Inconvenient

Two years ago, the Paris-based International Arbitration Tribunal awarded almost $15 billion in restitution to the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu. The Sultanate had filed a suit against Malaysia for breaches relating to the lease of Sabah.

The ruling is based on the 2010 Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Law (UNCITRAL) and is considered a landmark decision. Malaysia is contesting the ruling, as may be expected.

The arbitration ruling, awarding such a huge sum, is inconvenient to say the least. Over the years, we have been trying to sweep the Sabah question under the rug even as we are fighting tooth and nail over uninhabited reefs and shoals in the South China Sea.

After the ruling was announced, a spokesperson for the Philippine government simply commented that the case involved a private claim. Left at that, our government has not extended any support to the Sultanate of Sulu.

Our policy on the Sabah question may have shifted. Nevertheless, Republic Act No. 5446 defines Sabah as territory “over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty.” The law, enacted in 1968, still stands and we do not really know what to do about it.

Our claim to Sabah is huge. It involves 75,000 square kilometers, or about two-thirds the size of Luzon. The territory exports petroleum, natural gas, palm oil and timber. In 2022, it contributed $17 billion to Malaysia’s GDP.

We are familiar with the facts of this case.

Sabah, originally ruled by the Sultan of Brunei, was ceded to the Sultan of Sulu in 1874 in gratitude for the latter’s help in suppressing a rebellion. In 1878, Baron de Overbeck, an Austrian adventurer, persuaded the Sultan of Sulu to lease him the territory for the equivalent of $1,000 a year. Overbeck then sold all his rights to Alfred Dent, a British merchant who later formed the British North Borneo Company, ceding all his rights to the corporate entity. On July 10, 1946, just six days after the Philippines formally gained independence, British North Borneo Company transferred all its rights and obligations to the British Crown.

When Britain granted the Malaysian Federation independence in 1963, Sabah was included. The Philippines contested this, arguing that Overbeck and Dent, being private citizens, could not have acquired and transferred sovereign rights. Malaysia countered that the Sultan of Sulu was no longer a sovereign when he transferred his rights to the Philippine government.

The sovereign claim of the Republic and the private claim of the Sultanate are separate and distinct. The arbitration court ruled on the private claim and awarded the Sultanate $14.92 billion as “restitution value of the rights over the leased territory.”

The Republic is not part of this case.

Unconcerned

The most recent Pulse Asia national survey, released before the Holy Week break, will have tremendous repercussions on the current effort to introduce amendments to the 1987 Constitution. We know this from the severe reactions the survey findings provoked among the legislators.

The survey finds that about a half of all Filipino adults know little about the 1987 Constitution. More significantly, the survey found that 88 percent of respondents are against amending the Charter. This is nearly double the 45 percent opposing Charter change last year.

The survey was released just after the House passed its version of the Resolution of Both Houses 7 that is supposed to pave the way towards removing the restrictive economic provisions in the Charter. The survey findings will no doubt influence the political context for actual Charter amendments.

The survey findings clearly disappointed the most ardent supporters of Charter change. Some have argued against the validity of the survey findings.

If all the captains of industry and our country’s leading intellectuals think that amendments are necessary, they argue, how could it be that the Pulse Asia survey finds an overwhelming majority opposing Charter change. There must be ill motive here or a gross error in methodology, they surmise.

The most ardent advocates of Charter change should calm down a bit. The survey findings are understandable. Constitutional issues are not usual dinner table fare among Filipino families. The man on the street does not see the complex interconnection between opening up the economy to investments and taming inflation. That requires a certain level of economic literacy.

Besides, Charter change became a contentious issue only over the recent weeks after clergymen spoke against it, demonstrations were called and nationally visible politicians took more sharply defined positions.  Before the matter of amending the Charter was drawn into the whirlpool of political contestation, it might have been easier for our citizens maintain a more tolerant disposition on the Charter change effort.

Too, any effort to reform the constitutional order, precisely because this is not top of mind for the public, requires a certain degree of statesmanship. It is the duty of Charter change advocates to build the constituency for constitutional reform.

No need to put the cart before the horse. In the absence of a spontaneous public clamor for constitutional reform, it is the duty of our political leaders to educate the public. Otherwise, the issues involved in Charter change will remain esoteric and arcane.

Although there have been several attempts to introduce amendments to the 1987 Constitution, considering all its obvious faults, there has been little effort in public education. Enlightening the public, although painstaking, is unavoidable.