pptttng inamo damaso salot sa pilipinas! gus2 mag parami ng batang hubo radical mapia billion private school in the philippines stock holder billion money terrorist!

ptttng inamo cbcp bishops radical salot!

Hi Randy David! Great historical facts and should not be forgotten. These events should shape our future. I used to walk in front of your house when I was still a student.

pttttng inamo cbcp bishops mga salot gus2 mag parami ng batang hubo mapia katoliban!

ptttttng inamo cbcp bishops muka mo unggoy gus2 mag parami ng batang hubo mapis salot!

Pedobear catholics clapping hands when seeing Muslims killing each other.

puttttang inamo damaso cbcp bishops gus2 mag parami ng batang hubo mapia radical salot!

Mr. David, napapansin ko po na ikatlo na ninyo itong artikulo na tumutulong sa Malaysia. Kayo po ba ay Pilipino? O marahil po ay nais ninyong magpalit ng citizenship at maaaring Malaysian citizenship ang mapili ninyo. Sana po, kung hindi kayo makakatulong sa cause na ipinaglalaban ng mga kapwa ninyo Pilipino ay magsawalang-kibo na lamang kayo. Labis-labis na panlilinlang ang ginawa ng Great Britain at Malaysia, kaya napunta sa kanila ang Sabah. Sana ay huwag na kayong gumawa ng paraan para madagdagan pa ang kawalang katarungan sa mundo. Ako po ay tagahanga ninyo mula 1990s. Malabis po akong disillusioned sa inyo. Sana ay huwag tanggalin ng moderator ang comment na ito.

Mr. David, napapansin ko po na ikatlo na ninyo itong artikulo na tumutulomg sa Malaysia sa issue ng Sabah. Kayo po ba ay Pilipino? May balak po ba kayong magpalit ng nationality at mukhang Malaysian citizenship ang puwedeng piliin ninyo? Sana po, kung hindi kayo makatutulong sa cause na ipinaglalaban ng mga kapwa ninyo Pilipino ay magsawalang kibo na lang kayo. Pulos panlilinlang ang ginawa ng Great Britain at Malaysia kaya napunta sa kanila ang Sabah. Huwag ninyo na po sanang tulungang madagdagan pa ang kawalang katarungan sa mundo. Hindi ko po akalain na ito ang tunay ninyong pagkatao. Tagahanga ninyo ako mula 1990s. Masyado po akong disillusioned sa inyo.

Ang gagaling ng mga Filipino.

kill all filipinos terrorist!

there are no filipino terrorist. they are malaysians and chinese.

check it out!

This is why you become what is now known as "MADERPHACKING" Malaysian.......from now on ....we will call all Malaysian..."MADERPHACKING Malaysian".....is that okay, Kamal?....as you can see Tamil is the lowest creature in the strata of family of homo sapiens.....Tamil belongs to borderline primate (monkey) and homo sapien....the reason behind is Tamil's odor similar to monkey odor....Thank you.

Pinoys smell more. I know and I've smell it. Pinoys = mongreloid creatures which don't deserve to have equal footing with other human species.

Have you people ever met the dayak warriors...? They are far more superior than thye suluk and the tausug................ I mean it!!!

but the dinosaurs already ate all the dayak warriors and they are all gone.....and I mean it too.......if you think that "head hunting warriors" like dayak are more ferocious than suluk and tausug, research how many "head hunting tribes" in the Philippines during the time of the viciousness of your dayaks.....your dayak warriors are no longer relevant these days....the same with those "numerous" head hunting tribes in the Philippines......both dayak and "head hunting" tribes in the Philippines no longer do "HEAD HUNTING"......they are all totally irrelevant now and all of them live a peaceful and civilized lives now.....

All of them just give a head now. HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Come if you dare. They gonna behead you with blunt golok slowly.

golok? thats too big.....the Sultan's sheriffs were only armed with ice picks.

Malaysia is a terrorist country for sponsoring rebellion in the Southern Philippines.

Philippines is a lazyass country always love to blame others for own mistakes. It can even solve its south region problem for many years still yet want to blame others.

