Sabah … “of Ownership and Jurisdiction” (Part 2)

Last Thursday, we tried our best to disambiguate the words “nation” and “state.”  In tumultuous times, we need to do that because the usual interchangeability we accord most words, especially in the English language, sometimes lead us to wrong conclusions.  At the very least, a closer look might offer a better appreciation of the Sabah issue.

The next set of words that we need to think deeper about are “ownership”and “jurisdiction,” or specifically that of land ownership and territorial jurisdiction.  Again, for 99 percent of the time, the two words can refer to the same space or plot of land.  Land ownership by private individuals or other juridical persons are temporal and not absolute.  One does not bring with him land at birth; you either buy or inherit it.  All of us are naked when we come into this world and we leave everything behind when we die.  Anything owned in-between is temporal.

Generally, all land is owned by the state (note: as opposed to nation).  Some states like the Philippines and the US allow private land ownership.  It's not absolute, though, because the state can take it away anytime when it needs it.  Subject to just compensation, of course, but it's not something you can resist or deny.  States that follow the British system only lease land to its citizens, often for long period of times like a hundred years or thereabouts, and that's why it seems like you own it.  For communist countries, well, I guess it's self-explanatory - land is perceived to be communally owned, administered by the state.

And since states have jurisdiction (and/or “sovereignty” - another word that needs to be disambiguated from “jurisdiction”) over the land it owns, we often equate the two.  Thus, the state has jurisdiction (and sovereignty) over all the land it owns and all the land it released to private persons and juridical entities.  The land released we call as alienable and disposable (or A&D) while the unreleased land remain with the public domain (sounds familiar?).  Within a state's territory, it has jurisdiction, and sovereignty, over all the land it encompasses.

What happens now, when a citizen of another state buys, and owns, land in another state?  Many Filipinos buys land in the US and other countries where it is legally allowed to do so.  Even the Philippine government itself owns a plot of land in Japan.  At the local scene, the Provincial Government of Cebu owns land inside Cebu City (where the Capitol is located).  Cebu City bought land in Consolacion and Talisay which were used for relocation sites.  On the other hand, the national government, and many local governments, sometimes leases land owned by private citizens (as when an agency of government rents office space in a privately-owned building).  Ownership does not necessarily equate to jurisdiction.

And vice versa.  There is always an exception to the rule, so they say.  In the cases cited above, one state may own land in another state, but it won't have sovereignty over it (except, maybe, if it's an embassy).  The Province might own that land in Capitol Site, but it is still within the jurisdiction of Cebu City.  In fact, if it's a holiday in Cebu City, Capitol workers enjoy the holiday, too, even if it's not a holiday in the province.  The Philippine Government is still subject to the laws of Japan for the land it owns in Tokyo.  And if a Filipino owns a piece of land in Tokyo, it does not mean the Philippine government has sovereignty and jurisdiction over that land simply because its citizen owns it.  Ownership is not jurisdiction.

Just enough premise to ponder - if the sultan of Sulu, who we assume to be a Filipino citizen, owns land in Sabah (or the whole of it), does it actually mean the Philippines now has sovereignty over that land?  If the Malaysian government pays rent to a Filipino private citizen who owns land in Sabah, does it automatically mean the former does not have sovereignty over that piece of land?  I am sure there are still a lot of issues surrounding the present unfortunate situation, but let's try to strip away some misconceptions brought about by ambiguous seemingly interchangeable words, so that we can concentrate on the more relevant and pressing facts and hopefully arrive at a peaceful resolution and attain lasting peace and prosperity in our part of the world.     

How about also looking at the words, “race” and “citizenship.” Add "community" for good measure. (To be continued…)