News peg: “Saying there was no turning back, Sultan Jamalul Kiram III has declared that his followers who crossed into the town of Lahad Datu xxx Sabah this month were staying put to reclaim their ancestral homeland.”
xxx
“The armed group styling itself as the “Royal Security Forces of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo” is holed up in the seaside village of Tanduao in Lahad Datu town, where they landed in speedboats on Feb. 12 after crossing the sea from Simunul Island in the Philippine province of Tawi-Tawi.
xxx
“Lahad Datu, Malaysia – A peace deal between the Philippines and Moro rebels has alienated traditional rulers and their followers about 100 of whom have occupied a village in nearby Malaysia, a member of the old ruling family said on Monday. xxx
“Jamalul Kiram III, 74, a former sultan of Sulu in Mindanao and brother of the man Philippine provincial authorities regard as sultan, said the peace deal had handed control of much of Sulu to the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) rebels, ignoring the sultanate.
“He said the group of sultan loyalists had gone to Malaysia as a protest action in response to what they saw as the unfair peace deal, and they would not back down. xxx
“ ‘Those people are willing to die for our cause,’ Jamalul told Reuters in the Philippines.
“The group of 100 armed men has refused to move from the village they have occupied for nearly a week, despite pleas from both the Malaysian and Philippine governments to return to the Sulu archipelago on the Philippine side of the sea border.”
xxx
I hate to say this but: Whether you like it or not, in the more immediate, where lives are at stake, Malacaňang has to talk to the Sultanate of Sulu (and not just with Malaysia) albeit discreetly, maybe unofficially, maybe through the backdoor, maybe through emissaries; but talk you have to do. (Take the high road to defuse the situation: Hindi pwedeng “ah hinde… Hindi namin sila kakausapin”).
In the meantime, just for everybody’s information: The Philippines has never abandoned its territorial claim over Sabah as shown by the pronouncement of Malacaňang yesterday of a “dormant claim” , and as shown by pleadings filed by the Philippines in international courts, such as: The application to intervene filed by the Philippines in the International Court of Justice in the dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia over Ligitan and Sipadan islands – while that application was denied for lack of interest, it nevertheless documents the continuing territorial claim of the Philippines over Sabah. (Wikipedia, which apparently is being used by some broadcast reporters and news anchors judging from their unfounded generalizations over the Philippine Sabah claim, is not accurate when it says that the ICJ in 2003 ruled against our claim over Sabah in that dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia – stop relying on Wikipedia.)
The ICJ documented the Philippine claim over Sabah as follows (pages 1123-1130, International Court of Justice, Digest of Judgments and Advisory Opinions, Canon and Case Law, 1946-2012) :
“(38) In relation to the existence of an “interest of a legal nature” justifying the intervention, the Philippines contends that: “Under Article 2 of the Special Agreement between Indonesia and Malaysia, the Court has been requested to determine the issue of sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan ‘on the basis of treaties, agreements, and other evidence’ to be furnished by the Parties. The interest of the Philippines is solely and exclusively addressed to the treaties, agreements, and other evidence furnished by the Parties and appreciated by the Court which have a direct or indirect bearing on the matter of the legal status of North Borneo. The legal status of North Borneo is a matter that the Government of the Philippines considers as its legitimate concern.” The Philippines adds that: “(a) decision of the Court, or that incidental part of the decision of the Court, which lays down an appreciation of the treaties, agreements, and other evidence bearing on the legal status of North Borneo will inevitably and most assuredly affect the outstanding territorial claim of the Philippines over North Borneo, as well as the direct and legal right and interest of the Philippines to settle that claim by peaceful means. “ In outlining its claim, the Philippines has referred inter alia to Section 3 of Republic Act 5446 (which makes an implicit allusion to a claim to title to North Borneo) and to the Manila Accord of 31 July 1963, between Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines, in which specific reference is made to the claim of the Philippines to North Borneo and “cognizance of the position regarding the Philippine claim to Sabah (North Borneo)” is taken by the Heads of government of these three States.
XXX
“ The Philippines has informed the Court that it has a claim of sovereignty in North Borneo.
“The Court recalls that on 5 April 2001, the Philippines sought, in a Diplomatic Note to Indonesia, “to reassure the Government of Indonesia that it does not have territorial interest in the Sipadan and Ligitan islands.” This position was confirmed by the Philippines before this Court. However, the Philippines has informed this Court that its claim of sovereignty in North Borneo might be affected by the reasoning of the Court.
XXX
“The Court finds that the Philippines has not discharged its obligation to convince the Court that that specified legal interests may be affected in the particular circumstances of this case.
“The Court finds that the application of the Philippines for permission to intervene under Article 62 of the Statute of the Court, cannot be granted. “
XXX
So i hope those “broadcast hosts” would not generalize that the ICJ ruled against the Philippine claim over Sabah in 2003 — that claim remains outstanding and unresolved.
Now however… someone’s mettle at negotiations would have to be tested with the need to de-escalate the situation in Lahad Datu, Sabah.
On President PNoy’s pronouncement that “the United States Navy be held answerable under Philippine laws for the damage caused by the grounding of a US 7th Fleet warship in Tubbataha Reefs”: Wake up, buttercup! The U.S. government legal position on this as articulated by USS Guardian spokesman Lt. Cdr. James Stockman last week (reported by GMA News Online and other media organizations), and which has not been contradicted by any of the USS Guardian officers, is: “Should a claim for damages be filed, it will be handled in accordance with the Foreign Claims Act.” (USS Guardian Spokesperson Lt. Cdr. Stockman).