Your country sponsors, funds, finances, and arms the following group:

1) Pattani United Liberation Organization (PULO) - this group is based in Kelantan State of Malaysia and taken care of by Malaysia through its Islamic Party PAS.  PULO kills, maims, desecrate Thai Army.  P.U.L.O. has been waging insurgency war against a sovereign nation of Thailand.
2) Free Aceh Movement - this group is based in Kedah.  They are armed, fed, sheltered, clothes, funded, and trained by the Malaysian government to wage insurgency against a sovereign nation of Indonesia.

Now, Jonathan Lim....I hope I wont see you here again or else I will send you back to China so that they will send you to North Korea and be trained in terrorism too.

Go...and get me some spring rolls and jasmine tea....before I kick your ashzz.

MATHERPHACKING SONOVOBEACH!!

You will keep seeing me here. I hope your mom get anal raped later by your fellow pinoy scums hahaha. Dead or alive. Silly chinese pretender.

don't forget your grandmother... got a lot of anal sex from japanese imperial army... and your grandma enjoy it with noodles in her mouth

PHAKER!!  I told you get some spring rolls for me......

A Reply To EdgarEdgar’s Post.

No.  I am not really replying to that bigger part of his post which I consider as mere unwarranted polemics against Prof. David’s informative article, and false propaganda against the present administration. My reply is a purely academic one and concerns only this statement which he wrote:

“Readers who read through former Senator Salonga's speech on our Sabah claim delivered in 1963 will of course understand why our claim on Sabah remains solid and strong to this day.”

With all humility and due respect to Sen.  Salonga, I find that his 1963 “refutational” speech against the position of Sen. Sumulong (Sen. Umatras, to some) was, in the most part, rhetoric and veiled ad hominems. On its substantive aspect, I must say Sen. Salonga’s arguments were studded with straw men and ambiguous language here and there, and by other fallacies in reasoning. In fact, his main argument undermined his own position.  It may not be obvious because it was done with a “sleight of mind” that could easily escape one’s notice.  Below is one example. It involves the deliberate use of ambiguity by foregoing giving a definition of what one means by a term, and using it loosely and deploying it in more senses than one to suit one’s contention.

When Sen. Salonga declared, as against Sen. Sumulong----

“If the Senator believes that the claim of sovereignty was so “tardily presented”, how could the proprietary claim of dominion or ownership — which is the main element of sovereignty — regardless of whether it is the Philippine Government or not that institutes the claim — be considered still seasonable and appropriate? “

----we should clearly see that Sen. Salonga was implying  that “sovereignty” has some other elements aside from “dominion or ownership.”  However, note that he has not priorly stated what “sovereignty” is, as used in his speech. Likewise, what these other elements of sovereignty are, Sen. Salonga chose also not to say.  Yet, in another part of his speech, he states, “Be it noted that the Philippine claim includes sovereignty and dominion over North Borneo.”  But if “dominion or ownership,” as he earlier said, is the “main element of sovereignty,” why now say that “the Philippine claim includes sovereignty and dominion”?  Why make a separate mention of that which he previously considered as already included in the whole, and now again  imply that it is after all separate and distinct from it?

On the other hand, Sen. Sumulong, in his speech, actually made a distinction between sovereignty and “dominion or ownership” as positively shown when he said----

“If the said heirs had any claims to sovereignty over North Borneo — as distinguished from their proprietary claims — they could have filed a petition or a reservation to the United Nations protesting against British rule and administration over North Borneo, but they did not file any such petition or reservation. It was only in February of last year (1962) that the said heirs informed our Department of Foreign Affairs that they were claiming sovereignty to North Borneo and they offered to turn over such claim of sovereignty to the Republic of the Philippines, reserving however to themselves their proprietary claims.”

Based on the foregoing, Sen. Salonga was far from being fair and forthright to Sen. Sumulong’s presentation..  He would, by his own fiat and in this particular instance, erase the distinction between “sovereignty” and “dominion or ownership”----legal concepts that are definitely not the same; and others even distinguish between dominion and ownership, the former requiring both title and possession----whenever it suited his argument’s purpose. The correct conceptual delineation is that while it is true that “sovereignty” includes the concept of “dominion or ownership” insofar as what a “sovereign” supposedly has sovereignty over is concerned, the converse is not true.  Ownership does not necessarily include sovereignty.  An entity----a state or government, or even a private person----may own or have dominion over a piece of real property located in another place over which such entity does not have sovereignty. 

