Palawan is the westernmost province of the Philippines and also the country’s largest with a surface area of around 14,650 square kilometers. Image Source: PhilAtlas

Remy Majangkim, a historian and activist, maintains in an article published by the Jesselton Times that an 1885 clarification by the Sultan of Brunei placed Palawan under the British North Borneo Chartered Company (NBCC). This contradicts the historical consensus that Palawan was ceded to Spanish and later American colonial control.

Majangkim contends that, as Malaysia is the legal successor to the NBCC, it inherited any rights to Palawan when North Borneo (modern day Sabah) joined Malaysia in 1963. Majangkim’s position is not endorsed by the Malaysian government, but follows a heated legal battle over another former territory of the defunct Sulu Sultanate: Sabah.

Claims that Reinterpret Colonial Cessions to Spain and Britain

Modern countries that were once colonies often inherit legitimacy over land from governments that preceded it. In this context, Majangkim’s arguments depend heavily on reinterpretations of the Sulu Sultanate’s relationship with two chains of successor state relationships: that of Spain, the United States administration in the Philippines, and the modern Philippines; the NBCC, Britain, and modern Malaysia.

The 1885 Madrid Protocol, signed by Spain, Britain and Germany, recognized Spanish influence over the territories of the Sulu Sultanate with the specific exception of northern Borneo. Majangkim suggests that Article II of that Protocol, however, did not adequately clearly demarcate which islands belonged to which power.

According to Majangkim, a clarification issued by the Sultan of Brunei on 6 April 1885 explicitly ceded Palawan to the NBCC, not to Spain. He argues that this distinction removed Palawan from the Spanish-administered Philippines and placed it under NBCC authority.

According to Majangkim, a clarification issued by the Sultan of Brunei on 6 April 1885 explicitly ceded Palawan to the NBCC, not to Spain

Majangkim’s source on the clarification from the Sultan of Brunei is unclear, as is the extent to which it would have been acknowledged by the other signatories of the Madrid Protocol. Indeed, Article II clearly indicates the Island of Paragua—a historical name for Palawan—as within territories under Spanish administration.

Majangkim further claims without substantiating evidence that the NBCC not only held theoretical rights to Palawan but also directly administered it prior to the Second World War.

The historian does cite a plea for food supplies from Palawan’s local leaders to the Sultan of Brunei—which was forwarded to the NBCC— in the 1800s as evidence of Brunei and the NBCC’s legitimacy over the island. However, this interpretation inflates claims through cross-border relationships that could be commonly found throughout Southeast Asia even after formal colonial boundaries were drawn.

In any case, Philippine historians have rejected the interpretation that the NBCC administered Palawan, with the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) emphasizing that “the Philippines and its predecessor state actors have always exercised sovereignty over [the] archipelago and over Palawan in particular.”

“the Philippines and its predecessor state actors have always exercised sovereignty over [the] archipelago and over Palawan in particular.”

Scholars note that Spain maintained de facto control over Palawan until 1898, when sovereignty passed to the United States under the Treaty of Paris at the conclusion of the Spanish-American War. The Philippines inherited that jurisdiction upon gaining independence in 1946.

The Rippling Consequences of Border Disputes

Although Majangkim’s claims are unofficial, their timing has not gone unnoticed.

The Philippines and Malaysia remain at odds over Sabah. The dispute was largely dormant until revived by lawsuits launched by the claimed heirs of the defunct Sulu Sultanate in recent years.

In this context, Majangkim’s position may be seen by some as a rhetorical counterclaim—an attempt to reframe the debate by questioning Philippine sovereignty over another island.

While Malaysia’s government has made no official statement on Palawan and has not echoed Majangkim’s assertions, the essay adds fuel to a region already wary of historical revisionism. It also reflects a broader trend in Southeast Asian disputes, where long-forgotten treaties and obscure correspondence are resurfaced as legal weapons in modern geopolitical disputes.

Often missing from these discussions are the perspectives of the people who live in these places today.

Often missing from these discussions are the perspectives of the people who live in these places today. Palawan, part of the Philippines in practice and identity for generations, functions as an integrated province with representation in government and daily participation in national life.

In contrast to the loud invocation of dusty treaties, the needs and rights of local communities—especially their right to self-determination, peace, and stability—receive far less attention in foreign claims over Sabah or Palawan.

REFERENCES

Government of the United Kingdom, Government of Germany, & Government of Spain. (1885, March 7). Protocol between Great Britain, Germany and Spain respecting the sovereignty of Spain over the Sulu Archipelago (Madrid Protocol). Sabah State Attorney-General’s Chambers. https://sagc.sabah.gov.my/sites/default/files/law/Protocol%28Madrid%29.pdf

International Court of Justice. (n.d.). Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore). https://www.icj-cij.org/node/104291

Jesselton Times. (2025, April 6). Could Malaysia assert claims over Palawan, Balabac, and Cagayan Island in the Philippines? https://jesseltontimes.com/2025/04/06/could-malaysia-assert-claims-over-palawan-balabac-and-cagayan-island-in-the-philippines/

Macdonald, R. (1970). Territorial claims in the Sulu Sea [PDF]. Australian Year Book of International Law, 3, Article 4. https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUYrBkIntLaw/1970/4.pdf

Warren, J. F. (2007). The Sulu Zone, 1768–1898: The dynamics of external trade, slavery, and ethnicity in the transformation of a Southeast Asian maritime state (2nd ed.). Singapore: NUS Press.