By Remy Majangkim
KOTA KINABALU: The Philippines has renewed its claim over Sabah—not as a relic of history, but as an active state policy. In February 2026, this was made unequivocally clear.
The trigger was an updated administrative map released by the Philippines’ National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA).
While primarily intended to assert Philippine sovereignty in the West Philippine Sea, the map also depicted Sabah as Philippine territory.
When questioned, the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) did not back down.
On February 20, 2026, DFA spokesperson for Maritime Affairs Rogelio Villanueva formally reaffirmed the national government’s sovereignty claim over Sabah at a media briefing.
The DFA clarified that the new Philippine Maritime Zones Act of 2024 (Republic Act 12064) did not repeal Section 2 of Republic Act 5446—the older law defining the country’s baselines, which explicitly states it is “without prejudice to the Philippines’ existing and valid claims on the portion of North Borneo.”
This is not historical posturing. It is the present position of a neighboring state. Malaysia had already lodged a formal diplomatic protest in early February 2026, with Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan stating that the law encroaches upon Malaysia’s maritime boundaries off the coast of Sabah and reiterating that Sabah’s status is recognized by the UN and the international community.
Following the DFA’s February 20 statement, Sabah political leader Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Apdal issued a firm rejection on February 26, 2026, declaring Sabah’s position in Malaysia is “settled and not negotiable” and that no foreign map can override the will of the Sabahan people.
It is against this backdrop of a fresh, official assertion that we must re-examine the claim’s foundations.
The conclusion, as we shall see, is inescapable: the Sulu claim is void from the beginning—void from the moment of Philippine independence in 1946.
Here is why.
The 1878 Agreement Was a Lease, Not a Cession
The entire claim rests on an 1878 document between the Sultan of Sulu and British traders. In 1947, Francis Harrison—a senior American colonial official—commissioned a translation of the original Malay text from Professor Harold Conklin of the University of the Philippines.
Conklin’s translation is clear: the document is a “GRANT BY THE SULTAN OF SULU OF A PERMANENT LEASE.
” The operative word is “pajak,” which means lease, not cession.
Worse, under Sulu customary law, such agreements required approval from the Council of Datus.
The 1878 document bears only the Sultan’s seal. No Datu signed. It was invalid under its own legal system from the moment it was written.
The Carpenter Agreement of 1915 Ended the Sultanate’s Authority
On March 22, 1915, the Sultan signed the Carpenter Agreement with the American colonial government.
He “ratifies and confirms his recognition of the sovereignty of the United States of America” and relinquished all temporal political authority, retaining only his role as “titular spiritual head.”
As historian Todd Sales Lucero notes:
“Because the sultanate no longer exists legally, there has been no definitive legitimate sultan of Sulu since 1915.”
By 1915, the Sultanate’s political power was extinct. Sabah was not even mentioned—because it was already recognised as separate.
The 1954 British Grants: A Sovereign Act Before UNCLOS
On February 10, 1954, King George VI enacted the North Borneo (Alteration of Boundaries) Order in Council, extending the colony’s boundaries to include the continental shelf. A parallel order was made for Sarawak.
In a 1960 House of Commons debate, Colonial Secretary Iain Macleod confirmed that Sarawak’s jurisdiction over its continental shelf derived from this 1954 Order—not from any later law.
This matters because the British Crown granted Sabah its continental shelf in 1954, 28 years before UNCLOS was adopted in 1982. When the Philippines asserts its claim today through its 2024 Maritime Zones Act, it seeks territory that was granted to North Borneo eight years after Philippine independence.
Uti Possidetis Juris: The Principle the Philippines Cannot Escape
Under international law, the principle of uti possidetis juris freezes a new nation’s territory at the moment of independence. The International Court of Justice has called it “a general principle” that prevents “fratricidal struggles provoked by the challenging of frontiers.”
The Philippines achieved independence in 1946. Its territory was defined by the Treaty of Paris of 1898 and the Boundaries Treaty of 1930. Nowhere do these treaties include Sabah.
As retired Philippine Judge Frank E. Lobrigo has candidly admitted: “The Philippine territory is circumscribed by treaty limits… Such territory cannot be enlarged or diminished without violating the doctrine of uti possidetis juris.
The Philippine claim of sovereignty, thus, might not pass muster under public international law.”
The Philippine Constitution Itself Rejects the Claim
The 1987 Philippine Constitution contains an “incorporation clause”—Article II, Section 2—which declares that the Philippines “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land.”
This means the Philippines is constitutionally bound to accept uti possidetis juris and UNCLOS. Both principles defeat its claim.
Further, the Constitution explicitly bars titles of royalty or nobility (Article VI, Section 31) and rejects political dynasties (Article II, Section 26). A republic cannot pursue dynastic claims based on hereditary succession without contradicting its own supreme law. Yet in February 2026, its government did exactly that.
The Manila Accord: How the Philippines Legitimised Malaysia
In August 1963, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaya signed the Manila Accord. Crucially, they agreed to invite the United Nations to verify the wishes of the people of North Borneo and Sarawak before Malaysia was formed.
The UN mission, led by Laurence Michelmore, conducted its work in August 1963. Its conclusion was unequivocal: the overwhelming majority of the people wished to join Malaysia.
The Philippines had agreed to accept the UN findings. It sent observers. Yet when the report confirmed the people’s support, Manila rejected it.
Worse, on December 30, 1965, the Philippines itself transmitted the Manila Accord to the UN for registration. It became United Nations Treaty No. 8029—a binding international agreement that Manila now ignores when it issues maps in 2026 claiming Sabah.
The Stampa Case: Criminal Conviction at Its Zenith
The Sulu heirs attempted to revive their claim through arbitration. The result was a spectacular legal defeat.
On October 8, 2025, the Spanish Supreme Court unanimously upheld the criminal conviction of arbitrator Gonzalo Stampa, sentencing him to six months in prison and a one-year ban. The Court found that Stampa knowingly disobeyed court orders, changed the arbitration’s seat to evade oversight, and issued a US$14.9 billion “award” after his appointment had been annulled.
This follows rulings from the Paris Court of Appeal (annulling the award), the Hague Court of Appeal (dismissing enforcement), and Luxembourg courts (lifting bank attachments). As Minister Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said stated: “The purported Sulu arbitration was the product of the unlawful and criminal conduct of a rogue arbitrator.”
Conclusion: Void Ab Initio
The Sulu claim is void from the beginning because:
The 1878 document was a lease, not a cession, and lacked required Datu approvals
The 1915 Carpenter Agreement extinguished the Sultanate’s temporal authority
The 1954 British grants gave Sabah its continental shelf before UNCLOS existed
Uti possidetis juris froze Philippine territory at 1946—excluding Sabah
The Philippine Constitution binds Manila to international law and rejects hereditary claims
The Manila Accord legitimised Malaysia’s formation, with UN verification
International courts have rejected the Sulu heirs, with Stampa criminally convicted
And in February 2026, when Manila issued a map claiming our home, Sabah’s own leaders stood firm: our position is “settled and not negotiable”
A Final Word for Sabah
We are not the heirs of a disputed treaty. We are the children of a choice—a choice made freely, witnessed by the United Nations, and affirmed by our parents and grandparents.
The documents do not lie. The law is clear. The world has witnessed.
We are Sabah. We are Malaysia. We chose this. We choose this still.
The claim is void. Now, and forever, Sabah stands.