As an example which would be very close to the heart of Sen. Salonga, the first victory of the Philippine government in its pursuit of the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses was the one when, on September 13, 1986, the Superior Court of New Jersey ruled in favor of, and ordered the transfer to, the Philippine Government two residential properties at 2659 Princeton Pike, located near Princeton University.  These were properties which Marcos had bought for the use of his children. The New Jersey court’s decision certainly did not imply that the Philippines also acquired sovereignty over the particular territory on which those properties stood. The court merely declared the Philippine government as the owner of those particular properties located in New Jersey.  If, for example, the state of New Jersey or the US Federal Government chooses to exercise the right of eminent domain over those properties, the Philippines cannot validly resist it on the ground that the Philippines has sovereignty over those real properties. 

To my mind, Sen. Salonga’s marked omission in defining the term “sovereignty” speech was probably due to his acute awareness that while the heirs of the then Sultanate of Sulu could possibly but remotely maintain a claim of ownership over Sabah, such a claim could never really amount to a claim of sovereignty.  He certainly was aware of the myriad of events and circumstances, including WWII and the birth of the United Nations, as well as  the principles and policies the UN was seeking to realize with respect to lands formerly colonized or possessed by the world powers.  In this respect, I cannot help thinking that the good Senator may have sacrifced some logic in return for some gain in his patriotic image.

Sovereignty can be lost.  It is a matter of operative historical facts.  After all, there can be no doubt that on July 4, 1946, when the Philippines gained independence from the U.S.A. by virtue of the “Treaty of Manila of 1946,” whatever vestiges of sovereignty, if any, that remained with the Sultanate of Sulu, even over Sulu itself, was completely extinguished.  Sulu being deemed an integral part of the Philippines and under the Philippines’ sovereignty.

So, what is “sovereignty”?  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines sovereignty this way: “Sovereignty, though its meanings have varied across history, also has a core meaning, supreme authority within a territory. It is a modern notion of political authority.  Historical variants can be understood along three dimensions — the holder of sovereignty, the absoluteness of sovereignty, and the internal and external dimensions of sovereignty. The state is the political institution in which sovereignty is embodied.”

Thus, even granting as true, for the sake of argument, the factual bases of Sen. Salonga’s main contention, to wit----

“Our claim is mainly based on the following propositions: that Overbeck and Dent, not being sovereign entities nor representing sovereign entities, could not and did not acquire dominion and sovereignty over North Borneo; that on the basis of authoritative British and Spanish documents, the British North Borneo Company, a private trading concern to whom Dent transferred his rights, did not and could not acquire dominion and sovereignty over North Borneo; that their rights were as those indicated in the basic contract, namely, that of a lessee and a mere delegate; that in accordance with established precedents in International Law, the assertion of sovereign rights by the British Crown in 1946, in complete disregard of the contract of 1878 and their solemn commitments, did not and cannot produce legal results in the form of a new tide”.

----by the same line of reasoning, neither could the “Sultanate of Sulu” assign to the Philippine government a claim of sovereignty over Sabah because when it effected such a transfer in 1962, it too was not or no longer a sovereign entity.  If the “sultanate” was not even a sovereign with respect to the very land it was actually occupying and over the population of which it had some degree of influence, how could it have sovereignty over Sabah, the effective administration of which already pertained to another entity?

