of one’s occupation of a property is not changed by a mere dispute. It is changed only after the government makes a ruling. In international law, there is no government to make a ruling, hence a mere dispute does change the status of legitimacy of one’s occupation.
By the way, Attorney, I have, as promised, consulted this matter not just with a summa cum laude lawyer who graduated from UP but with two of the country’s senior career diplomats- whose stellar track-record in the foreign service speaks for their expertise in international law- as well.
Attorney Ruby Sakkam, Ambassador Rey O. Arcilla (who served as governor of IAEA and member of the 5-man Commitee of Experts appointed by the Security Council to give recommendations with regars to the Taliban) and Ambassador Josue L. Villa basically agreed that:
1. In international law, occupation and effective control doesn’t legitimize a country’s sovereignty over a territory if there’s one party who has a strong claim over that territory.
2. In Sabah’s case, the international community recognizes, for practical reasons, only the status quo of Malaysia’s effective occupation of Sabah, but not its legality.
3. Given these premise, the Philippines has the right- if it chooses to- not to recognize Malaysian laws in Sabah until the claim is resolved.
Ambassador Villa told me that you don’t need to be a lawyer to understand these. All you need is common sense.
If you want to confirm that these experts really said these, I can email you their email addresses and you can ask them.”
Now, tell me, bencard. Which points of yours did you ignore? I can point out some points of mine that you did ignore by saying you don’t need to educate me on law.
so be it, j. enough is enough. don’t waste further the space on this thread by repeating ad nauseam what we have previously written, which are all in here. i don’t know about you but i’m certain everyone here can read and understand what they are reading. please don’t insult their intelligence.
you’re the one insulting our intelligence, “attorney.”
And so what if it is our right? What are we gonna DO about it?
You know what the REAL bottom line is? We are in the wrong side of what the COMMUNITY recognises as legal. And therefore what you and AdB seem to propose is to stand our ground up to the point of looking like a bunch of idiots (also because we don’t have the cojones to defend that ground).
So it brings us back to what I assert, that AdB is proposing that we UNILATERALLY make up the rules as we go - rules that simply look stupid — no, pathetic is the better word — to the rest of the community.
benign0, don’t you understand? We don’t make up the rules unilaterally. Under international law it’s entirely legal for us not to recognize, if we choose to, Malaysia’s law on Sabah.
And again, the community don’t recognize the legality of Malaysia’s hold on Sabah. It merely recognizes, for practical reasons, the fact that Malaysia has the upper hand.
And who are you to say that standing up for our rights is pathetic? benign0, you are right on some things. But clearly not on this one.
Clearly you say?
Here is a dose of CLARITY for you:
Standing up for the “right” to work ILLEGALLY in territory RECOGNISED by the international community as being under the sovereign authority of the Malaysian government IS pathetic, dude.
PLUS: This drama spun around this pathetic initiative MASKS and GLOSSES OVER the underlying issue which is the fact that Pinoy nationals have to RESORT to such pathetic options as making a living ILLEGALLY on foreign soil.
The only thing that is clear here is this:
Having the upper hand CLEARLY gets you what you want in this world.
It also gets you LEGITIMACY.
Everything has a price.
And CLEARLY there is not much that a basketcase country like the Philippines can afford.
So here’s what you can do: You can hang up this whole boo-hoo-Sabah-belongs-to-us crybaby episode up there in our big wall of could-have-been trophies which includes:
(1) Our claim to have been an independent republic on 12 June 1898
(2) Our claim to have invented “People Power”
(3) Our claim to have invented fluorescent lighting
(4) Our claim to have invented the moon buggy
(5) Our claim to have “Asia’s Songbird” as one of our national treasures
.
.
.
(N)
… where N = infinity
And while we go boo hoo the rest of the world is laughing all the way to their central banks.
nice discussion.
pls visit our website:
http://www.phil-sabah.org or send an email to
membership@phil-sabah.org
Tsk, tsk, benign0.
I’ve shown over and over again how you are wrong in oversimplifying the Sabah question through simple logic and opinion from the experts, but you keep on dismissing them by using your arguments which premises I have already rebutted. When your arguments fallm flat on your face, you either bring up different topics or blame the Filipinos, something you’re always good at.
it’s useless benigno. might as well argue with a drunk. like the cat said over at mlq3’s, “don’t feed the troll”.
Useless for you because you can’t argue logically?
[…] ways we conduct ourselves and regard the world; from “big” “issues” like the debate on the Sabah “question” (to some, it seems, it is still a question ), to smaller things such as the limp-dick way that we […]