Open your eyes. The U.S. does not recognize Philippine law and jurisdiction for any claims for damages caused to the Tubbataha Reef by the USS Guardian. The Foreign Claims Act is U.S. federal law, in particular, U.S. military law: it applies to injury, death, or property damage sustained by inhabitants of a foreign country due to noncombat activities of members of the U.S. armed forces overseas; it says “foreign country includes any place under the jurisdiction of the United States in a foreign country.”; the U.S Judge Advocate General’s Corps will adjudicate it; there is a ceiling of $100,000 for recoverable damages (or P4 million pesos at $1 to P40) and any damages in excess of that amount would have to be filed with the U.S. Treasury to be decided by that office.
“10 USC § 2734 – Property loss; personal injury or death: incident to noncombat activities of the armed forces; foreign countries
“(a) To promote and to maintain friendly relations through the prompt settlement of meritorious claims, the Secretary concerned, or an officer or employee designated by the Secretary, may appoint, under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, one or more claims commissions, each composed of one or more officers or employees or combination of officers or employees of the armed forces, to settle and pay in an amount not more than $100,000, a claim against the United States for—
“(1) damage to, or loss of, real property of any foreign country or of any political subdivision or inhabitant of a foreign country, including damage or loss incident to use and occupancy;
“(2) damage to, or loss of, personal property of any foreign country or of any political subdivision or inhabitant of a foreign country, including property bailed to the United States; or
“(3) personal injury to, or death of, any inhabitant of a foreign country;
“if the damage, loss, personal injury, or death occurs outside the United States, or the Commonwealths or possessions, and is caused by, or is otherwise incident to noncombat activities of, the armed forces under his jurisdiction, or is caused by a member thereof or by a civilian employee of the military department concerned or the Coast Guard, as the case may be. The claim of an insured, but not that of a subrogee, may be considered under this subsection. In this section, “foreign country” includes any place under the jurisdiction of the United States in a foreign country. An officer or employee may serve on a claims commission under the jurisdiction of another armed force only with the consent of the Secretary of his department, or his designee, but shall perform his duties under regulations of the department appointing the commission.
“(b) A claim may be allowed under subsection (a) only if—
“(1) it is presented within two years after it accrues;
“(2) in the case of a national of a country at war with the United States, or of any ally of that country, the claimant is determined by the commission or by the local military commander to be friendly to the United States; and
“(3) it did not arise from action by an enemy or result directly or indirectly from an act of the armed forces of the United States in combat, except that a claim may be allowed if it arises from an accident or malfunction incident to the operation of an aircraft of the armed forces of the United States, including its airborne ordnance, indirectly related to combat, and occurring while preparing for, going to, or returning from a combat mission.
“(c) The Secretary concerned may appoint any officer or employee under the jurisdiction of the Secretary to act as an approval authority for claims determined to be allowable under subsection (a) in an amount in excess of $10,000.
“(d) If the Secretary concerned considers that a claim in excess of $100,000 is meritorious, and the claim otherwise is payable under this section, the Secretary may pay the claimant $100,000 and report any meritorious amount in excess of $100,000 to the Secretary of the Treasury for payment under section 1304 of title 31.
“(e) Except as provided in subsection (d), no claim may be paid under this section unless the amount tendered is accepted by the claimant in full satisfaction.
“(f) Upon the request of the department concerned, a claim arising in that department and covered by subsection (a) may be settled and paid by a commission appointed under subsection (a) and composed of officers of an armed force under the jurisdiction of another department.
“(g) Payment of claims against the Coast Guard arising while it is operating as a service in the Department of Homeland Security shall be made out of the appropriation for the operating expenses of the Coast Guard.
“(h) The Secretary of Defense may designate any claims commission appointed under subsection (a) to settle and pay, as provided in this section, claims for damage caused by a civilian employee of the Department of Defense other than an employee of a military department. Payments of claims under this subsection shall be made from appropriations as provided in section 2732 of this title.”
“Davao City (Mindanao Examiner / Dec. 22, 2012) – More than 200 corpses were buried in a mass grave on Saturday in Compostela Valley province in the southern Philippines, as the search for those still missing from the deadly typhoon Bopha still continues.
“The bodies were already decomposing and needed to be buried to prevent the spread of diseases in the town of New Bataan, one of the hardest hit by the typhoon that ravaged Mindanao on December 4. xxx”
XXX
From Agence France Presse
“300,000 still homeless after Typhoon Bopha: IFRC
“Some 300,000 people remain homeless in the Philippines following a deadly typhoon earlier this month, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) said Friday.
“The IFRC said urgent humanitarian assistance was needed to help around 200,000 of those affected by Typhoon Bopha — the deadliest storm to have struck the Philippines this year, killing more than 1,000 across the archipelago.xxx”
XXX
From sunstar.com.ph
“Integrated approach pushed to rebuild Pablo-hit areas
“xxx
“It (Minda)recorded a total value loss in production of P25.8 billion due to damages that cover total or partial destruction of physical assets existing in the affected area. Its monetary value is expressed in terms of replacement costs according to prices prevailing just before the event.
“Minda also noted the expected value losses of P9.6 billion for 2013, which cover employment (direct and indirect), businessmen’s income, losses from rental of lands and other related services.
“ “It bears to point out that the hard hit areas of Compostela Valley and Davao Oriental are among the top producing agricultural provinces of the country, especially banana, coconut and other high value commodities,” according to Minda.
“It added that the next two to three years of rehabilitation and reconstruction will certainly need to have a strong focus on reviving the agri-industry strength of these areas to provide greater employment opportunities and catch-up growth.”