Yes, the matter of annual payments by Malaysia, “rentals,” from the Kirams’ viewpoint, is only consistent with ownership, not with sovereignty.  In fact, if it were a lease that started such a relationship, the absence of a period implied a perpetual lease.  It is one which is virtually a surrender of one’s prerogatives as owner.  A perpetual lease is renewable at the lessee’s option and cannot be terminated by the lessor-owner. On the other hand, the same annual payment is also not incompatible with a cession the consideration for which was precisely the said perpetual payments of the amount fixed.  So either way, with respect to a Philippine claim of sovereignty over Sabah based on a derivative “title” from the defunct Sultanate of Sulu, or from the successors-in-interest of its former Sultans, cannot in all likelihood be resolved much less granted, say, by an international tribunal, on the sole basis of a claim of ownership by historic title.  If the ICJ decision in the sovereignty dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia over the Sipadan-Ligitan islands can be a gauge of how the ICJ would probably rule on a dispute between the Philippines and Malaysia regarding sovereignty over Sabah (assuming both parties agree and consent to the ICJ’s taking jurisdiction of such a case), one should concern himself with, in the ICJ’s language, the "effectivités" of the case.  It includes and means no less than the realities of the present state-of-affairs.  The ICJ, I believe, looks more at the present and to the betterment of the future, rather than at the past, and to the detriment of the present or the uncertainty of the future.

 - - - - - -

I make this post with absolutely no disloyal intent to the land of my birth, and with full sympathy for the present plight of our Filipino brothers and sisters now in Sabah; to their families who may have lost their loved ones.  And I also join the call of  my fellow citizens---- be they those that also think that the course of action that the Kirams’ took is neither wise nor prudent, or those who think otherwise--- for our Government to do everything within its power, consistent with the ways of peace and amity among civilized nations, to prevent the further loss of lives in Sabah, but consistent with our honor as a nation.  And if, the Heavens forbid, Malaysia perpetrates acts against the Filipinos now in Sabah in violation of the International Humanitarian Law, then let us all unite to intervene and stop them, even if it means crossing over and fighting the Malaysians.  Perchance, Providence may favor us this time, and the righteousness of our common cause will prevail and bring back to our patrimony what we once lost due to two things: the lure of easy money and Filipino Time, both Christian and  Muslim.  After all, the march of history has its own twists of fate.

- - - - - - - -

Thanks for opening an academic discussion, mad_as_Hamlet. You have apparently read Salonga’s “guns” against Sumulong in 1963. For the sake of academic discussion, some elucidations are in order regarding the legal aspects of the claim.

Based on historical facts, it is unlikely that the Sultan relinquished it by the Deed of 1878. Cession of territory is an act which ONLY A SOVEREIGN can do. Also, cession can only be done by means of a Treaty, and a Treaty can be concluded only between Sovereigns. Neither Alfred Dent or Overbeck were representing the British Government when they signed the contract with the Sultan. They were NOT also sovereigns.
 
His sovereignty over the territories was not extinguished during the Spanish and American periods. The U.S., under the Bates Treaty (August 20, 1899) and the Carpenter Agreement (March 22, 1915) knew about the North Borneo possessions of the Sultan. The fact that the Agreement divested the Sultan of his temporal jurisdiction only within the limits of American territory is tantamount to allowing him to remain what he was all along: the sovereign of North Borneo. The clarification, specifically mentioning that the U.S.recognizes the Sultan’s sovereignty over the territory, was made by no less than Governor Carpenter himself. Also, by the Treaty of Paris and the Treaty at Washington of 1900, North Borneo was never ceded to the U.S.

But through a series of unilateral illegal acts and collusion (in 1888 and 1946), the territory was stolen from him by Great Britain and the North Borneo Company. The Sultan of Sulu could not have considered the Protectorate Treaty (1888) between the British Government and the North Borneo Company as tantamount to a denial of his sovereignty over the territory for it was agreed in the Deed of 1878 that in case of dispute, Great Britain would be called upon to arbitrate. Also, no less than Great Britain's PM Gladstone (1881), in clarifying the nature of the Royal Charter granted to the North Borneo Company in the House of Commons said that, the powers that the North Borneo Chartered Company were NOT derived from the British Government but from the SOVEREIGNTY of the native chief.

North Borneo always remained under the sovereignty of the Sultan of Sulu—a sovereignty which could not have been extinguished merely because Britain had extended unilaterally in 1888 her protectorate over a territory that was merely leased to the North Borneo Company (i.e., land grabbing). The British North Borneo Company had no right whatsoever to cede the territory to the British Crown. The Company never became the owner nor the sovereign of North Borneo. The Company could not cede to the British Crown whatever had been granted to it by the Sultan.

If, finally the Sultanate ceded North Borneo to the Philippines on August 29, 1962—before the formation of the Federation of Malaysia, would not the government of the Philippines then become the rightful sovereign?

Some have cited “decolonization” (and the right of self-determination) as an argument why the claim is no more, and have quoted Judge Franck’s words when the Philippines’ filed a motion to intervene in the Ligitan and Sipadan dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia:  that “..whatever interest the Philippines might have inherited from the Sultan of Sulu—even were it to be a fully demonstrable—cannot now be held to prevail over a validated exercise of so fundamental a right.”  (Note, that this is not a decision over Sabah, but in the context of the Philippines’ motion to intervene as an interested party to a dispute that does not concern it directly).

(A note: The Philippines never questioned this right. As what VP Emmanuel Pelaez stated before the UN General Assembly in September 27, 1962 the Philippines recognizes the Sabahans right to self-determination (if such turns out to be the case).

North Borneo became a colony by the simple act of land grabbing (we can argue endlessly, if due to this historical note, North Borneo became a colony and therefore, an object of “decolonization"---but for the sake of discussion, let us accept that it was decolonized and eventually joined the Federation). Let us gloss over the important point that the “referendum” and the eventual inclusion of North Borneo to the Federation of Malaysia were consequent results of Great Britain's and North Borneo Company's unilateral collusion to annex the territory illegally. Let us also gloss over the armed support that Great Britain and other Commonwealth countries gave Malaysia so she can keep North Borneo. In short, let us forget the important point that after stealing the land, Great Britain (and later, with the Commonwealth countries) ensured that the stolen property would remain fully under her control; and that when she was ordered to yield her stolen possession, she did not return it to the rightful owner.

The question is, does the referendum removes or nullifies the injury done to the Sultan and his heirs by the illegal act of the North Borneo Company (in collusion with the British Government) based on the contract that they have signed (i.e., Deed of 1878)?

Maybe the answer can be gleaned from the initiatives of some very senior Malaysian statespersons in the wake of the unfortunate incident in Lahad Datu: Before the bloody dispersal on March 1. The old, former 6th Mentri Besar (Chief Minister) of Sabah, Tan Sri Datuk Seri Panglima Harris bin Mohd Salleh proposed to Malaysian Home Minister Hishamuddin that the matter be settled with the Sultan of Sulu (through a one-time payment). There are also suggestions that the issue be settled but in full cognizance of the present realities and status quo.

The present world view and spirit encourages the correction of history's twists--those past wrongs and unsettled cases of injustice. For the Philippines and the Sultanate, “might” dictated what was right not so long time ago. It would be a shame if we join the party of those who wish to overlook the opportunity to correct an injustice and just succumb to the diktat of history that was based on the twisted account of, and written in blood by the mighty.

Pardon me, but are you saying that the Sultanate of Sulu remains a sovereign entity up to this day?  That is what your post is actually implying.  On the other hand, if your answer is in the negative, please tell us then when it lost the same. I mean, the date.

No quick solution to the Sabah debacle. Malaysia cannot go on arresting people on the streets and kampongs. That is barbarism. The truth is Malaysia is hurting so much since the start of the conflict. By this time, hundred of its forces have died and dying trying to finish off  ragtag intruders from Sulu. No diplomatic or political solution in sight. Only one solution-BREAK OF THE FEDERATION.

Guerrilla fighters are doing well, inflicting huge casualties against the Malaysian forces. The Malaysian economy is already hurting.  

hope you're telling the truth...

guerila fighters inflicting huge casualties against malaysian forces? It isnt the malaysian forces thatre asking for a ceasefire!!!!!
Yep..we're stopping, checking and arresting the terrorists sympathisers while sending back illegal filipinos or should we say....sulu people?
Its a normal thing anywhere in the world in dealing with insurgency, terrorists and illegal immigrants.
Philipines is a good exporter of maids, palm oil workers, go go dancers, prostitutes, guest relations officers, terrorists, illegal immigrants.....what a very sicko country!!!
and yet Pinoys support these terrorists....

Your corrupt country trained these so-called terrorists in Sabah....similarly your corrupt country is training, funding, and arming Free Aceh Movement in Kedah to wage war against a sovereign nation - Indonesia.....your corrupt country is training, financing, and arming Pattani United Liberation Organization through your corrupt Islamic Party PAS in Kelantan State of Malaysia to wage war against the sovereign country Thailand and wreck havoc within the Pattani Malays in Thailand......so what are you talking about, Alicia?   malaysia breeds terrorism in the South East Asia region by exporting terrorists and your misplaced islamic ideology.......PHACK OFF, Alicia.....and get me some curry flavored tandoori........go.....quick!!!

your hearth
is full of hatred... PIG HEAD

She said the truth. Pinoys such a wanker. Everyone smells.

and your FAMILY NAME SAY'S IT ALL....  PROSTI FROM YOUR COUNTRY COST LIKE 4$ HERE IN MY PLACE...  

If you guys want this crisis to end and STOP the suffering of your relatives in Sabah, beg you President to take quick action against Tiram and his family. Do it right now, declare Kiram as your public enemy. Why sacrifice so many lives for the sake of the self-centered lunatic Kiram.

YOUR COMMENT MAKE "SENSE"...  IT WAS NOTED...

If you guys want to end this crisis.....Malaysia must go with the Philippines and the Sultanate of Sulu to International Court of Justice......The Sabah issue has been put on the backburner for quite sometime now......Tunku Abdul Raham Putra, the first PM of Malaya, had acknowledged that there is a Sabah issue.....now, Malaysia and its present leaders (shall I say tortures and human rights violators) must not sweep this issue under the rug.......it is immaterial and irrelevant to declare the present Sultan of Sulu Kiram as public enemy.  Once he is eliminated, the "heir" to the Sultan throne will take over.  Your proposal is totally useless.  The Sultanate is an entity and it exists......You can eliminate the Sultan but not the Sultanate.

no matter what you say, malaysia is a bigtime land grabber worst than the china's 9-dash line in the West Phil. Sea.  be happy to be a racist.  despite the F18s, helicopters, 7 battalions, personal carriers, etc...you can't even effectively flush out 50-100 armed man with small arms, now tell who is your kind???

Alicia Mottershed is a delusional racist. Don't you know that the people who are prostituting themselves are your kind?

She said the truth. Everyone smells in pinoyland.

you must be a very lonely menopausal spinster.

The problem is we have not acted when the Federation of Malaysia was being formed in 1963. It is compounded by the fact that the newly formed government of Sabah themselves chose to be with Malaysia. By now the sovereignty of Malaysia over Sabah is well in place and is recognized by the whole international community. Even our maps, as far as i can remember, does not include Sabah as part of Philippines.

But sovereignty of Malaysia over Sabah is one thing. Proprietal claim of Sultan of Sulu is another. Still the payment of cession/rent money may prove ownership by the sultan but it was not clear when its gonna end. Can the Sultan end the agreement unilaterally?

Unless the contract is abrogated the proprietor cannot just barged in uninvited and armed. The people of Sabah themselves may be a force to reckon with. The Sabah Progressive Party (SPP), a Malaysian dissident organization, fights for Borneonization, not Filipinization. Meanwhile, the UN puts priority on people's right to self-determination.

Right now, it barely matter who's to blame historically for loss of sovereigny over a territory. The native indians lose their land to the whites.Even Manila was part of the Brunei sultanate but was captured by the Spanish. Brunei now is just a very small fraction of what it used to be. Civilization and society change and moves on.

I agree with the Sultan's claim, but today the sultan is not anymore a legal entity. He is even subject to the law of the Barangay he is in. Monarchial and feudalclans have fallen from power in the last century or so in most nations of the world. Practically every dynasties in Europe dont even hold any political power nowadays. Today the Sultan still has army, but it is just a private army. And landing in Sabah stealthily in violation of Malaysian and Philippine laws is an act that invites real trouble.

Lastly, a third of my salary is taken monthly by the government as tax. And i dont want to spend that money to support lawbreakers, or finance a war that would cost lives not to mention a huge burden to our economy. A war is not a game which ends when a certain time or score is met. War is the costliest and draining of all human endeavor, with outcome uncertain, ask Robert E. Lee. We cannot even suppress with finality the decades-old Muslim separatist rebellion.

Sabah is another muslim territory which, if we acquired, would surely be an integrated part of ARMM or, worse, an integrated part of the separatist movement of our brothers in the South.

Just my humble opintion on this issue.

catholic is a pegan saan ka nakaita ng alagad ng diyos na utusan si atienza na ipag bawal ang pills health center at daanin sa padasal ang mga dumarami ang anak at sasabihin blesing  yan cbcp bishops lilinlangin ka ng mga yan salot yan sa pilipinas gus2 dumami ang batang hubo go multiply and eat garbage!! cbcp bishops radical mapia organization terrorist!!

 satanas!

DEMON!

Be careful bro. Like all of us, they are just exercising their freedom of expression, its up to us people if we will let them influence us in anyway, we are all grown ups right.

Hello Milo! It looks like you have done your extensive homework on this potentially explosive problem which, if not handled with sobriety (although Razak has already lost his), can cause what an originally minor skirmishes to develop into a potentially full-blown military engagement between two sovereign states although the capabilities of the Philippines to engage into such is highly suspect.  Further  mishandling of this already mishandled issue may also cause the unexpected eventual disintegration of a regional association of independent states meant for their common good.  Having said thus, kindly allow me to intrude (please forgive the intrusion) in your praiseworthy treatise.  But I believe there are some points--for the education of everyone--that needs elucidation.  To leave those ambiguities unclarified would be an injustice to such a vital issue that concerns the very sovereignty of the country.  Rest assured that only for clarifying such ambiguities that this reply was prompted upon and nothing else.
 
Firstly, it may not necessarily be accurate to say that those early explorers were private companies or "peddlers" working for territorial expansion of the european powers of the time.  The majority of them were sanctioned, financed, and given mandates by their sovereigns.  Such were the case of the voyages of explorations of Columbus, Magellan, etc., one of the modes of acquiring territories of the times, the rest of which are: by prescription, cession, conquest and subjugation, and accretion.  To touch on the Sabah claim again elaborately herein would be superfluous considering that we should be aware of the whole issue by now from earlier articles published in this forum.  Suffice it to say that "cession" is the contentious issue involving the said Sabah case.

The absence of international body to handle conflict resolution among nations was precisely the reason for the develoment of international law which, unfortunately for the less "civilized" nations of the time, "developed at a time when the dominant Western European nations could impose their will upon the rest of the world"..which according to some authorities, "was not a totally malevolent phenomenon as the European nations not unjustly considered that they were bringing a superior way of life to backward and dependent peoples in exchange for certain material advantages." (See International Law, The Stragegy of World Order, Falk and Mendlovitz, World Law Fund, 1966, p.178.)

As for the Sultan of Sulu making a claim "without any recognizable legal authority", we have to bear in mind that such authority is established by the continued payment of rent to the family by the Malaysian Government up to the present.  However, if what is meant by legal authority is in reference to the sovereign right of the Sultan to file a claim to the territory, such was already transferred to the Philippine Government by an execution of deed to it as clarified by Salonga in his treatise on the issue.  And it is precisely such dereliction in prosecuting the claim coupled with the inexcusable ignoring by this administration of the allegedly "lost" letters of the current Sultan that instigated this desperate misadventure.

It might be problematic to allege much less categorically assert that those who went to Sabah waged this "war" without clearly proving the element of 'animo belligerendi' in their intentions. What was clearly manifested by this Sultan and his followers is that they went there to make a long standing proprietary claim to a land they consider an ancestral "home".

If it could be established accurately from the testimonies of refugees from Sabah that atrocities are being committed against non-combatant by Malaysia's armed forces, that people are virtually summarily executed after being told to run, I, as a Filipino and without necessarily siding with our Tausog brothers and condoning their act, wouldn't worry at all about this problem reaching the
jurisdiction of the UN.

In closing and in all fairness, if there's any party guilty of violating another's sovereignty, it is Malaysia for it is now a common knowledge that she helped these muslim brothers of ours wage a rebellion against their own government. Malaysia and her erstwhile protector are the ones in bad faith in this tragedy. Merci!

please take note Catholics are not CHRISTIAN but Pagan they only pretending christian the apostles not idol worshipper 

Narrow minded :-)